Design360° has been committed to providing a communication platform for designers through live broadcasts, live events, etc., and has witnessed many wonderful conversations between designers. In order to make these wonderful moments heard by more people, Design360° decided to share these conversations in the form of podcasts. Currently, it has been launched simultaneously on three platforms: Little Universe, Himalaya, and Litchi FM. Previous episodes of the 360° podcast can be listened to at the following link:

Packaging is more often about embodying a kind of decoration, allowing the products inside to create beautiful associations in the process of communicating with consumers. This is usual method. But pidan has given up on this storytelling method and adopted a very calm and rational approach. This has something to do with pidan's brand personality.

We often preconceptions that in the process of contacting consumers, brands should take the initiative to "throw themselves into the arms", but brands are actually more used to express personality. This upgrade of pidan has done a good job of establishing a new visual norm, choosing a method that is not so common now in style. I don't think it's that bold, but pidan did something that no one else had done. Pidan is a company with a strong desire for expression. We want to cooperate with many outstanding artists in the world. When facing those artists with personality and differentiation, it is impossible and we cannot bear to put the brand's self above them. Up. When a brand does not have too much atmosphere, personality, or subjective content, it can turn itself into a transparent and pure container to hold everything it wants to hold. This is the original intention of pidan's brand upgrade. I think words and black and white are the most widely spread things in the world. Text is the most direct way to convey content, because text itself can form a more unified consensus in our minds; and no color is the easiest color to recognize. We wanted to complete this expression with the simplest and most straightforward information and the fewest colors. This is not a subjective creation, but the result of objective logic. In fact, regarding the design of pidan, we hope to pursue a result of "let the design inspire curiosity". Of course, each event has its own charm, but stimulating people's curiosity from the sense of form itself, or from the intention of the design itself, is always the goal that designers should pursue, at least this is the case for ABCD. No matter what, we hope that our designs can be seen by everyone, and even arouse everyone's interest and generate purchasing behavior. When we were doing the visual design of the previous version of pidan 5 years ago, we actually had this purpose in mind. The unique visual image presented by the current pidan comes from the visual choices provided by ABCD and the final decision made by Lao Ma. Users believe that pidan is a very distinctive brand in terms of functional attributes and visual personality. I think it is very important that the design achieves the goal of "causing curiosity" and at the same time can smoothly convey "who is pidan"? Make this matter clear. This time we also provided three design options. To be honest, the differences between them are not very big, but Lao Ma made a decision very quickly. I want to know what were you thinking in your head at that time? At that moment I saw the definite result that I had not imagined, but it was on the extension line that I liked. As for what we want, we cannot clearly explain the details. We can only say what direction we want or what direction we don’t want. But in the process of cooperating with ABCD, we found that they can very accurately capture our doubts, thoughts, and desires outside of words, and then quickly dissect them through two or three different dimensions. It just so happens that I think the most accurate disassembly is the current version. How long do you think it takes for a company's brand to need some updates or iterations? I think we should generally start to consider whether there should be some changes to the brand at least every three years. Although whether to actually do it or not is another matter, it must be considered. What do you think are the factors that influence companies to upgrade their brands? Have consumers changed, the market has changed, competition has changed, or has the brand’s position changed? For a purely product-based company like ours, the logic of all revenue is to sell something and earn the price difference. In this logical chain, firstly, some objective information fed back from the supply chain tells us that we need to adjust. For example, a certain group of people began to have problems understanding our brand, which led to pressure on shipments; secondly, it is the so-called mind of the brand helmsman. I have seen some signs in an extremely subjective way. For example, there is some separation between our future image and our past image. You have to think about where you will end up? Because no company has unlimited money. Assume that one of these two is the forefront of physical limits, and the other is the forefront of the "ruler's" ideology. If it happens at the same time, I think we need to consider the problem from both ends to the middle. This is to think. The beginning of a brand refresh. In fact, no matter who you are, it is a relatively dangerous thing to cooperate with a company like ours, because we are very courageous and often entrust our past reputation and accumulation to a new partner, and at the same time hope that the other party will put our own The accumulation of the past is condensed into one moment and delivered to us, and finally the two come together. Enterprises are essentially dancing with shackles on them. They have a lot of constraints and baggage, and the closer they are within this circle, the more courageous they have to be. In this, design is an expression of contraction, a kind of planning, a method that allows individuals to gain more freedom and at the same time allows the group to become more efficient. The most valuable thing for me is that it requires some courage to face and break through this moment, so that we can make new attempts. I don’t think it’s particularly important how good the results of your attempts are. What’s important is that your progress this time can help you take a step forward next time. I was very moved. I remembered that a young designer friend asked me last week: "After 20 years of design, what do you think you are doing?" I said that I am like a road builder: if the customer is a person who is difficult to reach, In a remote mountain village, the designer wants to build a road to take everyone there, with a clear purpose, from A to B. However, there is not much invention and creation here - we did not invent design itself, nor even much of the language of design. Most designs in this world use existing design languages ​​to solve exact problems. However, allowing a consumer to reach the point desired by the brand through a correct, convenient and comfortable path is of great significance to the brand itself. And in fact, building roads is really difficult, because there is no exact "coordinate axis" from A to B - language itself lacks accuracy, and so does the communication between the designer and Party A. Sometimes even for people like us who have been designing for 20 years, it is difficult to find the point that Party A’s brand wants to reach. So Lao Ma was able to feel that this VI upgrade plan was right within five minutes. In fact, we both saw the exact location where this road was pointing, which was a particularly good thing for both of us.

As the initiator of a VI upgrade brand and the person who pressed the button, I think that if you don’t know why you press the button, it’s what Teacher Nod said, if you don’t know where your village is. , my suggestion is that you don’t do it. In fact, compared with making changes, the safest thing is not to make changes at all.

The change of the brand must be a very important decision, not a trial, not to consume the brain cells of outstanding talents, dig out things from a hundred brains, and pick the one you are satisfied with. What I hope more is that the person who pressed the button will go through the pain himself, sort out the thing in his mind, come up with a clear core, and then upgrade it. No design in any manuscript can be used in its entirety. First of all, the current information is too fragmented. The size of the screen, mainstream carriers, and file sizes have all been cut into countless pieces. Secondly, we cannot hope that this thing is 100% executed - if you want to show a painting to the world, there must be something missing. So the main question is not actually how a design can be displayed 100%, but when the design can only be displayed 65%, does it still have the same strength? pidan's latest LOGO, no matter what space it is displayed in, no matter how it is lost, no matter whether the pixels are high or low, its intensity will always remain at that level. The first thing that strikes people is often not the message. People only begin to understand something when their interest is aroused by intensity. So instead of studying how a certain design can be implemented completely in different spaces and channels (which itself is a false requirement); what we care more about is whether it will still have strength when it is lost. From the perspective of Party B providing tools to Party A, generally Party A’s in-house design capabilities will be lower than Party B’s design capabilities, which is why they come to you. As designers, we should not assume that we will control the future visual content of Party A, but we should reduce the difficulty. At the same time, we must consider what Lao Ma just said: even if it is not 100% completed, only 70%-80% is completed. It cannot lose points in terms of presentation. This is actually an iron rule within ABCD. Especially when it comes to the process or packaging level, the "degree" must be set to a particularly appropriate position. Because we know that many times, good things do not come from stacking money, but by setting a particularly good "degree". Even if the standard swings up and down at this "degree", the texture it presents can be guaranteed. of. I think this is also a requirement for Party B to provide tools to Party A. The cooperation between ABCD and pidan is pleasant. I dare not use the word smooth, because the design process is still a long process and a lot of energy is invested, but other than that it is still a pleasant cooperation. This comes from mutual trust, and we seem to be able to see into each other's hearts. I feel that Lao Ma understands me and Guang Yu very well in many ways. This is a kind of recognition and sympathy. When these two groups of people are put together, it is easier for them to have a stronger chemical reaction. In addition, as Party B, you should always understand everything Party A says in a more rational way. You can be infected by Party A's emotions, but don't put it into work. You can't understand it from a perceptual perspective or between the lines, because you will lose your judgment. I respect those who have talent and accumulation. If you don’t trust a person and you ask him to do design, I think it’s not someone else’s problem, but your problem. I trust all the people I work with. If we encounter real problems and need to adjust during cooperation, it’s not because “I don’t like it” – when communicating with creators, saying you don’t like it is an extremely bad context. Second, a brand must clearly understand that design is a tool - the brand is a village. It does not mean that the brand itself has to go to the village through the road built by the designer. In essence, the people who walk the most on the road are the users themselves. It's just that the brand has to go with the designer first to see if it works. If it doesn't work for itself, others will definitely not work, so this road itself is built for consumers. After this, you will understand that design can help you make this path easier, both in terms of construction costs and the finished look, which is the most important thing. Design itself makes things simple, rather than making things complicated, advanced, or incomprehensible. We hope to use design to make the chaotic world a little clearer. We don’t dare to say that we will change the world, we are just sorting it out. Maybe the sorting is wrong, but we are trying our best. So from my perspective, I also hope that when you think about your own things, you can keep asking yourself: Am I making it simple? Did I make it clear? As long as "make it simple" is achieved, those who need to see it will find it simple and clear. I think it will most likely not be a bad thing. As for how good it is, it all depends on your own talent. We can all strive for simplicity and clarity, but when it comes to specialness, it's down to luck.