JOURNAL
What makes a brand functional?
And how do you know if yours fits the definition?
A functional brand is one that communicates accurately, can be applied consistently, and stands out within its category. The measure of a brand’s functionality is a balance between consistency and flexibility. It needs to be consistent enough to be recognizable, but flexible enough to work across channels. The ideal brand is built as a system that can scale, so that future growth fits into the system without requiring a complete overhaul.
If that description feels overwhelming, there’s good news: These are all characteristics that can be tested, predicted, and improved, even before a brand launches.
How are dysfunctional brands created?
Brand designers don’t always have to work inside the brands they create and that can give them a skewed perspective of what a brand really needs. They can make “Bluesky” design decisions about the brand and never have to reconcile those decisions with actual application needs. Examples of this include things like creating a color palette that lacks color combinations that meet minimum contrast requirements for legibility, or recommending brand colors that fall outside the gamut of standard printing.
Evaluating Brand Function
So how do you know if a brand will be functional when it moves out of the hypothetical world of brand design and into the real world of brand application?
To answer this question, Ravenwood Design Group has developed a series of diagnostic tests that we use to begin every new brand engagement. This diagnostic phase allows us to evaluate a brand’s functionality so that it can be strengthened before a significant investment is made in traditional design work.
The diagnostic results in a report that answers questions, identifies opportunities, diagnoses needs, and provides a recommendation on where and how to strengthen a brand’s function. Going through this process with a brand before any traditional work starts enables these issues to be addressed on a systemic level, and encoded into the brand moving forward. In a practical sense it means that if we identify and solve issues in the brand now, the next 5 designers you hire won’t have to waste time addressing the same problem again and again. Your brand gets stronger and your team moves faster.
What We Test
The list below gives an overview of the categories explored in the diagnostic framework. These are questions that evaluate a brand’s ability to survive the demands of real-world application.
Clarity
Is the category accurately communicated?
Does the brand align visually with its positioning?
Are there any gaps in perception between the brand and its audience?
Distinction
How recognizable is the brand, especially within its category?
Is there a definable brand language?
Can the brand be recalled easily?
Can the brand be described in simple terms?
System Integrity
Is the brand applied the same way across mediums?
Does it maintain integrity across scale?
Are the brand assets cohesive and well-defined?
Practical concerns
Do the brand colors enable legible contrast combinations?
Are the fonts legible across a variety of scales and rendering methods?
Can the colors be accurately reproduced across production methods?
Growth
Does the brand architecture strategically facilitate expansion?
Is the color palette comprehensive enough to work for the brand’s next chapter?
Does the toolkit contain enough variety to support a brand that’s larger than it is today?
Usability
Are the brand guidelines easy to understand and follow?
Are new applications easy to imagine?
Is it clear how to develop new on-brand assets such as photography?
Are the brand assets easy for relevant team members to locate and use?
Synthesizing the Results
Each of these questions can uncover insights about a brand’s functionality, and taken together those insights can inform how we move a brand from being something that looks nice as a concept, to something that is functional in practice: easy for audiences to understand, easy for your team to use, and built to withstand future growth.
This process is core to the work we do, and if you’d like to learn more or see a demonstration please get in touch.
The false economy of DIY for nonprofits
“This seems simple enough, can we do it internally?” If you’re part of a nonprofit communications team, that’s a question you have likely asked yourself many times when working with a consultant or freelancer.
You’re constantly looking for ways to conserve resources and find efficiencies, and sometimes it feels silly to spend the limited resources you have on things that look easy.
This was the exact situation that one of my clients found themself in this week. They have an event logo that needs the year updated on an annual basis. It feels inefficient to make this request to a designer year after year, and on paper it looks like a project where they could cut costs by doing the work themselves. They asked me for a working file in InDesign so they could handle this update moving forward.
I always want to empower my clients to have ownership over their design work, so this would normally be a simple “Yes!” However, as I was thinking through the logistics of handing this work back to them, a particular anecdote came to mind:
A man receives a quote from a contractor to build a cabinet for him. He believes the quote is high, and decides to build the cabinet himself. He ends up investing extra time in research, extra money on specialized tools, and ultimately ends up spending the same amount as the contractor quoted him, for a poorly made cabinet.
When it comes to design, how can nonprofits avoid falling into the same trap?
When to DIY and when to Delegate?
Most nonprofits have restricted budgets for creative and that includes creative software. As a result they may be selective about their subscriptions, perhaps limiting themselves to a single Adobe program instead of the entire suite.
In my client’s case they only had a subscription for InDesign, in order to take on production of some of their more text-heavy projects like annual reports.
The request was logical: if InDesign can be used to edit text, why can’t it be used to update the text in a logo?
The answer was more complicated.
A communications staff member might be familiar with how to use Adobe programs, but there’s another level of thinking that comes first: deciding which program is right based on your technical needs. InDesign can be used to update text, yes, but it cannot be used to export a logo file that is scaleable, or a logo file with a transparent background. Those are necessary but technical details that a person without expertise may miss, resulting in time spent going down the wrong road.
This is grossly simplifying things, but as a rule of thumb, if you’re missing either:
Awareness of which program you need
The program you need
Then outsourcing is probably the right decision.
If you’re still worried about the expense, think of it this way: Would you rather invest in a year-long subscription to a program you’re not an expert in, or an hour of design time from a professional? It may take a professional less time to execute your task than it would take you to research it.
An outside-the-box solution
So how did we solve this problem together? My client ultimately invested in a small amount of design time in order to create the annual event logos for the next ten years. Now the assets are on-hand when they’re needed, and my client doesn’t feel silly or waste admin time making the same simple request every year.
2025 in Review
A lot happened this year and in an effort to share more of my work, I am taking some time to catalog it.
Although I have been in this industry for more than a decade, this is the first year I have operated as “Ravenwood Design Group” and put real thought into what that means. In the past, I haven’t had a clean answer when people asked what I did. The honest answer was usually “a little bit of everything.” That wasn’t wrong, but it also wasn’t very helpful.
Choosing a focus for my practice is something I have been circling for my entire professional career. Up until now, I have had a fear that it will mean closing doors or missing opportunities. What I have found instead is that it means becoming a beacon– it’s easier for the organizations who need the type of work I do to find me, because for the first time I can clearly state what that work is: I help nonprofits show up as credible and cohesive so they can face key moments with confidence. Going deeper into this focus allows me to provide an increasing level of expertise in the work, and enables me to apply that expertise to more complex and consequential projects.
This year has been full of personal and professional challenges, and an equal number of personal and professional joys. I have worked with new and longtime partners on projects with real impact, deepening the library of tools and experiences that I bring to my practice. I have practiced talking about what I do, and sharing it with more people. And I have begun turning years of generalist experience into a more focused, repeatable practice.
I am thankful for the clients and collaborators that I had the honor of working with this past year, and can’t wait to share some of the things we have in store for 2026.
When should a nonprofit translate its logo into another language?
Translating a nonprofit’s logo into another language is not a purely technical task. It is a strategic decision that carries real implications for identity, trust, and expectations. A logo functions as a proper name and a signal of authority. Changing its language can subtly, but meaningfully, change how an organization is perceived and what audiences believe it offers.
In most cases, nonprofits should not translate their core logo for everyday use. Consistency is one of the primary jobs of a logo. Introducing multiple language versions can create confusion about whether the organization is the same entity, a separate program, or a different system altogether.
The clearest case for translating a logo is when the organization, program, or system is designed specifically for speakers of another language. In those situations, translation improves clarity and access, and the translated mark accurately reflects the experience a constituent can expect. When that alignment is not present, translation can unintentionally signal broader language access than actually exists, which can erode trust.
There are limited exceptions where translation may make sense. These include cases where the original name is offensive, misleading, or meaningless in another language, or where a translated name is already widely used and well understood by the intended audience. These scenarios are the exception, not the rule.
More often, inclusion is better achieved through multilingual communication design, rather than logo translation. Best practices from multilingual public systems—such as transportation signage—emphasize equal visual treatment of languages: parallel placement, equal hierarchy, and consistent typography. This approach prioritizes access to information without fragmenting brand identity.
For example, we recently received an inquiry about translating a logo into Spanish. The underlying goal was inclusion, but the organization did not offer all services in Spanish. In cases like this, translating the logo itself could create expectations that the organization cannot fully meet.
Instead, nonprofits serving multilingual communities often benefit from one of three approaches:
Single materials that present two languages with equal visual weight.
Separate materials for each language, designed in parallel.
Audience-specific collateral designed around the services actually offered in that language.
In short, translating a logo should be a considered exception, not a default. Thoughtful multilingual design can expand access while preserving clarity, consistency, and honesty about what an organization does, and does not, provide.