A Brand System in Use: Reconcile Expressiveness with Everyday Production

Read the campaign story

Intercom’s 29 May 2019 website announcement describes a new visual identity developed with Instrument, including illustration, animation and customer photography. Its August 2021 account describes a subsequent internal refresh after production use exposed constraints. That later article dates the preceding holistic rebrand to 2018. These connected stages are grouped, and the unresolved origin-year difference is retained rather than silently assigning one date to the whole family.

The later account discusses simplifying illustration and representing the product less abstractly. These are the team’s reported observations and decisions, not an independent test of usability or sales. The case distinguishes original outside collaboration from later internal roles. It does not judge either team’s competence from a retrospective narrative, reproduce the identity or assume that the current product and brand still use these historical choices.

Editorial interpretation: a visual system is not fully tested by an impressive launch page. It has to survive routine updates, uneven deadlines, different contributors and unglamorous information. A design that works beautifully in a controlled presentation may require specialised labour that the ongoing team cannot supply. The useful lesson is to inspect that dependency explicitly, without treating craftsmanship as a defect or assuming that all production should be simplified to whatever is easiest.

Editorial interpretation: abstraction can make an interface easier to present but harder to understand. Removing detail is helpful when it clarifies a relationship; it becomes misleading when it removes the very cues that explain the action. A team should decide which elements carry meaning before turning a product into decorative blocks. Brand expression and explanation need not compete, but neither should automatically be allowed to overrule the information a prospective user needs.

Test the system with ordinary work before judging its scalability

Choose several recurring outputs rather than only the flagship launch asset. Ask the people who will maintain them to produce realistic examples under a bounded, nonpunitive trial. Record which decisions require special expertise, unclear interpretation or repeated exceptions. This is evidence about the system’s support needs, not a ranking of individual employees. A small organisation may decide to retain a demanding visual treatment for selected moments and provide simpler patterns elsewhere. The right answer depends on the purpose and available resources, not a universal preference for either elaborate craft or minimal templates.

Keep a record of why a rule changes

When a guideline fails in practice, describe the specific situation and what the revised rule is intended to improve. Avoid replacing an entire identity because one placement is awkward, or preserving a failing rule only because it appeared in an approved manual. A small team can keep before-and-after examples with short explanations, giving future contributors a reason behind the choice. This reduces the chance that exceptions become an undocumented second system. It also helps preserve the valuable parts of earlier work rather than framing every refresh as a rejection of the people who made it.

Check explanatory accuracy separately from visual consistency

Ask someone unfamiliar with the offer to explain the action represented in a prototype. Compare that explanation with the actual intended task, including its prerequisites and limits. Then review whether the example still belongs recognisably to the identity family. These are related but separate checks. A beautiful, consistent illustration can communicate the wrong action, while an accurate diagram can require a clearer hierarchy. A small team should be able to revise either dimension without claiming that one favourable score proves the other. Keep product truth visible even when the presentation is deliberately stylised.

A small test for another brief

Proposed adaptation: a fictional room-booking service could test two original sets of three information cards. One set uses highly abstract symbols; the other retains the task’s essential labels and relationships within the same visual system. Ask consenting adults what each card lets them do. Separately ask a designer to update one card using the supplied guide, without monitoring or scoring their personal productivity.

Measure correct task understanding and the number of unresolved guideline decisions in the bounded exercise. Separate ease of maintenance from audience comprehension and avoid projecting either into sales or company-wide productivity.

Stop if a simplified visual misstates the task, the test becomes employee surveillance or the proposed system depends on unlicensed assets.

• Use invented room names and original diagrams, not product screenshots.
• Give both sets identical factual content and text alternatives.
• Record unclear rules and interpretation errors rather than individual performance.