Why are our proposals always decided on "one option"? — The single question that determines the success or failure of branding.

"We revamped our logo and completely redesigned our corporate website. Yet, surprisingly, neither our clients' impression of us nor the atmosphere within the company changed at all." I once received a consultation from a business owner with this very question. Investing in design is by no means cheap. When business owners still don't see any tangible change, they often think, "Was the design poorly done?" or "Should we have spent more?" However, having worked in the branding field for nearly 20 years, I've come to realize that the problem almost never lies there.

In this article, we will explore why many companies mistakenly believe that "branding equals design overhaul," and what is truly necessary to change a brand's image, drawing on a small insight we have cultivated over 20 years. We define branding as "the process of consistently cultivating the intended impression in the minds of others." Design is merely a means of expression within that process; it is not the main focus.

Why changing the logo is often mistakenly considered branding.

A survey conducted by Tanabe Consulting showed that among companies that invested more than 10 million yen in branding, 49.1% achieved increased revenue and profits. Conversely, this means that more than half of companies, despite making a reasonable investment, have not seen a clear effect on their business. Where does this difference come from?

I believe that the era in which differentiation could be achieved solely through functional value is over, and we have entered an era where the question is whether we can create emotional value—that is, "a reason to choose this brand." Companies that can no longer compete on quality or price are prone to falling into the simplistic trap of thinking, "If we change the appearance, that should be a reason for people to choose us." Logos and slogans are merely mirrors that reflect the internal ideas outward. No matter how much you polish the edges of the mirror, if what is being reflected is not defined, nothing will change.

Another often overlooked point is that customers aren't the only recipients of a brand's image. Business partners, job candidates, and above all, employees themselves, all receive an impression of the company through their daily words, actions, and decision-making. While logo change projects tend to be completed solely by management and the design company, if you truly want to change the impression, creating a situation where people within the company can articulate "who we are" is more effective than external communication itself. This is something we have repeatedly realized through supporting the branding of numerous companies.

Why is our proposal decided by "only one option"?

Whenever I talk about this, I always refer back to my own experience from about 20 years ago. Back when the company was still in its early stages, I was working as a designer. At the time, it was common practice in the industry to prepare multiple designs, such as Option A and Option B, and let the client choose according to their preference. However, for some reason, I would propose only one option, and that was almost always the one that was adopted.

"Why is it that I can always get a decision with just one proposal?" Wanting to know the reason, I made it the theme of my graduation thesis at the business school I was attending at the time. After analyzing it, I realized that the crucial difference wasn't in the design techniques themselves, but in the quality of the interviews. If you can accurately grasp the objective and the current situation, the problems will naturally emerge, and solutions will naturally follow. Conversely, if that remains vague, the proposal will end up being nothing more than a "matching of preferences." This realization was the starting point for a way of thinking that would later be called the "LH Method" within the company.

In fact, when reading articles from other companies specializing in branding, I often come across the point that "the purpose of interviews is not to gather information, but to uncover the essential issues and strengths that even the client themselves are unaware of." The fact that many experts arrive at the same conclusion suggests to me that this perspective is easily overlooked, yet extremely important.

Asking "why?" like a child, four times.

So, what specifically can be changed to improve the "quality" of a listening session? The answer is surprisingly simple and something anyone can start imitating today. At the heart of the LH method is a strong interest in the other person. Just as a curious child asks "why?", "what?", "who?", and "how?", everything begins with a desire to deeply understand the other person. When a customer says, "I want a red image," we don't stop there. We delve into "what kind of red," and sometimes we deliberately present extreme color samples for them to choose from, and then ask "why they chose that."

In fact, very few clients find this in-depth analysis tedious. On the contrary, they naturally become more cooperative with someone who genuinely tries to understand their vision. The process of refining vague images reveals not only already apparent issues, but also latent issues and overlooked values that the clients themselves hadn't been able to articulate. In one case, a request for a recruitment website expanded to a complete review of the employee evaluation system. Behind superficial requests, there are usually underlying issues.

Even if your resolve wavers along the way, return to your goal.

Projects don't always go according to plan. Budget constraints and internal company issues can change the initial requirements. In such situations, there's a question we always ask: "Does this change align with the original objective?" Even when there's a temptation to cut important elements to reduce the budget, if we determine that it's essential for achieving the objective, we'll readily push back the proposal. As a result, we often hear clients say, "I'm glad we didn't change it after all."

This isn't about stubbornly pushing our own ideas through. It's because we carefully articulated the objectives and current position in the early stages of the hearing that we have a point to return to when our judgment starts to waver. Projects that proceed with vague objectives can easily lose their focus with a single comment along the way, ultimately ending up with the conclusion that "we don't know if it was worth doing."

A common failure pattern: "bringing the solution first."

Even after conducting numerous interviews and clarifying the objectives, companies still stumble at certain points. One such point is starting with solutions before defining the problem. When reading articles that compile examples of failed branding campaigns, a common thread emerges: they create designs, launch advertising campaigns, and establish systems without properly defining the problem. As a result, they end up saying, "We did it, but we don't feel like anything has really changed." We make it a point to reverse this order within our company. First, we accurately define the problem. Only then can we determine the content of the support that is truly needed.

This way of thinking isn't limited to branding. On one occasion, as we were conducting interviews, we arrived at the hypothesis that "the reason why recruitment isn't going well isn't actually because of how the website is presented, but because of the company's internal evaluation system." Often, the problems before us may seem like unrelated "points," but there is a common thread running through them. By simply adhering to a certain order, we can derive consistent solutions from the same starting point in branding, marketing, and organizational development.

A good brand is the result of deep understanding.

No matter how much a company communicates through its owned media or how many times it redesigns its logo, if it doesn't articulate its core identity—"Who are we and what do we value?"—it won't resonate with the audience. Conversely, I believe that a brand isn't shaped by the brilliant inspiration of one person, but rather by the accumulation of diligent questioning.

"Why can't things stay the way they are?" The truth is, not many business leaders can answer this question without hesitation. If you currently feel a sense of unease or dissatisfaction with your company's branding, it might not be a matter of design skill, but simply that you haven't asked enough questions yet. Take a moment to pause and articulate your current position and desired future state with someone else. From there, the landscape will quietly begin to change.

We ourselves have been helped many times by this process of "asking questions repeatedly." We may think we know our own company best, but in reality, we are often the ones who are least able to articulate our own thoughts. That's why we feel that the time we spend exploring "why" with someone outside the company is more valuable than we might think.