Tag Archives: brand voice

Term 7: Sound Identity

Sound Identity (Sound ID) is the consistent development of a unique acoustic identity for a brand. Along the lines of the visual identity the acoustic elements are derived from the brand values and the brand positioning. The objective is to create a consistent identity with a strong recognition value. Key areas of design are: sound branding elements, soundscapes, soundmarks and brand voice.

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? Is anything missing in the definition we use? Please post your ideas in the comments section.

Advertisements

Sound Branding Term 5: Brand Voice

Thanks to the feedback from Tim Noonan, voice branding expert from Australia, this definition has been  improved:

Brand Voice is the voice that best reflects the ‘personality’ and brand values for a product, service or organisation. The most important aspects during the selection process of the brand voice are accent, gender, perceived age, tone, pitch, volume, rhythm and recognition value. Once a brand voice is chosen it is crucial to obtain exclusive usage rights, at least for your field of business, if not your brand voice could even harm your brand, particularly if the same voice is used for your competition, thus diluting or distorting your brand.

When selecting the Brand Voice the same voice should be considered for use across multiple channels associated with the brand, such as automated telephone services, advertising, instructional audio and of course within the product itself, if it is self-voicing.

What is better:  a voice talent or an actor?…… Continue reading

Term 1: Acoustic Brand Management

Acoustic Brand Management is the strategic development and implementation of an Acoustic Identity. This Acoustic Identity includes Sound Branding elements, sound dimensions, and the brand voice. The use of the acoustic elements takes place within the complete communication mix. Acoustic elements can be combined with the products and if possible even with the corporate communication.

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? Is anything missing in the definition we use? Please post your ideas in the comments section.