1 | P a g e

NAME Guy Muchineuta

MODULE Principles of Business Communication MBA 574.3

PROGRAM Master of Business Administration

INSTRUCTOR Professor Maria P. Michailidis

Topic

Visual Communication, an analysis of semiotics in branding communication

2 | P a g e

Abstract

With its ‘Coca-Cola’ logo and brand name alone, innocent declares its innocence. With

consumer trust brands are much needed it today’s market because they convey a message of

honesty and loyalty to its customers and prospective customers. The question that needed to be

answered is how this brand conveys its notions of honesty and loyalty through logo design?

Using semiotics analysis, this study ought to research on how brands communicate its brand

values of honesty to its targeted customers. In a quest to identify what brands represents and

despite the literature of the issue, the question of what brands actually mean to consumers still

remain unanswered yet. This research sought to determine an analysis of semiotics as a part of

visual communication, the study was necessitated by the high rise in global brands and

competition is drifting other businesses out of the market due to lack of ideas and creativity on

how to create strong brands that appeal to the people.

Key words

Semiotics- study of how signs and symbols both visual and linguistic create meaning

Brand- is a product, service, or concept that is easily communicated and usually marketed

Logo- a symbol or design that symbolizes a company

Connotation-meaning or intension of a term, which forms a principle determining which objects

or concepts it applies to

Denotation –efers to the literal meaning of a word

Advertising-broad and direct communication that introduces products/brands to the public.

3 | P a g e

1.0 Introduction

Semiotics is a science is a science that studies the life of signs within a society. Semiotics can be

traced back to the French linguistic Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) including Charles

Sanders Peirce (1839-1914). It is of interesting to figure out that some of the strongest brands in

the world belong to products that are nothing special for instance the coca-cola, rolled tobacco in

Marboro. It is even more shocking intriguing to note that consumers are willing to pay a 38%

price on a branded product over the same quality private label product. Apelbaum Gerstner, and

Naik (2003) stated that at the same time, they are not willing to pay a price premium on a private

label product even if it is of a higher quality than a branded product this entails that consumers

behave irrationally?

However, does that explains that by creating strong brands companies are no longer devoted to

what has traditionally been thought of as a marketing concern, namely building long term value

and profitability by satisfying customers? (Kay 2006). Have corporations forgotten what their

mission is? Are they the ones who are behaving irrationally? Schroeder (2005) however, said

that the answer lies in understanding that people consume the brand as much as the product itself

They no longer consume products for their utility, but only because of their symbolic meaning

Veloutsou and Moutinho (2008), they have needs and wants that will not only be satisfied by

product consumption, but also by the consumption of a brand itself. The study sought to

critically examine and explain what the literature says about the concept of semiotic in relation to

branding.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

The chapter provides an insight of the area under study through the exploration of different

authors whose literature relate and adds value to the study problem. The researcher has mainly

examined an analysis of semiotics as a part of visual communication in branding

4 | P a g e

2.1 Semiotics

2.1.1 An analysis of Artefactual semiotics

De Saussure (1966) advanced a semiotic theory which in essence is a theory of language. His

theory focuses on the sign as the most aspect of linguistic systems. The other important notions

of the theory are arbitrariness, the convention and social (Culler 1994) of the signs. There is a

triad relationship that exists between the sign and its components sign, signifier and signified as

shaping the theory of the linguistic sign. Pierce (1960) coming from philosophy and mathematics

advances his logic semiotic theory whose main contribution was to expand the de Saussurean

(1966) theory of sign to address contextualized communicative contexts making signs in any

given conventional communicative context medium for thought (Houser, 2010:92). He

introduced the icon, index, and symbol as making a continuum of semiotics. Attempting a

clarification of Piercean (1960) semiotic theory. According to Houser (2010) he concludes that

Piercean semiotics handles the mind as sign systems and thought as sign in action; and the

product of the two is intellectual experience.

Both de Saussure (1966) and Peirce (1955) read together allows us to sum up that for de

Saussure (1960) semiotics is read as a theory of language given its provenance in linguistics

(Cobley 2001), Peirce (1960) can be read as a philosophy of language. In addition Chomsky’s

(1965) generative grammar is perhaps an attempt to combine the two ends mostly his view of the

Language Acquisition Device (LAD) concept. Chomsky’s (1965) problem however was on the

context of linguistic sign systems’ interplay. He claims to have been addressing a homogenous

society which most critics (Halliday 1984) have correctly observed did not exist.

The above view on semiotics informs artefactual semiotics especially read from modern semiotic

submissions. Seboek (2001) noted that the world of semiotics is so vast and incorporates a

number of a numerous vital human aspects. Furthermore using Piercean theory he says that

symbols are what set humans apart from the rest of the species. Seboek (2001) suggested a

system of specialization with regards to signs encouraged modeling and institutionalization of

semiotics. More sore understanding of semiotics Van Leewuen (2005) was quick to come up

with his social semiotics from which he observes signs as existing in a specific social context as

5 | P a g e

‘semiotic resources’ defined as ‘the actions and artefacts we use to communicate’ Van Leeuwen,

(2005).

Relooking at the world of semiotics makes see that theoretical branches of semiotics are but

communication theories. Randviir and Cobley (2010) argued that artefactual semiotics focuses

on artefacts or material objects as sign systems viewing them as systems of knowledge

intersemiotic sign systems and reflective systems.

Analyzing cultural spaces through statues using institutionalized semiotics, Saidi (2013:47) says

the semiotic branch is ‘informed by a basic view of material object as signs which are realized in

specific contexts where they assume various cultural, political and historical meanings.’ The idea

of modeling has a plus in that we realize that each non text is complex in its own right. For

instance, the Greek’s historical, cultural and social experiences accord the Greek socio-cultural

context complexities which cannot be dealt with, by any randomly picked visual communication

theory.

Therefore, universal theorization is weak in interpreting specific sign systems that exist or are

part of a social context especially if that social and cultural context is African. The character and

shape of visual communication is observed as one that is given life by nonverbal codying

systems synonymous to the conventional language. While Conventional language has suffered

contamination linguistic notions of imperialism or suffered effects of language planning,

nonverbal language through artefacts carries less of these effects.

2.2 Signifier and Signified

Saussure noted that the linguistic sign unites not only a thing and a name but a concept and

sound image. This combination of a concept and sound image further divided into two

components which are the signifier (sound image) and signified (concept). The semiotic

triangular diagram captures Saussure’s concerns as it is illustrated in figure 1 below.

6 | P a g e

2.2.1 Signs and signified

Sign

Signifier signified

Figure 1 Signs and signified

Source:Berger (2004)

From the diagram in figure 1, Saussure advocated that the relationship between the signifier and

the signified is arbitrary which explains that there is direct between words as linguistic units and

the objects which they represent. The debate is that there is nothing for example in the word

CAT or Tree , cat which directly produce the objects they represent.

2.3 Denotation and Connotation

It is of importance to say that Saussure worked in the field of linguistics and many people have

gone to n extent to apply his thought to other areas of communication. Berger at al (2005) stated

that a man by the name Barthes applied Saussure’s notions of signification to visual analysis and

cultural theory. Barthes extended Saussure’s signifier and signified by adding some elements to

the process. Taking for instance if we see a word tree (signifier) we may see a tall plant with a

bark and leaves( signified. This process of seeing the tall plant with a bark and leaves is what

Barthes calls denotation. People generally agree that the word ‘tree’ is (denotes) a tall plant with

bark and leaves. However, the word ‘tree’ or the idea of a tree might mean something totally

different to what it is.

7 | P a g e

Barthes calls this second-order of meaning connotation.Connotative meanings are ideological

and symbolic (Fiske, 1990, Hall, 1997, Aiello, 2006, Bignell, 2002). Connotations are context

dependent (Barthes, 1973, 1991, Thwaites, et al., 1994, Aiello, 2006). The way in which a sign is

framed can evoke certain connotations (Fiske, 1990). However, the word ‘tree’ in the context of

a horror novel, for example, will most probably likely invoke ‘fear’ because of the way in which

it is framed by a horror narrative. Similarly, the way in which an image of a tree is framed by

soft lighting can connote ‘peace’, or ‘escapism’ in a holiday brochure. Signs can connote

multiple meanings dependent upon the context and framing.

2.4 The System of Signs

Hall (1997) cited Saussure’s explanation signs are members of the system and are defined in

relation to other members of that system. There are, in semiotics, many such ‘sign systems’:

architecture, cosmetics, home and office furnishings, restaurant menus, and so on. In fact, ‘sign

systems’ are all around us if we could but see and recognise that we so often do not want to just

denote literal meaning, we want to connote ideas and feelings. Yet, those ‘sign systems’ are often

not noticeable simply because they seem so ordinary, so every day, so normal.

2.4.1 Sign

Figure 2: Sign model

Source:http://sdama.org/knowledge/semiotics-in-marketing-research-gaming-changing-

marketing-research-3/

8 | P a g e

From the figure 2 above one can note that according to Saussures a sign can mean anything that

conveys meaning which denotes words, images, shapes and sounds and also signified which

connotes mental concept that comes to the mind. The interpretation of a sign is dependent on the

context in which it is used, its relationship to other signs, and its environment.

2.5 Advertising and Semiotics

Edwards (2000) advocated that to persuade people or consumers to purchase the products all

advertisers use emotional and symbolic appeals Bandrillard (1998) stated that advertisers market

products based on what they mean to consumers. In the modern business nowadays it should be

noted that sign value prevails. Burrows further on to explain if products are sold based on the

basis of symbolic meaning it is important that advertisers can effectively communicate these

symbolic values.Its is important consumers to understand advertisers’ symbolic messages and

they do through semiotics.

Aiello (2006) cited that advertisers must make use of the systems portrayed in semiotics in order

to deliver the expected results.He further on to explain that advertisements can only be

meaningful to customers if they speak to them in a recognizable language and make use of pre

existing bodies of knowledge.

Print advertising provides a medium for understanding on how advertisers attempt to persuade

potential receivers to move to active status. Harris (1986) believed that sometimes, print

advertising is mostly visual, a picture that is joined with minimal linguistic material. Sometimes,

the visual is almost entirely removed and linguistic material is utilized. Bignell (2002) advocates

that photographs used in print advertisements work as a system of signs that provides form and

meaning to consciousness and reality.

9 | P a g e

Michael Schumacher’s choice

Figure 3

Source:Advertisement of 'OMEGA' watch extracted from 'Time' magazine 2002

Figure 3 above shows OMEGA watches ad issued in 2002. In this advertisement , the advertiser

has used larger, capital and bold letters in the headline in order to draw consumer's attention and

make them curious about what the advertisement mainly says lead the readers to go on reading

without any conscious and arousing their curiosity and the desire to know more about this

product and reaching its goal to persuade the readers to buy it. Kress (2010) pointed out that

meaning can be made through the affordances of font as it can through color. These meanings

are socially made, socially agreed and consequently socially and culturally specific.

Conclusion of the relationship between semiotics and advertising

All in all by using signs and colors, advertisers can better communicate with the consumers and

make the product more popular among them in order to achieve the goal of long lasting purchase

and popularity. There is regularity to be discovered in advertising study, sets of signs organizing,

constraining choice, and these choices are part of social meaning. These sets of signs don't make

up a single, comprehensive and coherent meaning. The meaning of particular signs is always

10 | P a g e

relative to specific kind of readers, on specific occasions. In terms of this scenario, semiotic

analysis occupies an important place within a common framework of critical discourse analysis

of advertising.

3. Semiotics in Branding

Mcnally (2009) defined a brand as a relationship,It is not a statement. It is not a matter of

contrived image, or colorful packaging, or snappy slogans, or adding an artificial veneer to

disguise the true nature of what’s within. On the other hand Kotler (2006) suggest that a name

becomes a brand when consumers associate it with a set of tangible and intangible benefits that

they obtain from the product or service

Designing a brand logo using semiotics

A good logo should identify rather than explain work in black and white be the foundation of a

visual system work for a variety of media be recognizable at a distance.

A brands logo type should be designed to fit the eyes, both eyes.The ideal shape for a logotype is

horizontal ,this is true wherever the logo is used on buildings.

Figure 4

Source:

It should be noted according to Ries (2001) cited that the law of singularity ineligibility is the

most important consideration in selecting a typeface used in logotype, sans serif typefaces look

modern while serif typefaces look old fashioned bold typefaces look masculine. Ries further on

explained that the component of the logotype, the trademark or visual symbol is also overrated

its Nike name that provides meaning to the smoosh symbol as illustrated on figure 4 .After a

11 | P a g e

symbol has been associated with a name for a long period of time the symbol can represent the

name through kind of “rebus” effect, but still other name that carries the brand’s power.

Ries (2001) explained that brand should use a colour that is opposite of its major competitors,

another way is that there are thousands of words to choose from in order to create a unique name

, but only a handful of colors basically that are red,orange,yellow ,green, blue plus (neutral colors

that are black ,white and gray. Red is for energy and excitement in retail is used to attract

attention for instance as for Coca-Cola it uses red for its logo unlike Pepsi and Schweppes.

Conclusion

All in all one can safely say that there is no monocausal theory or fact that can adequately

explain the simplex totality out of the relationship between semiotics and branding and

advertising. According to the researcher the idea of logos, brands and symbols are inter linked in

the sense that they came from the womb of semiotics. However, the research managed to provide

a detail about semiotics using the theories of Saussure and applied them in the business

marketing concept. This suggest that for companies to be successful in branding they have to

take into accoubnt quality of services they offer to consumers which makes the brand more

common and repeated purchase as some people buy the name not the product and semiotics play

a vital role in creating a brand logo.

12 | P a g e

Reference

Barthes, R. 1973. Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Hill & Wang

Berger, A. A. 2010. Objects of Affection: Semiotics and Consumer Culture. London:

Bignell, J. 2002. Media Semiotics: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication.

London:Routlege

Mcnally D. & Karl D.(2009) Speak Berrett-Koehler Publishers

Peirce, S. C. (1955) Logic of semiotics: The theory of signs in ed. Bucher, J. Philosophical

writings of Peirce NY: Dover publications.

Saidi, U. (2013) ‘The BaTonga Concealment by a tale of two worlds: an artefactualsemiotic analysis of

Nkomo and Livingstone’s statues in Matebeleland Madirativhange: Journal of African Indigenous

Languages and Literature Vol.1 No. 1, pp.38-57.

Saussure, F. (1915, 1966) Course in general linguistics, trans. W. Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill. (A

critical edition in French was prepared by T. de Mauro.1972. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris:

Payot.)

van Leeuwen, T. (2005) Introducing social semiotics New York: Routledge