Corporate Structure
&TCP; corporate structure is based on a &MCVIS;. In this
configuration, one unique name and one unique visual style is
used in all visual manifestation &TCP; is made of.
In a monolithic corporate visual identity structure, internal
and external stakeholders use to feel a strong sensation of
uniformity, orientation, and identification with the
organization. No matter if you are visiting web sites, using
the distribution, or acting on social events, the one unique
name and one unique visual style connects them all to say:
Hey! we are all part of &TCP;.
Other corporate structures for &TCP; have been considered as
well. Such is the case of producing one different visual style
for each major release of &TCD;. This structure isn't
inconvenient at all, but some visual contradictions could be
introduced if it isn't applied correctly and we need to be
aware of it. To apply it correctly, we need to know what &TCP;
is made of.
&TCP;, as organization, is mainly made of (but not limited to)
three visual manifestions: &TCD;, &TCW; and &TCS;. Inside
&TCD; visual manifestations, &TCP; maintains near to four
different major releases of &TCD;, parallely in time.
However, inside &TCW; visual manifestations, the content is
produced for no specific release information (e.g., there is
no a complete web site for each major release of &TCD;
individually, but one web site to cover them all). Likewise,
the content produced in &TCS; is industrially created for no
specific release, but &TCP; in general.
In order to produce the &TCPMCVIS; correctly, we need to
concider all the visual manifestations &TCP; is made of, not
just one of them. If one different visual style is
implemented for each major release of &TCD;, which one of
those different visual styles would be used to cover the
remaining visual manifestations &TCP; is made of (e.g., &TCW;
and &TCS;)?
Probably you are thinking: yes, I see your point, but &TCBRAND;
connects them all already, why would we need to join them up
into the same visual style too, isn't it more work to do, and
harder to maintain?
Harder to maintain, more work to do, probably. Specially when
you consider that &TCP; has proven stability and consistency
through time and, that, certainly, didn't come through
swinging magical wands or something but hardly working out to
automate tasks and providing maintainance through time. With
that in mind, we consider &TCPCVIS; must be consequent with
such stability and consistency tradition. It is true that
&TCBRAND; does connect all the visual manifestations it is present
on, but that connection is strengthened if one unique visual
style backups it. In fact, whatever thing you do to strength
the visual connection among &TCP; visual manifestations would
be very good in favor of &TCP; recognition.
Obviously, having just one visual style in all visual
manifestations for eternity would be a very boring thing and
would give the idea of a visually dead project. So, there is
no problem on creating a brand new visual style for each new
major release of &TCD;, in order to refresh &TCD; visual
style; the problem itself is in not propagating the brand new
visual style created for the new release of &TCD; to all other
visual manifestations &TCP; is made of, in a way &TCP; could
be recognized no matter what visual manifestation be in front
of us. Such lack of uniformity is what introduces the visual
contradition we are precisely trying to solve by mean of
themes production in &TCAR;.