Brand semiotics: signs and symbols in meaning formation

Saussure versus Pierce: whose model works for branding

Ferdinand de Saussure proposed a simple pair: the signified (the form of the sign — word, image, color) and the signifier (the mental image that this form evokes). The connection between them is conventional and relies on convention — no wonder the same word sounds differently in different languages, but means the same.

Charles Pierce complicated the model by adding a third element — the interpretant, that is, the reaction of a specific person in a specific context. For Pierce, the sign is not static: it lives in an infinite chain of interpretations, each of which gives birth to a new one.

For practical branding, Saussure's model is more convenient at the development stage — it provides a clear logic of "form → meaning" and is suitable for building a guideline. And Pierce's model is indispensable at the audit and research stage, because it honestly acknowledges that different audiences interpret the same sign differently. A good strategy uses both — Saussure's for construction, Pierce's for verification.

Polysemy of signs: why one audience sees reliability, and another — indifference

The main practical problem of branding is not the lack of meaning, but its excess. Any visual sign is inherently polysemic: a circle can be read as unity, infinity, zero, or a coin — it depends on context and the viewer's experience. This multiplicity of meaning is polysemy, and without managing it, a brand becomes blurred: different audience segments reconstruct the image in their own way, often not as the creators originally intended.

The mechanism of meaning fixation in semiotics is called anchoring (anchorage) — this is a textual or contextual 'anchoring' of an image that cuts off unwanted interpretations. A slogan, packaging text, tonality of communication — all of this works as an anchor. The second function, relay, connects the image and text into a unified narrative, promoting the meaning further, rather than simply duplicating the image with words. Without these two mechanisms, even a strong visual sign begins to live its own life, detached from the brand strategy.

Case Study: Apple — How an Incomplete Sign Strengthens the Brand

The Apple logo has gone through four generations — from the striped apple Radd to the modern monochrome silhouette. The key decision that is often missed in analyses is the bite. From a semiotics perspective, the whole apple form would have been more 'safe,' but also more closed: it would fully describe the object and leave no room for imagination.

An incomplete form works differently: it activates imagination, forcing the viewer to mentally 'complete' the figure. This is a classic example of productive polysemy — the company consciously left the sign open, but at the same time rigorously fixed the other variables: monochrome, minimalism of lines, absence of unnecessary details. Polysemy was not a mistake — it was a controlled decision, embedded in the overall brand code discipline. This is a fundamental difference between 'leaving the sign open' and 'losing control over the sign.'

Cultural Codes: Color as a Minefield for International Markets

Blue is the safest color in the world: it consistently associates with reliability, competence, and calmness in almost all cultures, which is why it dominates in tech and financial brands from banks to IT corporations. White, on the other hand, is the opposite example: on the West it represents purity and minimalism, whereas in many East Asian cultures it is the color of mourning and death. Launching a visual identity with a dominant white background without adaptation for Asian markets is a typical mistake that costs dearly already at the packaging localization stage.

To avoid stepping on these mines, it's advisable to check three layers of codes that are layered upon each other:

• Categorical Codes — expectations embedded in the product category (green for eco-products, silver for technology).
• Brand Codes — unique visual habits that the audience recognizes as specific to a particular brand.
• Cultural Codes — symbolic values historically embedded in a specific region.

The balance is achieved as follows: the category code is executed at the minimum required level (so that the product is perceived as belonging to its niche), the brand code maintains uniqueness, and the cultural code is checked separately for each target market before launch — not post factum.

Four Axiology of Fouchet in Practice

The French semiotician Jean-Marie Fouchet demonstrated on the example of the automotive market that brand positioning can be described through a system of consumer value coordinates. This model translates well to any category where there is an emotional choice.

In practice, this model is needed not for a theoretical report, but as a checklist when choosing the tone of communication: if a brand speaks in the language of price (critical axis) and at the same time tries to use dream images (utopian axis), the message begins to contradict itself. One dominant axis must be chosen and all other signals—visual, verbal, pricing—subordinated to it.

Why Brands Smother Their Own Originality

The most common mistake when choosing visual assets is taking a color or form 'as a ready-made value', without critical analysis. 'Yellow is fun,' companies decide and launch a yellow logo, not checking that five competitors in the category have already done the same based on the same logic. The result is that the brand does not stand out but competes for an already occupied semantic field.

List of errors to check before finalizing identity:

1. Choosing an asset based on the dictionary meaning of color or form without analyzing the competitive landscape.
2. Lack of anchoring — a visual sign is launched without a textual or contextual anchor that would fix the intended interpretation.
3. Ignoring the cultural code when entering a new market without a local audit of symbolism.
4. Mixing axiological registers in a single communication (price and status at the same time).
5. Copying the competitor's categorical code instead of building one's own brand code.

Managing brand meaning is not a one-time logo development, but a constant discipline: every new visual or verbal element must be checked for compliance with already established codes, otherwise even a strong sign will, over time, spread into contradictory interpretations.