When a client brings a competitor's logo and says 'make it like this'

In most first sessions, Sinh Vũ hears something like: "I like something like brand X, but a little different." That sentence isn't wrong. In fact, it is one of the most useful signals a client can give, if you know how to read it properly. The problem arises when that signal is turned straight into a drawing instruction, skipping an important step of decoding in between.

References are not drawings; they are questions

When you point at a competitor's logo and say "make it like this," what you are really communicating is usually one of three things. One, you want to look as professional as they do. Two, you want to be placed next to them without falling short. Three, you like a certain quality but don't yet have a word for it. All three are strategic information, not just formal instructions.

Sinh Vũ doesn't start by drawing. Sinh Vũ starts by asking: "When you look at that brand, what do you feel?" The answer often reveals more than the reference itself. This is where the process truly begins.

Step one: Deconstruct six layers

Every brand that looks "premium" or "trustworthy" rests on an internal structure. Sinh Vũ uses Jean-Noel Kapferer's six-sided prism to break a reference down layer by layer. These are: the visible form (physique), personality, values and culture (culture), the kind of relationship with customers (relationship), the reflected image (reflection), and the user's own self-perception (self-image).

The result often surprises clients. The brand they brought looks "professional" mainly because it is consistent across every customer touchpoint, from business cards to how staff answer the phone, not because of dark colors or a sans-serif font. Form is only the visible part. What you really want to learn from a competitor usually sits in the deeper layers.

The physique sets the stage; the other five aspects create meaning.

Jean-Noël Kapferer, The New Strategic Brand Management

Step two: Compare with your positioning

After understanding what competitors are doing and why, the next question arises. Where do you stand compared to them? And where do you want to be in the minds of customers?

This is a step many design firms skip. They take the reference, nod, then design something that looks "similar but a little different" in the literal sense: changing the color, changing the font, keeping the layout structure. The result is a brand that looks like a cheaper version of its competitor, and is forever compared to them.

According to research by Jenni Romaniuk and Byron Sharp, distinctive brand assets create recognition in customers' memories. This is based on two measures: fame and uniqueness. A brand that copies a competitor's form voluntarily relinquishes both measures.

Step three: Separate principles from form

This is a crucial step. After understanding what competitors are communicating and why it works, Sinh Vũ identifies the design principles behind it. Then, we find ways to express those principles using your unique visual language.

A real example: a client in financial consulting brought the logo of a large audit firm and said they wanted to look "as credible as that." Once we broke it down, what creates the sense of credibility is three principles: a high proportion of white space, low information density, and absolute consistency across every document. It is not the specific colors or typefaces. Sinh Vũ applies those three principles to the client's design, with an entirely different color palette and visual language that fits their own character.

The result looks nothing like the competitors. But it conveys the exact feeling that customers want. This is the difference between copying the form and learning the principles.

From references to strategic guidelines

At the end of the dissection step, Sinh Vũ writes a short guideline document, consisting of a set of strategic principles, rather than formal rules. This document answers three questions: What position does this brand want to occupy in the minds of the target customers? What does it need to convey at the first touchpoint? How does it differ from competitors in a way that can be sustained long-term?

Design comes from those three questions, not from references.

This process takes more time than "take the reference and start drawing." But it avoids endless rounds of revisions, because every design decision can be checked against the principles agreed from the start. You no longer have to judge by gut feeling, "like or dislike." The question becomes: "Does this design communicate what we want to say?"