Flux brand identity

Flux is a specialist environmental design and engineering consultancy, dedicated to delivering game-changing sustainable solutions in the built environment.

The team at Flux have delivered pioneering projects of significant value and depth of innovation, in markets and cities across the world. In a nutshell, their focus is to remove the complexity and over-engineering that often plagues sustainable design, helping to create environments that are self-sustaining and future-proofed against environmental impact. Their capabilities are built from a platform of strong scientific analysis and thinking, with an aggressive focus on emerging clean technologies.

The flexible identity was developed to portray their innovative approach, and act as a strong signal to their process of simplification and elimination. The graphic strikethrough device can be used to distill lengthyinformation to its core message, imply the removal of the unnecessary, and act as a recognisable visual language for the organisation.

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity sketch

Flux brand identity sketch

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Flux brand identity

Architecture photography by A. Minotti.

More from Re.


November 23, 2012


This is not for me. Reducing something to the essentials is attractive but it should be an intellectual process which results in something minimal. Striking out letters or masking them brings it closer to physical destruction or locking things out and I find this a tad aggressive even when it is just pixels on a screen.

Yikes. Can’t say this is reflects the project description. There is nothing really engaging about any of this and it’s way too busy to make me want to even look at anything.

What does it all mean? The alphabet is now considered a greenwashing cliche and clutter . . . ?

This reminds me of something I would think of moments before I fall asleep and consider whether it is worth writing down. Then I would fall asleep and have a nightmare involving the alphabet chasing me naked through central park.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the simplicity of the type face and quite like the Horizontal Thin version. It seems like the best application of the concept. By hiding the rest of the letters and leaving a dash or line space the designer left more to mystery behind the spacing. It also falls in line with “creative” because there is nothing else to distract from the message. The reader is left to fill in the blanks with their imagination.

The other versions of the logo are like a cheat sheet to the original like saying “just in case our branding is too intellectual for you, here is what we were trying to accomplish.”

As a client I would have put up a red flag for this concept as a branding project. If I need to explain a designers concept over and over again so audience gets it . . . I wouldn’t be billing very many people. I think it would make a better campaign than a brand.

I have to agree with the others here.

While I find the idea of ‘removing the complexity’ very appealing, and apparently in keeping with the company’s ethos, this does pretty much the opposite for me.

Removing unneeded words is something I do as an editor, but I wouldn’t dream of just drawing a line through them and suggesting the client publishes it like that. Printing everything and then blocking out certain letters or words makes the message more difficult to read, and gives the impression it’s a temporary correction to a mistake, or censorship.

As Christian says, I find it aggressive. I also wouldn’t show notes if I had written ‘blah blah blah’ on them, which I find rather impolite.

The website looks like it’s broken or censored. Why black information out and make people work harder to find things? I presume that hovering over the images would make them viewable, so does that mean that hovering over the blacked-out text would make the whole lot readable (including the header)? If so, again, I don’t see the point in all the strikeout.

The image I get is that the company wants to hide something or isn’t comfortable with their message, hence they cross half of it out.

At the risk of sounding like a tool, there are much simpler ways to be simple. Focusing on the essentials of the brand would have worked a lot better for me. I’d like to know more about Flux as what they do seems to appeal to the kind of things I like, but I’m not sure I can be bothered trying to decipher it all. Perhaps the website is very user-friendly, but we only have the screen shots to go on so far.

I can’t help feeling there was more focus on a clever concept than representing the client or appealing to the end user. Sorry.

There’s not much else to be added from what the above comments point at; but I do have one.

Since you are focusing on “sustainable solutions” doesn’t it go against the very concept of sustainability to over use ink in print? Wouldn’t it be sufficient to simply reduce the ‘unnecessary’ elements rather than have them there and then having a fat black line over them?

As the other’s mentioned, it’s aggressive and a tad bit hypocrite.

It’s a bit too ‘out there’ design wise. I can’t believe a client went with this. Hats off for getting it approved – not enough bravery out there.

I’d rather see this than another ‘less is more’ minimal designed, san serif, basic identity.

And kudos for an unusably long logo.

Fairly good idea that hasn’t been executed like everything else. I get a message instantly, be it a tad aggressive, but rather striking visually. Looks like they are trying to make a stance in a straight sector, and have good cut through. Lets see if it works out for them.

LOVE it. In particular the black and white – such a welcome and punchy departure from the typically green-dominated palette that goes hand in hand with ‘sustainability’ and anything ‘eco-friendly’ – i.e. BORING.

Interesting that they’ve doubled up on their names and details on the business cards – haven’t seen that before. Innovative method of saving paper/ink. I like it.

So hedonistic! It looks more like a piece of self-promotional branding for a boutique design house, as opposed to what the synopsis describes. Having said that, kudos to the agency for selling it into the client. At least they got something out of it.

Agree with the majority of the above, it does seem to add clutter as opposed to convey removing it. I like it, visually it is my kind of thing, but at the same time it also comes across as slightly self-indulgent at the expense of the idea. The concept falls a little short, like this is the midway point (which they just liked it stylistically) and it needed to developed to a more refined, succinct conclusion. As said, nice that they went with it though!

Amazing logo. Not as keen on the ipad/online execution – that feels like it’s getting a little corporate again for me, but forgetting that – the actual logo is very intriguing.

I can’t help but think of the creative industry cliché, “Sell the sizzle not the sausage”. If reduction and simplicity in a usually overcomplicated context is the client’s key USP, then show the result, not the process. The execution should be reduced and simple, elegant and accessible – such values are then deduced by the intended audience rather declared by the organisation.

This looks like a redacted CIA document about shipping terrorism suspects across national boarders in the middle of the night – it’s a bit sinister.

Now I’m all for being contrary in order to make a point but I think this is trying a bit too hard. Well done for selling an intellectual and out of the ordinary concept, but I think it’s saying more about the agency than it is the client. The business cards are the real case in point. By all means cross out the surname, making readers focus on the more personal first name of the card holder. But to add more than one name to the card, only to cross one out again seems to be forcing the issue.

I’m sure the client wouldn’t build an unsustainable building only to knock it down again and build something greener – and leave all the un-recycled rubble lying around – just so they could demonstrate their sustainable credentials.

The visual magpie in me loves the sector vernacular smashing impact of what has been created. It’s strong, its powerful, its memorable, but perhaps not for the right reasons.I have a feeling the client wants to be transparent but this makes them look like there is something to hide.

Share a thought