Yam Brand Exploration Part 4: Yam Brand Pillars - RFF

Yam Brand Pillars

Please provide: input, questions, comments.

Previously in the Yam Brand Exploration Part 3: Yamifesto Support Points List RFF, we looked in detail at the components making up the Yamifesto. Now we define three key Yam Brand Pillars which form the foundation from which the brand can be developed and built out. The goal of the brand pillars is to unify the brand into a single voice and visual representation. The desired result is to have all of the various brand touch-points work in a harmonious and unified manner.

Key to table
Brand Pillar – The three foundational brand pillars
Quality – The qualitative aspect of the pillar (similar to properties)
Description – Describes the pillar in plain language
Tone – An emotional tone or feeling associated with the pillar
Attribute – See Brand Attribute chart below
Narrative – An example of the brand pillar in a story form. This is one creative execution, but it can and will take various forms depending on the application or medium.

Brand Pillar table

Brand Attributes Chart and Description
Brand Attributes are the core values that define the overall nature of the organization and represent the essence of the brand. They are the set of unique fundamentals and characteristics that identify the physical, character, and personality traits of the brand in the market, and in the minds of the customers.

Functions of Brand Attributes

  • Helps the brand stand apart from the rest of the competition
  • Helps the brand define its unique nature
  • Helps the brand express its benefits
  • Helps the brand present its value to the customer
  • Helps the brand decide on branding and marketing techniques


I like it and it’s important to have a Yam Ethos.
Is it possible to boil down the 3 pillars into a short mission statement?

Yes. Yam Brand Exploration Part 5: Mission Statement & Brand Statement is being worked on now. It will be posted soonish.

Thanks! Great work on all his ground work @designer

@designer I’m mainly wondering what kind of Pillars are read horizontally?

Just kidding! Kinda… I did expect the chart to read top to bottom with 3 columns instead of 3 rows.

Onto the the substance:
in the narrative for a “fair and equitable distribution” I wonder if our “ultra commitment” to our community of token holders is too vague. This seems to be part of the issue right now in all the requests to use the treasury to help current token holders in the red. How does that commitment manifest itself? What describes the community member that we are committed to helping since there could be differing benefits for differing holders.

In regards to the governance, I think we should also talk about the methods we use to come to consensus on issues. On chain voting is just the end of that process. What are the principals that guide how we made decisions from ideation to development to voting?

I dont have much to add to the third pillar but have a question. When you use “you” in the last sentence, are you writing as an outside entity talking about us, or are you writing as us specifically trying to target the reader? It is the only place that structure shows up.

And as I’ve mentioned before I think this is great. I’m getting a lesson in marketing from all you guys.

Yes, I see an issue with the framing of the “ultra committed”. It makes Yam an entity separate from the community, which it is not. The whole idea is that the community decides via voting, which is like a democracy. In other words, there is no “we” and “them”, or “Yam” and a separate “community”. The whole ideas is that there is just the Yam community of token holders and collective decision makers.

Addressing the question about “differing benefits for differing holders”: the community votes on proposals, and those proposals that pass are what can help the community at large. 100% consensus is not going to be achieved all the time. Anyone can also vote to stay in the community, or leave it by way of participation in holding or not holding Yam.

On your governance input. Yes 100%. And your last question about the “you” structure is a good one which I’ll work with to find a more consistent use. Need to think about that one a bit.

Thanks for your input and encouragement!