Logos are Dead?
Laura Savard and Mark Gallagher
Recently, professionals have been debating the issues of whether or not logos are dead: a waste of time, money and effort. Some believe that in today’s digital age, logotypes will and have replaced logos as staples of brand identity. Still, others believe that iconic symbols are the cornerstone of visual identity. We believe the argument is centered around the wrong question. The question should be: “Which is more effective, logo or logotype?” We’ll let you answer that question for yourself. Can you clearly identify the two brands above? One is a logo, the other a logotype. Which did you recognize first?
Exactly! We are a visual species. We use signals to understand and navigate our world. As consumers, we use brand signals to understand and navigate the marketplace. Those in the logotype camp don’t fully understand how consumers see their world nor do they understand how brand signals work.
So why are logos so critical?
As brand signals, logos are visual icons providing two basic, yet necessary functions for brands: identification (a marker for finding a specific offering) and differentiation (how to tell that offering apart from others). Over time, they directly equate to their given brands. Whether you view them from a distance, or out of the corner of your eye, you equate these visual icons with the brands they represent. For this same reason, when driving in another country, you understand that a red octagonal sign means STOP, even if you don’t speak the language.
We are by no means stating that the logo is the brand. It is not. Nor are we saying that differentiation is provided by the logo. It isn’t. The logo is only part of a much larger brand picture. However, both the brand’s name and logo are core brand signals. They are hallmarks of the brand’s identity and greatly contribute to the overall experience. This is why children who can’t yet read still recognize the golden arches and cry out “McDonald’s!” They equate the brand signal with the brand.
We wanted to illustrate how this works and prove that logos are still a great tool for identification and differentiation, so we decided to conduct a little experiment. We have taken well-known logos and logotypes and blurred each to the same degree. We also removed the element of color to rule out any “chroma-bias”. For the purposes of this test, we chose to avoid highly stylized logotypes or icons that included type, as it is often subjective whether these are logos or logotypes.
If you’re still having trouble deciphering the wordmark above next to the Apple logo, simply scroll over that image or any of the images below to see the image “unblurred”.
See whether you can identify these logos and logotypes, and ask yourself which is more effective? We look forward to hearing your thoughts. Are logos dead or not?
Still think logos are a by-product of an illiterate era?
Logos still have life. Taglines need to die, however.
Great article guys. You are right of course. We have can understand and process imagery and iconography far quicker than text. Brands that spend time developing unique symbolism always find it worth while.
Awesome. I think that a typeface can only hold so much as a brand signal, but a symbol can carry so much more – even things that we can’t put into words. For example, the Nike swoosh doesn’t make me think ‘Nike’ in my head – it makes me think of everything Nike is and what they believe. Symbols seem to be more powerful with what they can communicate.
I'd have to agree with this piece. The "no logo" idea is a short term trend in my view. I don't think BLACKCOFFEE would be quite the same without that lovely white on black mug, it's distinctive and memorable in a way that the type is not.
Gregg,
I read Naomi Klein's book: "No Logo". Each page was like fingernails on a chalkboard. She should change the name to “No Clue”. Naomi doesn’t realize that she is transposing her hatred for big business onto all brands. Aren’t organizations like the Sierra Club and Amnesty International brands?
Sorry for the rant. She drives me nuts!
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Mark,
It seems Gregg means not using logos in brand experiences. Usually this means a simple typographic rendering of the brand-name that is not proprietary in its graphic representation, and is used only to convey the name. Not a typical logo but a logo none-the-less.
Naomi Klein's book 'No Logo' is a separate issue. It was a great read for me. I think she is a terrific writer who grasps and conveys complex issues of corporate behaviour insightfully. However, the premise of the title is fundamentally flawed in the sense that it did not demonstrate any awareness of the paradox. 'No Logo' as a title can also be convincingly held as a logo ie. a primary brand-mark of Naomi Klein's book.
The conclusion is that any primary mark of any distinct identity is effectively a 'logo'.
Andrew
Nicely done. Total agreement. Somewhere Carl Jung is silently weeping tears of joy. Logos are incredibly powerful symbols that are increasingly part of how we communicate to each other our preferences, affinities and relationships with brands.
Interesting. I think both logotypes and logos are still relevant because different companies have different methods of naming. We're forgetting about NAMING. Some companies utilize a unique coined name that becomes there bonafied brand, in which case the logotype best supports it. (ex. Squidoo, Kaboodle, Google, YouTube, Skype). These are all obviously made-up, unique coined terms. They ARE the brand, the symbol.
I do agree we are visual species and that if a relevant enough symbol can describe your brand, kudos… but eventually, the market will be so flooded with symbols, that symbols will become more and more anonymous like logotypes tend to be.
Also, let me end by saying…when would you ever be looking at a logo or logotype that is entirely unreadable or blurred out? Almost never : )
Dane,
Fully agree that names are powerful brand signals. In fact, we referenced names as "core signals" in our post. Names have to pull double duty as they can be written or spoken. Yet, I strongly disagree that names, or logos “Are the brand”. If they were the brand, all great names and logos would be great brands and we all know that's not the case.
As far as "when would you ever be looking at a logo or logotype that is entirely unreadable or blurred out?" We wanted to replicate a test we conduct when developing logos. We post printouts on the wall at a relatively small size (2" or so). We then step back twenty to thirty feet to make sure they hold up visually.
The blur was a way to replicate that test online. We pushed the blur to an extreme to illustrate our point. We wanted to prove the validity of logos, not to disprove the value of logotypes.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
BTW, MediaKatalyst is a great name!
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
hmmm – weird post. the answer like most is almost certainly somewhere in the grey – yes logos are dead – no logos aren't dead, what is dead? what is true? what is false? I love the idea put forth by the masterful poet and playwright Harold Pinter that things can be both true and false.
""There are no hard distinctions between what is real and what is unreal, nor between what is true and what is false. A thing is not necessarily either true or false; it can be both true and false." – Harold Pinter
Logos are still worth their weight in gold IF, there's enough money and visibility behind them (Apple, Nike) and they are clearly associated with the name of the brand. I would never recognize the car logo above. Most people wouldn't. There are only so many Apples, swooshes, polo ponies. They are more important because they are badges, not because they are marks that represent the company, and it took lots of money and advertising and market success (affiliation with aspirational people) to make them such. A logo is NOT a brand. It is simply a mark. A great one, however, embodies all that the brand stands for and in and of itself, through aesthetics and design, adds to that brand meaning.
Edward,
If we're talking awareness, then yes, a substantial investment usually needs to be made. I believe that the examples we chose were all locked up with an accompanying logotype at one time. They built up recognition and were able to shed their name from the logo.
I know it's not an exact science, but neither is branding. : )
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
You've conducted an interesting experiment. There is no dispute, the icons are recognized much more quickly than the logotypes.
From a customer perspective, I don't distinguish between logos and logotypes – They're both visual representations of the brand to me. (and arguably most customers)
Although type has inherent recognition issues (especially when all caps); for the majority of situations, logotypes and logos using shapes perform equally well.
There are many other brand factors that contribute to my brand recall. Logo v. logotype tends to be lower on my list of factors.
Jordan,
I agree that consumers don’t consciously make a distinction and that there are many factors that contribute to brand recall. Logotypes have their place and may be more effective in some applications. But, as strictly visual devices, logos transcend language which may make them more effective for international brands.
Thanks for sharing you perspective.
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
As might be expect of me, the problem lies in how we refer to the marks of brands. I take this position because the terms we use mediate the experience of not only the terms themselves but (perhaps) more importantly to what those terms refer.
Mark's notion of a logo as 'brand signal' is an appropriate way to hold logos but I take the view that this notion is also not enough to adequately demonstrate the value of all the marks of a brand.
Logos, logotypes and symbols as signifiers of brands come with a lot of baggage. They are largely misunderstood by, not only the general population, but, ironically, the designers and brand consultants who play a significant role in how brands are perceived. I believe a deeper re-assessment of the language-space used to handle brands is necessary.
A logo is any primary mark of a brand expressed as a two dimensional graphic. So, a discussion about the different types of logos expressed as logotypes, symbols or wordmarks is wasted. All of these 2 dimensional expressions of a brand identity can be referred to as logos without too much of a problem. However, the problem, as I have been explaining, is far more profound.
Brands are made up of marks, all types of marks: visual, linguistic, gestural and even 3 dimensional material. What varies between these marks is stability and share-ability.
A two dimensional mark is more easily shared than the physical product of a brand, which itself is also usefully held as a mark ie. a mental impression or tangible representation. My point is perhaps more easily appreciated on a scale of accessibility of the medium normally used to share a brand, for example, as follows: photograph, illustration, silhouette and symbol, and then the symbol related to the representation of the product or service. The latter is where we typically find 'the logo'.
The term 'logo' tends to obscure the fact that the above relationship is in force in all brands. Holding these aspects of a brand as 'marks' offers a highly flexible and, at the same time, highly specific means of handling brands as coordinated sets of nested marks. These are the marks of brands, they are brand marks, or more specifically as the plural of a composite noun 'brand-marks'.
In this context is makes sense to indicate the primary brand-mark as the 'brandmark' ie. one word and unhyphenated. A logo (and all it's permutations) is, of course, also a brand-mark but to avoid any confusion and to continuously assert the relationship of all a brand's various marks the term 'logo' should be abandoned in favour of a more effective language-space.
With some discipline, such a view of brands will establish a far more effective means for people to create, manage and understand the experience of distinct identities…
… (ie. brands).
A.
Andrew,
The issue here is semantic. We use the term “brand signals” as opposed to “brand marks” because we believe that “signals’ to be a more inclusive term. Sound, scent even rituals are all signals.
I think we agree more than we disagree. It’s not the terms it’s what's communicated. And isn’t that what branding is all about?
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
I think you're over simplifying the complex and over complicating the simple.
We're going to have to disagree on this one.
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Mark (and Laura),
I think you underestimate the capacity of language to mediate experience.
You haven't challenged, explored or tested any of what I've proposed. This leads me to think that you assume to have grasped the significance of what I'm writing about.
I don't disagree with you but I do think your proposed alternative to handling brand experiences is not as effective as you believe.
Andrew
Andrew,
I understand that you believe that “brandmark” is a more appropriate term. However, the fact that we don't agree with you doesn't make us wrong.
We live in two countries separated by a common language. Here in the U.S. the term “brandmark” is interchangeable with Logo/logotype.
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Interesting point of view and a worthy topic of discussion but I'd have to agree with Mark Gallagher — you're way oversimplifying this. Further, I'd question the validity of the test. Of course a blurred word is harder to recognize/read than a blurred logo.
The logos you've chosen are simple, whole positive images (ie, all black with no "holes" in the primary logo) while the words are full of negative space (ie the space between the letters). Because you have to be able to distinguish the positive from the negative in order to read a word, this "test" unfairly penalizes the logo type in favor of the logo.
If you ran it again with logos that involved a lot of negative/positive space vs logo type I might be more inclined to accept your argument.
Lastly, I'd offer that you've not taken this discussion far enough. Smart brands have gone beyond the logo to create visual identity. I bet if I showed you a blue wireless router or a yellow and black power tool or a green tractor that you could guess those brands. These brands have all used color, in addition to a logo or logo type to create distinctive, easily recognizable visual brands. And I think that is a more important discussion IMHO.
@TomMartin
Tom,
We 100% agree that to be effective brands need to move beyond the logo. In fact, they need to move beyond visual identity to create a total brand experience. Intel’s audio logo, Corona’s lime ritual and the unique smell of Play-Doh are just a few examples of brands that have moved into a more sensory experience. We are by no means stating that the logo is the most important component. It’s part of a much larger whole.
You may be right. The test may very well be biased. However, it was not our intention. We put this post together because we disagree with the concept that "logos are dead". And we were looking for internationally known examples of both logos and logotypes. This is what we came up with. That said, I believe that the most impact full logos are bold, simple images. Perhaps that’s why they’re so recognizable.
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
Very clever post. Kudos.
Regarding the question posed, logotype or logo?, I’d agree with Laura’s premise that logos have a more universal appeal. That being said, the true power of any symbol or word in influencing belief and behavior lies in the meaning built into said symbol with a particular audience over time.
The swastika is an eastern religious symbol denoting good luck. The Christian cross was a gruesome method of public execution. A yahoo is a clown.
Brand signals are important. The meaning behind those signals, created by the tangible actions of human beings, is what’s critical.
Tom,
I've lived in SE Asia and was shocked to see swastikas being worn as jewelry — until I did a bit of research. Understanding perspective is huge. Good comment.
Very interesting post, guys. From your examples it's evident that a symbol "erodes" more slowly than a logotype. That said, I found your first comparison most interesting as I could recognize them equally fast. Clearly, familiarity with the Microsoft logotype – subtleties like the italic font, the capitalized M, even perhaps the length of the word itself – allowed me to recognize it without truly reading it. This contrasts with the other examples that I could not recognize at all. I am far from a branding expert but perhaps this has implications for logotype design (if so, I'm sure someone figured it out long ago), or maybe it is simply due to exposure. Thanks again for your thought-provoking post!
Clay,
Odds are that you recognized the shape of the logotype, not the individual letterforms. We wrote on this subject a few weeks back in a post titled "Pattern Recognition". You might find it interesting.
http://www.blackcoffee.com/blog/2010/03/15/patter…
Have a great weekend and thanks for commenting!
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
According to the New York Times people in cities are exposed to roughly 5,000 advertising messages per day. Having an easily identifiable logo graphic element is likely to be recognized more quickly than logotype, helping to cut through the clutter.
In addition, a graphic logo element typically has more of a rounded or square shape than a logotype element that is more likely to be rectangular. This allows for more flexibility when sizing the logo/logotype for reproduction.
Great thread Mark
I’m sure we would all love to have an image that our target customers immediately associate as a shorthand representation of our brand.
Yes we recognize the logo images of these multi-billion dollar global corporations. These companies have had the vast resources required to drive this level of image recognition. Ultimately we translate these images into their brand names that we “say” in our heads, and associate these brand names with a market position.
These are the notable exceptions. I suspect the number of logo images the average person would recognize – would only include these commonly cited examples – and few (if any) others?
Cheers
@stephenlynch
Stephen,
As you pointed out the logos and logotypes shown are those of well-known international brands. We chose these because our site/blog has an international audience and we wanted to use relevant examples.
There are likely logos that you would recognize and I would not (or vice versa) based either on location or personal relevance. I believe that the results would be the same had we used any logo or logotype known to the observer.
In our experience, it's never been about marketing spend. It's about engagement.
Thanks for sharing.
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Mark and Laura, great post and insights.
Clearly there remains great power in what I have called "non-verbal logos":
http://www.duetsblog.com/2009/08/articles/without…
Here are some additional thoughts on the pros and cons from a legal perspective:
http://www.duetsblog.com/2009/08/articles/pros-an…
Again, thanks for such a thought provoking discussion!
Mark,
To your and my replies above…
The point I'm making is that a logo is best handled as one of many related and coordinated brand-marks. The conceptual system underlying the reason for my proposal has the potential to properly resolve the problem of the perceived importance of the 'logo'.
Referring to the primary mark of a brand as a 'brandmark' is only a formality. It is intended to replace the term 'logo' but to assert that it is a dismissable alternative relegated to 'what Andrew Sabatier believes' is to almost completely miss my point about brands as whole and distinct systems.
If you follow my reasoning (to the word), and to your point, you'll note that all variations of 'the logo' (as defined in my earlier post) can be handled as a brandmark. A brandmark can be sub-divided into wordmark and symbol, no matter what the combination (or absence of the one or the other in the formal artwork version). If a symbol alone is the primary brand-mark then it is the 'brandmark' and like-wise with a wordmark or combination of the two. Simple.
At no stage have I suggested you are wrong. The whole brand-handling-language-space needs an overhaul; not just a re-packaging. What I'm expressing is that 'Brand Signals' is attractive thinking in the context of the problem but it does not address the root cause. Sure, you can make 'Brand Signals' work for you in terms of marketing yourselves to clients only vaguely aware of the problem but you shouldn't take 'Brand Signals' all that seriously on an academic level.
Thanks to digital we now think of brands in terms of whole, dynamic and distinct systems. Logos are a relic from a slower moving and Platonic language-space – an almost entirely different universe, quite literally.
Logos aren't dead but the emphasis placed on them has changed dramatically.
Andrew
Sorry, but we don't see the value in continuing this discussion.
"If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough."
– Albert Einstein
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Simple is relative.
A.
interesting issue — and one which obviously a lot of people have strong opinions about.
the question i'd like to add is: how effective is a company at using their logos as brand signals — that is, linking their brand signals to their brand and making them iconic? — in your exercise above, i find the comparison between apple's logo and microsoft's logotype less instructive than if you had compared the microsoft logotype to the windows logo — imho, the windows logo is a much more powerful brand signal than the microsoft logotype and might be a better support to your points about identification and differentiation (of course both of microsoft's signals are lacking the emotional resonance of the apple logo, but that's a separate issue
)
what do you think?
Denise,
Interesting! I always love hearing your perspective. Let's give it a shot.
I'm not sure how to create the rollover state without creating another blog post, so I've posted this on our Posterous account. Please note I have converted the Windows logo to a monochromatic image.
I think the logo is far more legible, but I'll let you decide for yourself.
http://blackcoffee.posterous.com/for-denise-lee-y…
Laura Savard
Brand Expressonist®
Guys, Great blog – looks like it's drawing plenty of attention. My first comment is your study has a focus on the strength of a visual symbol to aid in recognition and identification – which is certainly a benefit. The other part of the discussion as others have touched-on is the role of brand marks (either logotype based or symbol based) in communicating the proposition and personality of a brand, as well as to connect with pre-existing codes of meaning. As with recognition, our ability to draw information, cues and meaning from a visual symbol is far greater than from typography alone. The trend towards type-based marks has been a result of just that (a trend) rather than an evolution to more effective brand communication design.
David,
Thanks! As you've pointed out this is only a thin slice of a much larger subject and only a small part of a brand’s overall identity.
We chose to limit the scope of our test to focus on the recognizability of typography vs. iconography. We felt that to explore which is more effective at communicating the brand’s proposition and personality, would have been too subjective for a simple blog post.
I like your thinking though. : )
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
I loved your little interactive demonstration. But what about the bigger picture? Whether you've got an Apple logo or a Sony logotype, surely what matters is how you use it. If Apple created boring products and ran dull advertising, would you still remember them? And Sony has created many great products and wonderful advertising. So although on the surface, the Sony logotype is pretty forgettable, you associate it with fantastic things. It's imbued with power.
Dean,
Agreed. There are a multitude of factors which affect brand recognition and performance. We tried to frame this as: “All things being equal, which is more recognizable a logo or a logotype?” However, as you pointed out things are never equal.
Thanks for commenting. I hope you enjoyed the post.
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Hey guys,
One thing that struck me – i think via @edwardboches — was the word BADGE. As we move further and further into a virtual existence, the idea of a badge becomes extremely important as a visual identifier.
The second thing that strikes me is the Dane S.'s comment about naming. Quick story – 15 years ago I worked at The Monster Board – now Monster.com. Jeff [Taylor] held to the belief that the name was what made the site rise above the fray of other career sites coming into being. Monster was unique and unexpected. It didn't get lost as just another job site. Granted – it took marketing, great creative and an awesome Superbowl commercial – but it had an edge for ownership of the space.
His strategy always struck me….mostly because it was pretty simple.
be it market share or share of mind, simple sells!
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
Great post & very well designed!
Let's kick of another issue: do brands need a Sound Logo? Does it increase recall? Does it create and further enrich brand image?
I strongly believe so and results from studies in pschycology and biology (incl. neuroscience) underline this. Even more the combination of a visual logo and a sound logo create higher recall rates than only a visual logo.
For more information: http://www.soundbrandingblog.com
Thx again
Karlheinz Illner
Yes, sometimes. Think Apple, think Intel…
In the UK we call them soundmarks. And, in relation to my earlier posts (Mark & Laura), a soundmark, like a brandmark, is one of many marks that make up a brand experience.
A.
Agreed! Sound is an often over looked opportunity to engage consumers. We wrote a post earlier titled "Brand Sonification" which explores sound’s roll as a brand signal.
http://www.blackcoffee.com/blog/2010/02/15/brand-…
As you pointed out combining a brand mark with another brand signal such as audio creates stronger connections. The goal is to create a multi sensory experience that fully engages consumers with out overwhelming them.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
Mark (and Laura),
In response to your (hidden) reply above.
I appreciate your efforts to integrate a brand-mark-based brand-handling language with your metaphor of Brand Signals but I do have to make a strong objection. Brand Marks and Brand Signals are related but different types of thinking about brands.
A brand-mark is, primarily, a direct reference to any term of an identity, particularly an identity that can also be usefully held as a brand. This means that, firstly, in a brand-mark-based brand-handling language all the terms of a brand are handled as marks in a direct and literal sense. Secondly, handling the terms of a brand as marks offers many benefits including (and beyond) a metaphorical relationship to the marked terms.
Just in case I have to explain the importance of understanding a brand as made up of terms, the terms of a brand determine the experience of a brand. Terms determine conditions and conditions establish environments. Such an 'environment' is the 'space' of a brand and this notion is relevant across all types of space. These 'environments' are formed and configured by determining the terms on which they are constructed. This is not only true of the experience of brands but the experience of any distinct environment. A distinct environment is effectively a distinct identity and a distinct identity is effectively a distinct brand.
Only insofar as the terms of a brand are held as marks is there a correlation to your notion of Brand Signals. The notion of a brand-mark in the sense that I have proposed is far more profound than the Brand Signals metaphor and consequently not limited only to a metaphoric relationship to the terms of a brand. A Brand Signal is clearly a metaphor for the signifiers of a brand but the notion does not seem to offer more than an attractive analogy.
The strength of working with marks is that a mark not only offers a means to handle the terms of a brand but exists a part of a language that is also made up of marks. A language-based system that offers both an as literal and direct as possible means to handle terms (ie. non-metaphorical) as well as enables metaphorical understandings of a brand such as the one you have proposed in Brand Signals.
In thinking about brands as made up of marks, a mark such as a word or image is used to mark a term such as a sound or logo and then as a mark it can be usefully handled both as a mark marking the term and a marked thing handled as a mark. These types of marks are generally of two types but a single mark can exist as both (1) a known tag that has reached social consensus such as a dictionary definition of a word or the generally accepted recognition that Nike's tick means athletic apparel or (2) a cue to other possible interpretations of the marked thing handled as a mark such as a work of art with 'open' readings. Within the second type (ie. a mark as a cue) it also makes sense to talk about the metaphors involved in a brand experience but a mark as a cue is not limited to metaphor alone. Apple is a good example of a brand-mark that works as a tag and a cue. For the sakes of brevity I won't elucidate exactly how. I'll leave you to work into this idea based on what I've written above.
So, if you ever want to get serious about the difference between Brand Signals and Brand Marks this post is a taster of what I mean. And, as I wrote earlier 'simple is relative'. I believe consumers and people who buy brand consulting services have tired of the kind of simple you have suggested is still relevant to contemporary brands.
I believe it's time for a real change in how we handle and understand not only commercial brands but the world in general. I believe a brand-mark-based brand-handling language will make such an ambition possible.
Andrew
@Andrew Saboteur
I-just-want-to-say-that-I-loved-how-cleverly,-clearly,-and-simply,-this-blog-post-conveyed-its-message.-Unfortunately-I-think-your- self-serving-blog-hijacking-comments-are-beginning-to-spoil-the-experience-for-the-rest-of-us.- As-someone-pointed-out-earlier,-if-you-can’t-get-your-point-across-simply,-you’ve-failed-to-make-your-point.-It’s-not-my-place-to-tell-you-where-your-comments-are-best-placed,-but-perhaps-us-fans-of-this-blog-would-appreciate-yours-elsewhere.
Todd,
It clear to me that you have not read my earlier posts properly or followed my reasoning closely, or done any additional research to grasp what I'm writing about.
Granted, I may have over-utilised the opportunity Mark & Laura have provided to say what I have to say but it is only because they have engaged and challenged me that I've gone on to clarify my position. To say that I have hijacked this blog is an overstatement and fits your mocking demeanor.
If Mark and Laura are not prepared to accommodate a discussion with people like me who take issue with branding methodologies they should not attempt to host related discussions. Cooing compliments from peers only fuels the perception that brand consulting is all about shiny packaging.
I have no qualms about my posts and I stand by what I've written. Perhaps on further reflection you'll see how your expression is not an intelligent response, instead what you've written comes across as childish ridicule and makes you look like nothing more than a smart-arse.
I challenge you to take issue with the specifics of what I've written…
Andrew
Andrew,
As Todd pointed out you are hijacking this post to serve your own purposes, by evidence of the opinion section on your own site. You repeatedly make statements such as “you have not read my earlier posts properly or followed my reasoning closely”. Basically, You’ve chosen to preach rather than discuss and for that reason we respectfully ask that you move on.
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
You've changed the topic of the post. You're endlessly explaining a point that you've beaten to death and no one seems to be on board with. In fact, BC indicated that they didn't want to engage in your diatribe.
You're using this blog and others as a platform for your own promotional purposes (see your own Opinion section on your site) not as a tool for discussion.
If you want to delve into semantics, let's call a hijacking a hijacking.
Yet another thought provoking article.
Here's my 2 bob's worth.
I don't think there is any dispute about whether logos are still a great tool for identification and differentiation. I also don't think there is any dispute about whether the brand’s name and logo are core brand signals or whether they are hallmarks of the brand’s identity.
But I'm not sure that logos have so much relevance in the building of the brand today. The way we research and choose brands has changed dramatically since the first logo appeared.
Today I question how much influence the logo has in the decision making process and how relevant it is once a brand engages us and we become a customer. What do we need the logo for then? Then what is key is the emotional, economic and experiential value the product gives that customer and it is the same with all brands.
I think it is probably too early to write the obituary for the logo but I think the writer is sharpening his pencil.
Marcus,
You are correct in stating that “the way we research and choose brands has changed dramatically since the first logo appeared.” But, does that mean that they are becoming irrelevant or does it simply mean that logos are taking a less dominant roll in the brand mix?
I believe logos will remain relevant, so long as they provide consumers with an additional brand signal to help them navigate their way through the marketplace.
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
Logos are still important . With consumers buying being down, brand consulting is more important than ever to grab the consumers attention.