Think twice before “evolving” your logo
By Rob Meyerson, RiechesBaird
Bill Marsh’s article in The New York Times a few days ago pointed out that a number of companies have recently redesigned their corporate logos, replacing “emblems of distant behemoths” with updates that are “non-threatening, reassuring, playful, even child-like.” The article includes a nice Flash click-through showing before and after logos. Marsh’s assessment is that these redesigns are aimed at addressing “the economy, environment, image repair,” and that while logos are meant to be differentiating, “there are striking similarities among recent redesigns.”
He’s right to point out the similarities, but the trend he’s seeing—which includes lowercase lettering, “softer” fonts, and lightened colors—began well before the recession. I first noticed it in 2005, while at Interbrand during the design of the new AT&T logo. Shortly after it launched, it seemed, Chevron and Allstate made very similar changes to their logos, incorporating lighter colors, rounder type, and highlights and shading that give the logos a 3D feel.
So while not all of these changes are reactions to the current economy, they do raise some awkward questions about logo design. I turned to Michael Dula, RiechesBaird’s resident logo guru, for some answers.
Should companies change their logos as a reaction to current events—changes in the economy, an increase in popular environmentalism, or even their own PR blunders?
Dula: For the most part, probably not. The logo should be a reflection of what the company stands for—what it does and why it matters. Decisions to modify a logo should err on the side of over-conservatism, not trigger-happy desires to replicate passing trends. That said, companies do change, and innovative companies find ways to maintain relevance by matching their products and solutions to new customer realities. If a company has made a significant change of this sort, it makes more sense to reflect it visually through the logo and other elements of the visual identity.
But certainly logos should eventually be refreshed simply to reflect updated design trends. If so, how often?
Dula: This is a much more difficult question to answer. Plenty of age-old brands have updated their logos repeatedly through the decades, presumably for no other reason than to stay somewhat current. It’s tough to fault Apple, for example, for updating their rainbow-colored logo to the more recent, trendier version. Then again, other successful companies, like Canon, have chosen to leave their logos unchanged for almost half a century.
Lastly, I noticed that most of the companies in Marsh’s article are consumer brands (with the exception of Sysco, which does enjoy some consumer awareness). Does logo design—or these trends in design—matter for B2B companies?
Dula: To begin with, a lot of B2B companies make the mistake of assuming that their logo doesn’t matter at all, and end up with formulaic or tired signatures. First and foremost, a powerful and consistent identity is critically important for any company that wants to establish a leader position—no matter what industry, it’s the most immediate point of reference. The logo signature is the fulcrum of any identity program. It triggers associations and memories, and, over time, perceptions are attached to the logo. For these reasons, B2B brands should abide by many of the same rules as consumer brands.
Changing the logo for change’s sake, to follow a trend, or just to try to appear more relevant without actually backing it up with action—that’s never a good idea. A logo will not magically transform a business. However, if the company has changed and the logo no longer conveys the essence of the company, it’s most likely time for an update.
I often think of something Paul Rand said along the lines of “good design is good for business.” In my mind, this statement could just as well be “good design is good for B2B.”
Before redesigning a logo to make it more “recession-friendly,” or for any other reason, I’d start by asking whether the idea behind your existing mark is still relevant to your customers and whether the change in message (”we’re green” or “we’re friendly and approachable”) is credible coming from your organization. Secondly, think carefully about what’s potentially lost if the change is significant—big design changes will often be interpreted as a message saying “something’s changed.” If it hasn’t, the redesign may be perceived as insincere. Lastly, as both Bill Marsh and Michael Dula point out, one of the main goals for any logo should be to differentiate from competition. Put another way, avoid trying so hard to catch up to the pack that you fail to stand out from the crowd.
Related posts:
- B2B Brand Debate Topic — Brand Council
- B2B Brand Debate Topic — Category Definition
- Walk Softly And Carry A Big Brand: Part 2
Stephen Byrne on 04 Jun 2009 at 6:12 pm #
I saw the article, too. I think most of this work is reactionary and is not attached to any change in strategy. I have no problems with ever evolving logos..even Coke does this, as you know, as long as it’s strategically led. Consequently, I do have a problem with the dumbing down of great work (Pepsi), poor design and badly implemented CID programs (so many!). For the most, I think the work that was shown pretty well reflects institutional thinking and subsquent institutional brand work by agencies (like Interbrand, Landor et al) who seem incapable of any other kind of response. I didn’t see much in this work that was very engaging nor made think differently about the brands represented. So I’m probably right in thinking this work was design led, rather than strategic.
non-stop seeker debators on 29 Jul 2010 at 2:08 am #
must have a clear photo and a tag name?