(Note: Sitegeist is a regular blog focused on issues related to design and marketing and is written by David Hitt, a principal at Splat Productions.)
The great thing about the blogosphere is that, despite the common perception that everything web-related is ephemeral, blog articles actually live for what seems like a relative eternity. Because of the catalog-oriented nature of blogs, a simple reference to an article someone wrote two years ago can instantly resuscitate an idea or discussion.
This happened to me this morning while I was reading a Twitter feed... I came across a blog post written by Jay Ehret from The Marketing Spot. He was talking about a recent facelift he gave his business and was talking about the development of his new logo. He then referenced this blog post he had earlier written, about the relative unimportance of logos for new brands. Having just written an article for the Philadelphia Ad Club about ugly brands, my curiosity was aroused.
Jay's earlier post begins: "I hate to be the one to break the news, but the importance of logos in branding is overblown. Don't get me wrong, they have their use...somewhat. But when it comes to branding, logos have nothing to do with the establishment of your brand. If you're about to spend some money having a logo designed, you may want to wait."
He then goes on to illustrate a number of well known logos -- Coca Cola, Starbucks, Microsoft, Wal Mart & McDonalds -- and asserts that, essentially, their logos do little to maintain or acknowledge the brands they are paired with. Really, he notes, most logos have little meaning and are only important "after you establish your brand."
He has a point. Certainly the marketing landscape is clogged with big name brands featuring visual slop for identity. (I wrote about those in a previous post...)
But that doesn't mean visual identity isn't important or doesn't play a role in the way your business is perceived by your clients or consumers. In my previous post, I used Google as an example of a business that paid a price for the sloppiness of its visual identity. When I saw the Google homepage for the first time I remember thinking it looked, well, pretty amateurish. I get spareness but, frankly, the designers of that UI looked like they just didn't really care what it looked like. Which, as their customer is, for me, somewhat insulting. (I applaud the simplicity and functionality, though. Functionality and attractive design, though, are not mutually exclusive. ) The brand succeeded in spite of its amateurish mark and look. Imagine if its founders had spent only a few thousand bucks paying a competent design firm to create a memorable mark and finessed their UI a bit.
Which brings me to my last point...
Jay makes the reasonable observation that logos are only important "after you establish your brand." But, if I'm starting a small business, wouldn't my money be better spent if I allocate a small amount of it upfront to get a visual identity for my brand that I don't feel like I have to retroactively fix two years down the road?
In the end, getting it right the first time might be less costly than fixing something at a later time.
Posts
2 comments:
Hey David, thanks for referencing my post and extending the conversation.
To answer your question: Yes, it would be better, but not critical, to spend a little money up front on your visual identity. But I believe only after a business has established it's brand foundation and identity. That means having a clearly defined brand promise (commitment contract with the customer) and brand personality that that customers can describe (cool, fresh, innovative, friendly). I also think a busines should have a good tagline before getting a logo, because the tagline should fit visually with the logo. Having those elements in place, go for the logo! You'll have one that really visually represents your brand identity.
Hey Jay --
I really appreciate your input and, after reading a lot of your blog entries must say that you're a thoughtful guy and I've learned much from reading your blog posts and tweets.
On this particular point I think there seems to be "degree of disagreement" and probably not fundamental disagreement. Taglines, brand promises and personality are all integral but I'd suggest that the mark is all part and parcel of that mix. Ultimately, it too can be pretty important. Take Apple, for instance, a brand that immediately comes to mind in your characterization of one which relies on "coolness, freshness, innovation" and "friendliness." Now, imagine if that little Apple icon were an ornately illustrated line drawing from the Victorian era. It just wouldn't fit, would it? Apple is about marrying the modernity with simplicity and its visual identity clearly reinforces those notions.
I think I'm conceding that a company's mark is not always critical but, for all brands, so we certainly agree on that point. The other point I was trying to make wass that, for a small business owner, spending a few bucks upfront for an integrated identity package, including not only visual identity but naming and tagline development as well, often saves them having to correct initial sloppiness down the road.
I'm glad folks like yourself are out there actively writing and informing a larger, ongoing conversation. Keep writing and I'll keep reading. I appreciate your remarks!
Post a Comment