Rules of Logo Design

[Paul Elliott]

Logo design is often left to chance . . . after the business is already in business. This is very unfortunate. It is an essential part of the foundation of any business. It is your "face," so to speak.

At a more subtle level, your logo is part of your "psychogenic" presence. In other words, it prepares the psychological environment of your customers' thinking before they realize they have been manipulated--ethically, of course. :D

In his article on the 45 Rules of Logo Design, Tanner Christensen (http://marketingsuccessblueprint.com/blog/important-rules-of-logo-design/), without specifically saying so, illustrates the essences of the psychological effect logo design has on the psychology of the consumer.

Keeping in mind that 95% of a person's purchasing decision occurs at the subliminal or subconscious layer of his or her thinking, it only makes sense to focus on those elements first and foremost. Too often, we do things the other way around and fail rather significantly to consider the psychological mindset of our target customers.

Paul

[Blessed]

In all the logo work I've done it amazes me how many people have no idea of what they want their logo to be before we get started... and the ones that get frustrated when I start trying to find out what their vision for the company is, what colors attract them, what types of fonts they like to use and etc... are a lost cause from the get-go and their businesses usually struggle too.

And then there are the people who want a logo before they decide on a name and a business focus for their company...

Thanks for posting the article - it looks like an interesting read!

[cbscreative]

Good list, Paul. Being an experienced logo designer, I definitely had to chuckle a few of these knowing how often they get violated. I think small business owners are probably the most prone to under value the importance of a logo. The other extreme is trying to do too much with it, or over complicating it.

I was reminded recently when I redesigned my own logo that it is hard to be objective with your own design. I started out making some of the same mistakes I help clients avoid. Fortunately, I had some great feedback during the design process that helped snap be back to reality. I advise against any business owner designing their own logo. In fact, that one should be #46 on the list. Even us designers have trouble designing for ourselves.

[KristineS]

Number 18 and number 35 are so key. You have to consider all the ways the logo will be used. I inherited a logo for one of our companies, and it is an absolute bear to use on a web site. When it was designed, no one every considered that it might be used online.

Make sure you consider every possible way your logo might be used, and what the requirements for looking good in each environment are.

[Burn Creative]

There are some good rules there but others are a bit iffy.


"16. Fit the logo into a square layout if possible, avoid obscure layouts."
That shouldn't be a rule. A logo can be any shape or layout that works. That same rule is contradicted in rule 5. "5. Create a unique shape or layout for the logo"

[cbscreative]

Looks like you found the new hangout, BC, welcome aboard.

[Remipub]

That article brings up some great points. One thing I would add to the list is:

"Use a professional designer with logo experience to design your logo."

Although I do disagree with some of the points. In fact some of the most recognizable logos from highly successful companies break several of those rules - and I'd venture to say without negative effect.

For example: #22 - The logo must have some connection to what it is representing."

Look at virtually all of the most notable companies around the world - how many of their logos have some connection to what they represent? Hardly any. I'll never have a problem recognizing a Mercedes even though their logo tells me nothing about the fact that they make luxury cars. And don't use swoosh or globe symbols? Has anyone here ever heard of Nike or AT&T?? :cool:

[KristineS]

And don't use swoosh or globe symbols? Has anyone here ever heard of Nike or AT&T?? :cool:

I think those examples may be why the article is recommending that other people don't use those graphics. The swoosh and the globe are so identified with a particular company that it could be distracting if they were used in another company's logo.

That's how I understood it anyway.

[cbscreative]

That's exactly the point I would make, Kristine. As far as swooshes, it seems like almost every company out there was using swooshes in the 90's. It got to the point where I was ready to gag every time I saw a new swoosh logo. Even now, I still have a strong dislike for them because they were so over used.

[Burn Creative]

Looks like you found the new hangout, BC, welcome aboard.

Yeah, I saw a post someone in the other forum where someone mentioned this one and I had to check it out. Seems to be a lot more active.

[Burn Creative]

Ah, the swoosh logo. Nike has a swoosh but they've had theirs for over 30 years and honestly it's probably the only good swoosh logo.

cbscreative is right about the swoosh in the mid 90's or so. It seems like it was directly tied to the quick rise in popularity of the internet back then. Just about very website and business had the "orbital swoosh" logo. It's such a meaningless shape. People throw it in there just to have it in a logo for no reason at all. I have successfully managed to not do any swoosh logos but not by much. I've had more than a few clients that I've had to fight almost to the death to talk them out of their great idea of using a swoosh.

It's not just small businesses that are still holding on to the swoosh bandwagon for dear life. Even now I still see major companies that are using the offending shape. I just wonder how it still goes on.

> > >> Logo Hell << < < (http://lekowicz.com/library/logohell/logohell.html)

[Remipub]

I think those examples may be why the article is recommending that other people don't use those graphics. The swoosh and the globe are so identified with a particular company that it could be distracting if they were used in another company's logo.

Ok, when you look at it that way it makes perfect sense. True you can only do a swoosh so many ways and still have it look unique. I’m curious though – is the consensus that a swoosh design is aesthetically unappealing, or is it just about the fact that it’s already been done by Nike? I don’t pretend to be a logo designer, but it seems to me like a brilliant logo in its simplicity and ability to create brand recognition.

[cbscreative]

Remi, the first couple times a swoosh was used was fine, I don't think it's unappealing. I think Nike is fine with it since they used it effectively and it was unique when they implemented it (they got it done cheap by a college student if I recall correctly). It definitely was over done when so many swooshes came out in the 90's.

I haven't seen the Logo Hell site in a while but it's still funny. One of the logos featured there is Ameritech. This could possibly even support our case for why you shouldn't use a swoosh. Ameritech redesigned their logo with that swoosh. They later got bought out by SBC who had a swoosh. SBC is no longer either because they got bought out by AT&T who use the globe. I guess you're better off with a globe because swooshy companies tend to get swooshed into oblivion.

[lav]

There are a lot of those rules that I break frequently. A lot of those rules used to apply so that it was cost effective to reproduce the logo. With technology these days it is very easy and just as cost effective to produce even full color logos. I personally like No.33

Everyone should like the logo design, not just the business that will use it. Everyone??? good luck...

[cbscreative]

I'm going to disagree with lav on full color. Yes, the technology makes it less of an issue for most uses, but the rule still applies. Full color logos could turn into an unreadable mess on a fax or photocopy. Many businesses would want to embroider their logo on something. Good luck with gradients and many other color effects when doing embroidery. I think embroidery is one of the most overlooked aspects for many logo designers. Computer cut vehicle graphics can be a problem too with some of the things I have seen being sold as logo design.

I probably read more into your point than you intended, but I thought these variables should be pointed out.

[Ad-Vice_Man]

On the other hand look at Target... there logo.... two concentric circles that thusly create....a BIG TARGET!

Very easily identifyable.

[Ad-Vice_Man]

Taking a look around my desk. I see a logo for a vendor that has a double swoosh (that thusly forms an S) and.... wait for it has a globe sitting on top of the Horizontal portion of the S.

oh and it has gradients.

Beautiful!

[Vivid Color Zack]

Adding to Remi's point about using an outside designer...

Critiquing your own work is almost always biased. Critiquing your business partners work is the same way, and like they said in the article make sure more than 2 or 3 people like it. Your family and close friends are most likely going to be on your side already, so an unbiased opinion, even when they're trying to be honest, is often hard to get.

A professional designer is going to come in (most likely) with something new. And when you've been around for a few years and finally decided to get serious about your logo, you're probably going to stick with something similar to what you've been doing all along. That outside opinion is probably going tobe something you would have never though of, possibly something great.

Most designers will give you 3 or 4 concepts with a few revisions for a set price of around 200-400 bucks. Really that's a small investment thats going to give your business a face, possibly a permanent one. You might as well love it right?

Also keep in mind that none of us (aside from the designers on here obviously) are as good at design as we think we are. I know I'm not, and I work around design every day. Lucky for me I don't have to come up with anything creative anymore, I just tell our designers "make it awesome" "make it look like a lawyer would use it" "needs more cowbell" etc.

[lav]

Computer cut vehicle graphics can be a problem too with some of the things I have seen being sold as logo design.I think the sign shop you are using could be a little behind the times as it is very easy to print the vehicle signage. I run a sign shop and have absolutely no problems with full colour logos in fact I would prefer to print them as opposed to cutting them. The only sign companies who will tell you that vinyl cut lettering is better are those who either dont have the equipment to print it or those who struggle with the technology. Same with the embroidery. the guy who does our embroidery can produce amazing full colour stuff.


could turn into an unreadable mess on a fax or photocopyThe photocopier I am sitting next to has had no problem reproducing any of the logos I have created. depends on how good your designer is I suppose as to how well it will fax.

Hope I havent started a big debate. :)

[Paul Elliott]

That article brings up some great points. One thing I would add to the list is:

"Use a professional designer with logo experience to design your logo."

The professional logo designer is very important. Graphic designers often make the logo too busy, to intricate, contain too many colors, etc., that one has to shoot the designer to get the design. :(

Paul

[Paul Elliott]

The photocopier I am sitting next to has had no problem reproducing any of the logos I have created. depends on how good your designer is I suppose as to how well it will fax.

Hope I havent started a big debate. :)

I have asked that clients have a black & white logo design produced for easy recognizability in B&W materials and faxes.

Paul

[cbscreative]

I won't doubt your abilities, lav, I've seen your work and it's good. Since you produce signs, you would be qualified more than most. As a general rule though, designers can easily get into trouble with color.

Several years ago, a local radio station here had a new logo and one of the colors was neon pink because it was trendy at the time. I just shook my head because one thing every radio station uses is bumper stickers. That neon pink looked horrible after about 4 months because neon color inks are not made for long term outdoor use. As far as I know, that has not changed. Unless there are some serious advancements recently, some of the printed colors used for vehicle graphics could fade fast too. At least the computer cut have the color all the way through the vinyl so they age gracefully. I'd be interested in seeing the test results for colors like reds and yellows, printed only on the surface, after a few years of solar exposure.

I am curious about your statement on embroidery. I have not been near an embroidery machine since about 2001. Can they now do gradients? Do they still digitize artwork, or has there been a change where that is no longer needed? If so, how widespread is the use of the new technology?

[Jagella]

Logo design is often left to chance . . . after the business is already in business. This is very unfortunate. It is an essential part of the foundation of any business. It is your "face," so to speak.

Thanks for the logo-design rules, Paul. Perhaps coincidentally, I'm busy studying logo design, and articles like yours are very helpful.

What do you mean by a “swoosh” symbol, and why should they be avoided?

Why avoid clip art? Is there a danger of using the same clip art that is already being used in another logo?

Finally, how did you come up with these 45 rules, and why are you sure that they're right?

Thanks!

Jagella

[Jagella]

I'll never have a problem recognizing a Mercedes even though their logo tells me nothing about the fact that they make luxury cars. And don't use swoosh or globe symbols? Has anyone here ever heard of Nike or AT&T??

I believe the Mercedes logo resembles a steering wheel, although it may not have been meant to do so. The AT&T logo only vaguely resembles a globe.

Jagella

[Jagella]

I’m curious though – is the consensus that a swoosh design is aesthetically unappealing, or is it just about the fact that it’s already been done by Nike?

I don't see any aesthetic problems with a “swoosh,” and I'll need to dissent with popular opinion here a bit in saying that it might still be an effective symbol in a logo. The trick is to make it look distinctive and say what you want it to.

Jagella

[Jagella]

The professional logo designer is very important. Graphic designers often make the logo too busy, to intricate, contain too many colors, etc.

The basic principle here is to make the logo say a lot with a little?

Jagella

[vangogh]

I'd say at this point a 'swoosh' would be building Nike's brand and not yours.

[Paul Elliott]

What do you mean by a “swoosh” symbol, and why should they be avoided?

Nike's swoosh symbol. Nike has very effectively branded it. As vangogh pointed out, you'd be building Nike's brand more than yours.


Why avoid clip art? Is there a danger of using the same clip art that is already being used in another logo?

It's often used by so many other people that it fails at any originality.


Finally, how did you come up with these 45 rules, and why are you sure that they're right?

Notice I credited the author, Tanner Christensen. Personally I think some of them are a little redundant and others may be picking nits. Overall, however, they force us to think and consider elements that are frequently overlooked or violated sometimes even by professional logo designers.

Why am I so focused on logos? One of my interests is the "psychomotor aspects of visual perception." IOW, when we see something on a monitor screen or on the printed page, what do our eyes do and why. I want to understand eye tracking and how to seize and direct it to my client's benefit with his or her customers. The logo is an important element in that process.

Paul

[Paul Elliott]

The basic principle here is to make the logo say a lot with a little?

IMO, a poor one is the old Anheuser-Busch logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anheuser_Busch) with the bald eagle with his wings intertwined in the stylized "A" and who knows what in his talons. It is too intricate. It calls attention to itself--not good IMO.

Another one that is too ornate is Cracker Barrel <http://www.crackerbarrel.com/>. However, since we usually see it on the highway signage, it's just a yellow blob with some brown stuff on it.

A logo should be simple and quickly recognizable so that it briefly imbeds in the subconscious and anchors the eye tracking.

Anheuser-Busch's newer logo (http://www.anheuser-busch.com/) is better, though still a little too ornate, I believe.

Good ones from my perspective? IBM, McDonalds, AT&T, and similar ones.

Paul

[Jagella]

I'd say at this point a 'swoosh' would be building Nike's brand and not yours.

Do you think swooshes are completely out of the question, Steve, or might they still be used effectively if they're distinctive enough like I opined above?

Jagella

[Jagella]

IMO, a poor one is the old Anheuser-Busch logo with the bald eagle with his wings intertwined in the stylized "A" and who knows what in his talons. It is too intricate. It calls attention to itself--not good IMO.

Another one that is too ornate is Cracker Barrel <http://www.crackerbarrel.com/>. However, since we usually see it on the highway signage, it's just a yellow blob with some brown stuff on it.

Logos like these are not likely to scale well. If they're small, all that detail will be lost. Agree? Disagree?

Jagella

[cbscreative]

Fortunately for Anheuser-Busch, their true followers don't care what the logo looks like. And after consuming enough product, they wouldn't be able to see any of the details, or they'll see two of everything.

Cracker Barrel seems to work very well within their marketing plan. That sign is always seen from a freeway, always very large, and certainly recognizable. It wouldn't work for everyone, but I think it works very well for them.

I will stick with my opinion that a swoosh should be avoided. It was so over used that it fails to impress and would be very difficult to be unique using a swoosh. Clip art would also have serious issues with uniqueness, which defeats the purpose of a logo.

[Jagella]

Fortunately for Anheuser-Busch, their true followers don't care what the logo looks like. And after consuming enough product, they wouldn't be able to see any of the details, or they'll see two of everything.

Such factors should always be considered when designing logos.

Seriously, the Anheuser-Busch logo, I assume, was developed long ago. Older logos tended to be more complex than they are today. I believe this is a stage in the evolution of logo design, rooted in fine art, in which the roots are being left behind. Logos, obviously, have a different purpose than works of fine art. Logos are meant to be memorable and recognizable rather than beautiful like fine works of art. Hence, the more modern logos tend to be simpler than older logos.


I will stick with my opinion that a swoosh should be avoided. It was so over used that it fails to impress and would be very difficult to be unique using a swoosh. Clip art would also have serious issues with uniqueness, which defeats the purpose of a logo.

What would you do if a client insisted on a swoosh?

Jagella

[vangogh]

If a client insisted on a 'swoosh' I'd do what I could to convince them why it's not a good idea. I'd point out that it's so associated with Nike and all we've been saying here. If they keep insisting I'll continue to try to convince them for a time and then let them make the call. It's the client's logo and the client gets the final decision.

Then if the 'swoosh' ends up being part of the logo I might skip adding it to my portfolio.

Ultimately the client gets the final decision. As designers it's part of our job to explain the pros and cons of different design options. It's not our job to force clients to do what we want them to do.

[Ad-Vice_Man]

Ultimately the client gets the final decision. As designers it's part of our job to explain the pros and cons of different design options. It's not our job to force clients to do what we want them to do.

There's a saying in the advertising industry... Good Clients make Good Agencies.

I've found over the years that some of the best advertising results come from companies that yield to the professional opinion of their ad creatives.

Think of Got Milk? I bet you a thousand to one at some point some executive said "it's to simple make it more persuasive" thankfully for them and the agency that created it (and leveraged it into fame) that executive was shouted down.

[vangogh]

True. There's a reason designers became designers and there's a reason clients come to us. You may very well be right about the got milk? slogan too. But I doubt the agency forced it on the client. You really can't. The client just says thanks, but you're fired. Assuming the client wanted something more the agency probably used their power of persuasion to get the client to use what turned out to be a great slogan.

That's what I'm saying designers should do. Do what you can to convince the client, but also understand it's the client's business and not yours. You can't force anything on them. Convince and persuade, but don't force.

On the flip side I've had clients make suggestions to me that I didn't like at first. Then I tried them and they turned out to be much better than I though. Clients have good ideas too.

[Blessed]

That's what I'm saying designers should do. Do what you can to convince the client, but also understand it's the client's business and not yours. You can't force anything on them. Convince and persuade, but don't force.

Exactly... good designers have to learn to be persuasive... otherwise their clients wind up with second-rate designs and are unhappy and find another designer.


On the flip side I've had clients make suggestions to me that I didn't like at first. Then I tried them and they turned out to be much better than I though. Clients have good ideas too.

This is something else I've found to be very true - I don't have all the answers and all the good ideas and I know it so if a client says I want yada, yada, yada and I don't think it will work I've learned to do it anyway... along with some of my own ideas and sometimes the client's idea really does work out better than I had envisioned before I started working.

[cbscreative]

I will third vangogh's point about client ideas working out very well, and sometimes unexpectedly. That's what makes the process so much fun. An artist is much better off when they welcome all input and consider it carefully. Guide where you need to, be the expert, but recognize you don't know everything. I do, but not everyone has that gift. :D

[Ad-Vice_Man]

True. There's a reason designers became designers and there's a reason clients come to us. You may very well be right about the got milk? slogan too. But I doubt the agency forced it on the client.


My point was that the agency was good (the product was good) because the client allowed the agency to do good work.

In my speculative example that executive was shouted down internally... not by the agency.

[vangogh]

Oh I agree. When you hire someone to write your copy or design marketing materials you're generally doing so because you think that person or company is an expert in what they do. So why not trust them.

I don't mind clients who make suggestions. Clients often have good suggestions. Sometimes I do wish a few would trust me more when I make suggestions.

[Remipub]

Playing devils advocate here... back to the swoosh concept and how it's more or less "owned" by Nike. Depending on the product, it may prove to be beneficial mimicking the Nike logo (so long as they don't violate trademarks). If a company can subconsciously create an association with the popular brand, it could create a sense of confidence with consumers. This wouldn't help build a brand, but it may help build sales ... the latter being the higher priority when it comes down to it.

Generic products who's packaging is very similar to national brands comes to mind.

[vangogh]

Interesting idea. Using the swoosh as a way to piggyback on Nike's success. I think it can be done. Not with a swoosh directly, but with a logo that reminded one of Nike while still being unique. You'd probably be able to increase sales on a product.

However long term you're better off building your own brand. The piggybacking wouldn't last forever and long term people might not know your brand at all because you've never really built one.

[cbscreative]

Remi, I think your point actually reinforces uniqueness as much or more than it does the value of a mimic. Although the strategy to try and capture market by trying to associate a brand through piggybacking has been used, I don't know that it's really successful. The fact that the piggybackers seem to quickly disappear suggests that it fails.

Let's take your bargain brand example. I am old enough to remember when bargain brands were very dismal, even arratic, in their packaging and logo designs. That no longer seems to be the case for most. The successful ones have realized the value of recognizability and uniformity with their "brand" so it is easily identified on the shelf. Even though they are appealing to the price shopper, they still have a more respectable looking design.

[vangogh]

Yeah, I think the problem with piggybacking off a brand is you're never really building your own. Building a brand is probably the most important thing you can do as a business. If you're trying to piggyback off the success of another you first become reliant on that company. I doubt Nike is going to significantly change any time soon, but say someone discovered all their sneakers caused back problems and their brand suffered. So would yours.

You'd also need to sell a similar product. If you sold office supplies it's unlikely you'd be able to piggyback on their brand anyway. And if you do sell a similar product then people who may actually want your product will probably end up buying from Nike. They see the swoosh, think Nike, go to the store to by Nike, and come home with Nike, even though it was really your product they were originally looking for.

That's the issue. If you're hoping to gain by an association with Nike, what's more likely to happen is Nike gains customers that would have been yours.

[Paul Elliott]

Logos like these are not likely to scale well. If they're small, all that detail will be lost. Agree? Disagree?

Jagella

You're right, Joe. Which is another reason I believe they are less than ideal as logos.

Paul

[Paul Elliott]

Seriously, the Anheuser-Busch logo, I assume, was developed long ago. Older logos tended to be more complex than they are today. I believe this is a stage in the evolution of logo design, rooted in fine art, in which the roots are being left behind.

That's right, Joe. It comes from the middle of the 19th century. I'm sure they are keeping it because it harkens back to their length of time in business.


What would you do if a client insisted on a swoosh?

YOU do what the CLIENT wants! If he or she insists on something, DO IT! If you do anything else, he or she will be very unlikely to like it no matter how good a job you have done. Of course, this assumes you have adroitly and diplomatically offered some other solution/s that have been rejected.

Paul

[Just H]

Several years ago, a local radio station here had a new logo and one of the colors was neon pink because it was trendy at the time. I just shook my head because one thing every radio station uses is bumper stickers. That neon pink looked horrible after about 4 months because neon color inks are not made for long term outdoor use.Coming in a little late here but wanted to comment on a couple things. I think this point from SteveB is a very good one. It's easy to get so focused on the part that we do that we forget about the long-term effects or how the quality will perform in an environment that we don't know as well - like neon colors in the sun. Perhaps it's mostly on the design end (that the look is much more focused on) as I've done lots of promotional items besides the traditional print marketing and I'd hope that the company that prints these (stress ball, screwdriver kit, coffee travel mugs, etc) would be paying some attention to how these hold up. Sadly tho, I've worked for one and I know for a fact there was never any mention of this. And as a company, it was by the far the worst I'd ever worked for, the way it treated it's employees, the pay, the environment. This was Hit Promotional Products in FL. Their biggest client is 4imprint.

As far as the swoosh, the actual Nike one is one-of-a-kind. All the variations on swishes, ellipticals, orbs, circles, etc to me just states the HUGE number of companies and search for their own logo. All these parts or the wholes of circles represent "the whole", "well-rounded", a global or "meeting all ends" approach which goes way back in time and spiritually it's a very sacred and meaningful symbol. Now hard telling whether all these companies research and try to find what their biz is and does and what it should represent, but ??? A big bright yellow M - does that mean big lard-filled Meal? Yeah, pretty much. Is that what they are going for? I doubt it. Could someone else also say: "Yellow is the color of healing and happiness - we're giving the low-cost version"? Sure. And they start to call them golden arches - what does that makes us think of?

Seems to me basically it comes down to finding something simple and knowing how to market it. And having a successful business behind it is really the most essential part that makes marketing the name worthwhile.

[vangogh]

A big bright yellow M - does that mean big lard-filled Meal? Yeah, pretty much.

Yep. Theoretically someone could use a big yellow M and build such a strong brand that the M becomes synonymous with the new company instead of McDonalds, but realistically that's not going to happen. We're all so conditioned to think McDonalds when we see the big yellow M that it would take a lot of work to change that association.

Taking it back to the swoosh it's the same issue. Sure you could use a swoosh, but the amount of effort and money it's going to take to associate it with your brand instead of Nike is going to be huge. You're much better off finding a different logo.

[Paul Elliott]

Yep. Theoretically someone could use a big yellow M and build such a strong brand that the M becomes synonymous with the new company instead of McDonalds, but realistically that's not going to happen. We're all so conditioned to think McDonalds when we see the big yellow M that it would take a lot of work to change that association.

Taking it back to the swoosh it's the same issue. Sure you could use a swoosh, but the amount of effort and money it's going to take to associate it with your brand instead of Nike is going to be huge. You're much better off finding a different logo.

I'm sure before you had gotten much recognition under either logo (or similar incarnation) you'd show up on McDonalds' or Nike's radar screens and would be in a passle of legal problems for copyright infringement. Even though they may know they wouldn't prevail in the longrun, they would be determined to make you pay A LOT in legal fees.

It would benefit them, too, to send the message that they intended to protect their brand.

Paul

[vangogh]

True. I'm sure there are ways to use a similar logo without incurring legal issues, but still it's probably not worth the hassle and adds to the argument that you're better off coming up with something else for your logo.

[Paul Elliott]

True. I'm sure there are ways to use a similar logo without incurring legal issues, but still it's probably not worth the hassle and adds to the argument that you're better off coming up with something else for your logo.

Good summary, VG.

Paul

[Remipub]

Let's keep in mind that for a logo to gain the recognizability of all the national brands we know and love (ahem), it takes many years and many, many millions of dollars. Even on a local level, those who are readily recognized are typically those who have HUGE advertising budgets and have been in the community for a very long time.

I do agree that a unique logo is preferable in most cases, but I also think it depends on the business model. If a company doesn't want to invest the big bucks into brand building, a copy cat logo may be a good way to go. Again, I'm not condoning this model, but I'm not opposed to it either. One of the benefits too is that a logo can be changed to meet the changing tides of public perception. Since there is no investment in branding, the only "cost" is that of changing the physical image. I don't know this for a fact, but I'm willing to bet that generic brands are often as, or more profitable than their name brand counterparts because the overhead is considerably lower.

[cbscreative]

Remi, I am going to be forced to disagree based on my experiences. First, I don't think a copycat logo is ever beneficial, and a unique, recognizable logo always pays off unless you are running a shoddy operation. With my first business, I had a very unique logo even though my advertising budget was not all that big. Being the latter half of the 80's, I did phone book advertising (it was a sign company). When I would go out selling to seek out more business, I had many, many times where the prospect, when they saw my card with the logo, they would comment, "Yeah, I've seen your ads."

So a big budget is not the key, becoming known in your target market is. A good logo is an asset to the process.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again anyway. The people who believe a logo is not that important are the ones who don't have one. I've never known anyone to make the investment in a good logo and regret it.

[vangogh]

Remi I disagree too. I know most people think it takes money to build a brand, but I don't. Money can help increase the reach of your brand and yes if you want to be as well known as Nike or McDonalds you're going to need to spend money.

The more important aspect of brand to me is the associations people have with your company. It's the consistency of your message beyond the marketing slogans. You don't need money for that.

Take this forum. We're still a small community as far as forums go and certainly a small community as far as the world goes. Yet each of us has a brand within the community. Pick any member here and you'll likely have some thoughts about them. Some you like and some maybe not. You have positive and negative associations with the people here. Some people here you would hire if you needed their services and some you wouldn't. That's all branding.

You can build a brand in front of a small community without spending much. If you do it well you'll grow a business and you can then reinvest some money into expanding the reach of your brand to other communities.

[Remipub]

Good debate we have going! :)

First of all, let me emphasize that I would not recommend a copy cat logo, or no individual business identity. At the same time I do believe there are certain models where it can and does work.

I'll use an example ... several years ago my (now ex) wife was at the grocery store buying shampoo among other things. The name brands and generics shared the same shelf. I had a certain brand that I kind of preferred, but when it comes to hair care I'm hardly picky. But still, she was going to buy that brand, however grabbed the generic copy because the bottle was the same shape, the logo design and colors were very similar and the name was a dirivitive of the name brand. When she grabbed it, she didn't even realize she picked the generic over the name brand. Being that I'm in the printing business I tend to notice even slight variations so I recognized right away that it wasn't the name brand. That didn't stop me from using it ... and when it was gone, she bought the same kind because it seemed to work the same as far as I was concerned. That generic provider made a sale because it emulated a name brand. It benefited from the big money spent by the name brand in creating a look and marketing it.

Of course not every product can get away with this type of thing - and much less a service oriented business. But I'm going to stand firm on the notion that in some instances, that business model can and does work. That's not to say I'd want to go that route, nor would I recommend it - but I'm sure those companies who choose that route do just fine. The proliferation of generic products is evidence of that.

(For the record - no, she isn't an "ex" just because she bought the wrong shampoo!)

[vangogh]

I can understand what you're saying. It's piggybacking on another brand. I'd suggest that it's generally going to have short term benefits, but not long term benefits. It may work for a generic, because they aren't trying to build their own brand. In fact their branding message is probably we're as good as the big names on the shelf, but only half the price.

Would that work for your typical small business? I doubt it. Could you get by with a similar message that you're as good as say Kinkos, but only half the price? Most of us aren't going to compete on price and building our own brand will have greater long term success than trying to piggy back off the brand of another business.

It's also possible than sometime int he future your wife might grab the brand version the same way she grabbed the generic too. And it's very possible many other people picked up the brand when they meant to buy the generic too.

[cbscreative]

Although difficult to measure, your shampoo example may produce consumer hostility. I tend to be picky about some things I buy. If I accidently get the wrong one, which has happened, I get very annoyed and feel cheated. Anyone who engages in the practice of "tricking" consumers obviously doesn't care about my annoyance, but I have to believe it can easily backfire.

[vangogh]

Steve I was thinking similar to you. Sure maybe the similar packaging led to a sale, but the opposite could also be true in people accidentally buying the brand. And while in this case buying the generic turned out fine it could cause hostile feelings in other people.

Also of note is that the brand and the generic actually could have been the same company. Many brands have products for different markets so it's always possible the generic was really the brand name offering a product to compete with the other generics on the shelf. And the reason for the similar packaging was they were piggy backing on their own brand.