who needs a logo anyway
Out of context: Reply #18
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- gramme0
People act like the market is being flooded with new ideas, i.e. social brand platforms. In reality, I think perhaps companies are getting back to ethical business basics: provide a product or service which is actually useful, rather than shellacking a shitty product or service with glossy brand campaigns.
As others here have said, of course a logo is not a brand. In Marty Neumeier's words, a brand is who *they* [your audience] say you are. A logo is only useful to a company if they have something valuable to offer. A logo should be designed with care well for two reasons. First, if quality is an attribute one wishes to convey, then an appropriate, practical, attractive, and consistently executed identity is indeed still valuable. If your products are good, and your image is shitty, you come across as inconsistent. Granted, this isn't as bad as having a shitty product with a beautiful image. See BP for a reference. But people can nevertheless sense consistency or a lack thereof. Secondly, it's still a part of what ensures equity, i.e. recognizability. When people see white on red, and just a hint of a swash, they think Coca-Cola. There's something impressive and eminently useful about that.