who needs a logo anyway
- Started
- Last post
- 19 Responses
- dbloc0
Hi
- jetSkii0
Steve McCallion, makes some a great point on the importance of the social platform when going into your branding, however the logo is equally as important to consider for consumers to identify with the brand.
- ukit0
Basically you need both – a social brand platform and a logo.
And also a website, a blog, a Facebook page, an iPhone app, an Android app, a Windows 7 phone 7 app, a Twitter account, viral videos on YouTube and Vimeo, a banner ad campaign, an Adwords campaign, an SEM strategy, organic SEO, an affiliate marketing campaign, a Groupon, a ladder to get onto the platform, a bag of chips...did I miss anything?
- Miesfan0
Here two logos, to talk about no logo...please...
- maikel0
Sorry to disagree.
Without a solid branding you'll do all the effort and you target will buy your competitors' because cannot distinguish who the fuck is who.
Do you really think that ANOTHER facebook application add real value to a human being? Ye have loads of unwanted services, communication and even 'friends'.
Logos ain't dead. It can be just a doodle, but as part of a powerful well thought branding campaign, it can make all the bloody difference.
And yeah, interaction with customers is important, but you don't build a house without bloody foundations. Or better said, without a fucking blueprint.
- PersonaNonGrata0
clever - Executive Summary, I lol'd
But protip: tldr in the future- o, and - maikel seems to have a point there. But I didn't read the article so don't mind mePersonaNonGrata
- lol??dMullins
- detritus0
This is probably only news to people who were ever so stupid as to believe that a bloody icon somehow encapsulates everything a company has to offer. I find it hard to believe that anyone beyond a teenage photoshop whizz would be so singularly blinkered and unthinking.
Whatever, he seems to have jumped from one delusion to another - I have, quite literally, no idea what a 'social brand platform' has to offer 90% of independent businesses.
Peeps are too distracted by pixie dust.
Branding—
Good quality beer = Red Triangle.
Red triangle = Good quality beer.Logo = a mnemonic, no more.
- a pint of smithwicks in a bass glass. can't be beaten.kingsteven
- I read it as just saying, do something for your customers, offer them something of valueukit
- Google is a great example of this - shit ugly logo but they have so many great services no one caresukit
- ExterminatingAngel0
well put, i salute you
- 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.
- BaskerviIle0
how can someone write an article about how logos aren't key anymore and use Nike as a reference point.
They have one of the highest brand recognitions of any company, thanks to their iconic logo.
Nike+ adds to the brand but the two work together. It's not either or.A brand is a set of associations in the someone's head that drives them to a certain behavior.
Those associates are more often driven by positive experiences. Nike+ is a positive experience which helps elevate the brand, but it was built on top 45 years of other Nike experiences that people had to draw from.
Branding is about experience, the logo and more importantly the look and feel cover the visual experience only. There's still audio/visual, environmental, interaction, tone of voice, customer service experiences and more besides.
The most successful brands do all of those experiences well.
- gramme0
I'll be the first to say that a logo is utterly useless outside of smart application. But that isn't news by any stretch of the imagination.
I wonder if in the age of high profit and low accountability, folks became infatuated with branded images. Now that profits are tanking and accountability has become of utmost importance, we're seeing the opposite scenario with increasing frequency: one sees a rise in ethical products and useful services, but with hasty, poorly-executed, and weakly-supported corporate identity work.
Favoring one paradigm over another is ultimately short-sighted, and maybe even foolish.
- I'd argue the application is useless if the person doesn't remember the identity of who made the application.Iggyboo
- ukit0
I think the intention is to frame it as a decision in terms of what do I invest in - a new brand, or this other thing. And I think he's generally on the right track in arguing that investment made in user interaction will pay off more than that spent on the brand itself.
Maybe he overestimates how much the GAP and others companies were relying only on a logo. I don't think they expected the logo to turn the company around, or even that people would care as much as they did, it was just one element of trying to update the company's image.
On the other hand something like the AOL "redesign" fits pretty well with his critique. Instead of putting their effort into rethinking the user experience, they broadcast to the world that they had this conceptually elaborate logo that I doubt really did much for them.
- harlequino0
"The Real Lesson of the Gap Debacle: Logos Aren't Key Anymore"
No, the lesson is that no one has figured out how to do a massive rebrand yet when everything is social, shareable, and can be torn to shreds in minutes. Even the biggest companies in the world are lost when how to deal with it.
The issue with Gap had less to do with the quality of the logo, and more do with executing the rebrand campaign and PR. It never felt like the company got behind it or prepared for it. It went out in the form of a press release, and got spread around like a million VP's sending the creative guy's comp to his wife to see what she thinks.
Anyone (who's any good) in branding knows that a logo is one piece of the puzzle. Discussions about whether or not it matters to have a logo is dumb because of course it matters. But it all matters, that's the thing. Really good branding and rebranding comes from the core of what a company does and making sure they follow through on what the brand is supposed to be about.
I suspect real brand innovation right now has more to do with figuring out the right kind of campaign to roll out something this massive. If Gap had put the full weight of it's entire company behind the rebrand, launched massive creative support and social efforts, and just hit us as hard as they could — ugly logo or not, things would probably have panned out differently.
Sidenote: their lack of support on the new logo may also have something to do with not having complete confidence in it. Which is equally stupid.
- Iggyboo0
http://www.adbrandetc.com/2010/1… Just wrote my response to his post over on my blog enjoy.
- 23kon0
Awesome, you got a Blog!
- i_monk0
Sounds like bullshit to me.
- hektor9110
Wow guys I haven't seen such an interesting thread in a long time here at QBN. By the way I agree with i_monk and maikel
- clearThoughts0
You need all that AND a logo
