Has the logo had its day?
Corporations are constantly tinkering with their brands, but in a world with so many touchpoints should they be less concerned with having a corporate logo asks Patrick Guerrera.
In a world where personal brands, social media and an absolute plethora of content stretches into every waking moment of our lives, what role does a logo play in contemporary branding?
There are simple answers: the ongoing interdependence between corporate reputation and corporate brand is always a consideration. The logo is the trust mark that symbolises the heritage and history of an organisation and its people to all their stakeholders, not just their customers. This symbol is a living artefact and signature of the organisation, its past and all its aspirations.
But brands have never been more dynamic – they are moving and evolving before our eyes everyday. Channel-agnostic brand platforms are built and designed to stretch across a multitude of touch points and expressions – eagerly focused on delivering a truly differentiated “experience” for consumers, anytime and anywhere.
So yes, an organisation’s logo or brand mark will continue to be the final distillation of all the brand’s attributes – the “signature” of a brand.
Why? Because in contemporary marketing logos are the ultimate corporate arrogance. As millennials take their place as the great arbiters and influencers of consumer preference and sentiment, they are judging and shaping brands in real time. They embrace brands that are active and meaningful to them. By meaningful I mean enabling – helping them shape their future state.
So brands can no longer afford to be overtly single-minded. They must be able to engage and sustain a whole range of different customer relationships. In a recent Harvard Business Review article Avery, Fournier & Wittenbraker (2014) introduce the challenge of relational intelligence to readers, suggesting companies “don’t understand how many different kinds of relationships customers can have with brands, nor do they know how to reinforce or change those connections”.
For us at Re we found this incredibly relevant and interesting because it echoes the challenges our clients face everyday. Apart from the ongoing repercussions of the shared economy on branding, we believe the construct of relational intelligence, is a significant lens to consider when embarking on any type of rebranding program. Sure, it is the intersection of CRM and brand, but this is what makes it so interesting.
Avery, Fournier & Wittenbraker (HBR, 2014) outline 6 types of brand-customer relationships:
Each are illustrated with some poignant examples, such as:
“A team of Harley-Davidson employees, all motorcycle enthusiasts, spent time on the road with customers to develop the kind of intimacy that could cement Harley’s status as a best friend.”
As brand practitioners, the danger here is not to over-simplify these insights as just simple communications tasks – that is, just targeting communications to different relational typologies. This is about ensuring that the brand strategy and its expression is flexible and broad enough, to connect and support the expectations of any of these typologies. This provides a significant lens for attribution definition as well as brand design, experience and communication.
So maybe it’s not just the logo that is dead, maybe it’s the traditional corporate brand systems that are often governed within an inch of their lives?
So is the logo really dead? Well no. We will always use logo’s because they are the ultimate identifier of an organisation.
However, singular static corporate brand systems are now irrelevant. What replaces them is dynamic and living design systems that can flex and stretch and build experiences across a broad range of customer typologies and channels.
This is why life in a branding agency has never been more exciting – we are constantly evolving and revitalizing the brands we create to ensure they are constantly compelling and relevant to the consumer. So the logo might be here to stay … but the corporate guideline document should go the way of the Dodo!
Patrick Guerrera is Managing Director of M&C Saatchi’s Branding Consultancy Re.
Good article. I don’t agree that the corporate guideline document is dead, but I do think the old format with highly restrictive parameters and measures is obsolete. I’m also not sure the logo is dead, but I think there should be more flexibility with its usage. These days the guidelines I provide are more like a starting point for the client, rather than a cul de sac.
User ID not verified.
its important to distinct between a logo and a brand mark. two different things in my mind.
a logo you can buy for $99 – it has no depth, no thinking, no strategy behind it, no roll out in front of it. it’s a single piece of design, that works one way, in one application, on a white background
a brand mark is essentially just the single most commonly recognised element of the entire brand. if you look at in in isolation then, yeah, maybe it is a little unimpressive, but it’s just the pointy end of a hue and involved exercise with tremendous commercial value.
also, a corp style guide might not be needed by skilled branding agency’s (although I bet they still charge $200k for them) but in a fluctuating marketing department of a business, it’s really the only reference tool to stop some exec plastering the wrong shit in the wrong way, which will erode your brand over time and any equity that comes with it.
User ID not verified.
Patrick, Sorry, but I can’t help thinking this reads as a catchy and accessible headline, while trying to slide in a piece of overly cerebral brand strategy blah.
Consider… we believe the construct of relational intelligence, is a significant lens to consider when embarking on any type of rebranding program. Or …this provides a significant lens for attribution definition as well as brand design, experience and communication…
Ironic given M&C’s own brand credo of “brutal simplicity”.
The cynic in me suggests this reads as a thinly veiled PR piece (nothing wrong with that) that seeks to connect HBR’s insights to your brand.
I’m reminded of the Albert Einstein’s quote “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
So let’s try and bring this closer to some brutal simplicity. The logo is the simplest, shorthand expression of the brand and what it embodies. And when creating logo and brand guidelines, don’t confuse this literal asset management tool (which creates consistency in the brands expression) for a true understanding of the brand’s positioning and how it resonates against its chosen audiences and segments.
User ID not verified.
Very insightful.
The 6 types of brand-customer relationships is a really useful framework to use for clients.
In my experience, guidelines have already become mini-cards and cheat-sheets, so total extension seem like the logic conclusion.
User ID not verified.
Is it just me or are these kind of glib assertions about millennials getting a teeny bit tired now?
Re: the Avery, Fournier & Wittenbraker hypothesis.
An interesting thought experiment. Some of it might even be partially true.
Even if it were true, by far the vast majority of any brands buyers fall into bucket 1.
This is why things like logos and branding are so important.
So that distracted and disinterested buyers can easily recognise the brand they bought last time and then get on with their lives.
Ask Tropicana how they got on.
User ID not verified.
Millenials? Theoretical rhetoricians ? LP&E?
The entire package, including the apps packs of Gen Y and Gen X extensions, is a frequently opened toy box, it is therefore, also a frequently closed one.
Fads and fashions will come and go like funding or the tides, but the Logo will be with us for a long long time. Heat embossed, stamped into the metal like a hall mark, or rotating in space. We haven’t seen the last of soda syphons either.
User ID not verified.