Recent logo changes by Google and Yahoo! have gotten the marketing and branding communities around the country buzzing. Neither change is significant which, from a branding standpoint, is significant. In fact, if you review most iconic brand logos over time (think Coca-Cola, Starbucks, McDonald’s, etc.), you’ll see only slight changes–often changes so slight that, if they hadn’t told us about the change, it’s likely that we wouldn’t even have noticed.
Why are these slight changes so prevalent among the top brands?Because they are the top brands.
Brands are built over time through a relentless drumbeat that involves all aspects of their “marketing mix”–product, price, place and promotion. Their logos–the visual representation of their brands–serve as a reminder to consumers of who, and what, they are. Logos aren’t the brand, but they represent the brand. For organizations large and small that is very important. Logos serve to help consumers (B2B and B2C) make an instant connection between the brand and all of their past perceptions and experiences with the brand. Change the logo too much and you risk impacting–even breaking–that connection. That can be an expensive proposition for large organizations–and for small ones.
For small organizations, a logo change is often undertaken to provide a more “polished” look. While even small organizations should carefully consider their image and brand when just starting out, and invest in a quality image (including logo and other materials), that is often not done for obvious reasons. So, for these organizations, a logo redesign often becomes necessary simply to convey a more polished image (however, even in these cases, organizations should exercise caution about making changes that are too extreme).
Logos also are often changed to remain “fresh,” and up-to-date in terms of design shifts over time, especially for companies that have been around for decades.
The most obvious need for a complete logo redesign is in situations of a name change that may have occurred through a merger or acquisition.
The danger for companies, large and small, in making logo changes is that they confuse or alienate their markets–or that they somehow diminish the ability of the logo to serve its role of being a visual reminder or representation of the brand. That’s why it’s most common for organizations like Google and Yahoo! to make minor adjustments to their logos–many do this without ever even informing their audiences that it has been done. It is only through looking back at the use of their logos over time that we can see these adjustments.
Unfortunately, organizations that are not counseled by large PR and marketing departments or agencies can have a tendency to make these changes too frequently and without good reason. The best advice: exercise caution when you start going down the path of changing your name, your logo, or anything else that serves to connect your audience to your brand. These impressions are formed over time, often over a long time–they can be broken in an instant.
That is very interesting Deb – thanks for sharing! I like the subtle changes; seems they serve to keep the brand look “modern,” without sacrificing brand identity. Would be fun to see some “slide shows” showing the subtle transitions of various logos over time.
Interesting article, Linda. I am seeing a trend toward “flat” design. Google has made that subtle change you mentioned by gradually removing the shadow from their logo, going from a three-dimensional to a flat look, and Apple is doing the same with their iPhone interface.