The Role of the
Logo in Brand
Expression
Your logo is your signature, not your
self-portrait
by Christopher Armstrong - September 2008
Interbrand, Toronto
The Role of Logo in
Brand Expression
A logo, like a flag, can carry either great meaning or
no meaning depending on the ideas and emotions
the viewer associates with it.
Having worked on the creation of logos and visual systems over
many years, I’m constantly struck by how difficult it is to create
logos. It seems like hundreds of viable designs die a sad and
premature death due to seemingly unachievable expectations.
Okay, I know this sounds like some designer whining about clients
not understanding his work, but I believe there is a larger issue with
people’s understanding of the role of logos within visual identity
systems. Although, in general, clients have come to understand that
the brand is much more than the logo or corporate identity, the logo
still seems to be regarded as a sacred article; a precious gem in the
crown of a greater brand.
After having gone through the process of redefining the strategic
positioning of the brand, some clients want their logo to fully
express all part of their new platform, including the core idea,
positioning statement, and attributes. In doing so, they pose a
nearly impossible challenge for the logo designer.
While it’s true the overall expression of the brand must encompass
all elements of the brand positioning, it is not necessary for the
logo itself to express the entire strategy. Although the logo is a vital
element of a brand identity, it is a component of a larger system of
expression. While important, it is limited in its ability to express
emotion and convey meaning. As such, the visual system as a whole
is a far more important consideration than the logo in isolation.
Remember – signature, not self-portrait
The logo is often referred to as a corporate signature. This analogy is
a good one, and describes some of the functions and limitations of
the logo.
A person’s signature identifies a person, and through a kind of
subtle graphology, suggests an individual’s personality traits. Is the
signature bold and energetic, or restrained and conservative? A
signature can hint or indicate this. A logo does the same, identifying
and subtly revealing a brand’s specific qualities. At the same time,
a signature cannot, by any means, paint a complete and accurate
portrait of a person. Like the logo, it can only allude; it cannot speak
with eloquence.
Another, perhaps, more powerful, component of the signature
analogy is that a logo, like a signature, functions as a promise. By
applying your signature to a contract, check, or letter, you have
given your seal of approval and indicated your ownership and
obligation to what you have signed for.
The logo acts as a promise in a similar way. When a logo is applied
to a product, it promises that the product will deliver a specific
quality that alludes to the brand’s identity. For instance, Apple’s
logo promises innovation. Likewise, Volvo’s logo promises safety,
while the Hermès logo promises elegance. But again, the logo
can only allude to the promise of these qualities – it cannot speak
with eloquence.
Where does the logo fit in the world of brand expression?
Brand expression is made up of two streams: visual expression
and verbal expression. Initially, it would seem that the logo
fits primarily into the visual expression stream, along with
typography, imagery or photography style, graphic devices,
color palette, and layout conventions. On the other hand, the
brand name itself, tone of voice, messaging, and the tagline all
comprise the verbal expression stream.
In addition to brand expression, there are a large number of
touchpoints that create customer experience, as well as many
internal components that build employee brand culture and
behaviors. Along with the visual and verbal expression, these are
all designed to convey the character of the brand.
Painting pictures with words and graphics
And yet, while the logo would seem to fit into just the visual
expression stream, it is interesting to note that it is really an
unusual hybrid of both word and picture. This ability to combine
both is the logo’s strength. It’s often said that a picture is worth a
thousand words, but any avid reader knows that the opposite is
also true: words can paint thousands of pictures.
If the word part of the logo – the name – is strong enough, it
can remain relatively unadorned as a wordmark. But in many
cases, the name requires additional embellishment and graphics
to become an ownable logo. Part of the problem is that, with a
name, we are limited to an extremely finite number of words, if
not a single one. This brevity seriously limits a logo’s expressive
capacity.
Painting pictures
with words and
graphics
An additional problem with the name is its portability. Words,
unlike pictures, don’t always cross cultures; a word has no meaning
if you don’t understand the language. This is where the picture
part of the logo, being far more universal, can help make up for the
technical limitations of written language and allow the logo to carry
some meaning when the name has no association.
Still, although the picture part of the logo may be more universal
than the name, the problem of association and portability also
exists with graphics. As a graphic symbol, a logo is not unlike the
flag of a nation. To the nation’s citizens, it is a common rallying
point and a source of pride – it’s familiar and they relate it to their
experience, history, and achievements. But to a viewer who has
never seen the flag before, and has no associations that relate to it,
it can be meaningless. Regardless of how well it is designed, it may
appear nothing more than a few bands of color.
The power of a logo needs to be built up over time through
repeated, consistent experience. Great logos are not always great
due to their graphic form. It is easy to see how many now famous
logos might end up in a contemporary designer’s trash after the first
round of review. These logos, although not graphically stunning,
have become great because they have imprinted themselves on
the minds of the viewer, and carry associations and expectations.
The viewer is no longer seeing the form of the logo, but the ideas it
stands for.
Where the real potential lies
This understanding of words and pictures leads to a discussion
about where the real strength for the potential of expressing the
brand character is rooted. As we can see, it is not in the few lonely
words of the wordmark or the simple and graphic device of the
symbol. The real potential for expressing the brand character lies in
where words and pictures can be used to their full power. These are
the realms of tone of voice and image style. Tone of voice and image
style are neglected and undervalued in many, if not most brands –
they remain a largely untapped resource.
The power of tone of voice and image style is the ability to tell
stories: one verbally, the other visually. These stories can create a
much greater impact and resonance than a logo in expressing the
character of the brand.
The good news here for brand managers is that brands can very
often be given new life by changing visuals and tone of voice.
This can be done without having to walk the political minefield of
changing an organization’s sacred logo.
But like everything else, image style and tone of voice have a
weakness. And for both, this weakness lies in their universality.
Unlike a logo, you can’t trademark a tone. There is nothing to stop
a competitor from knocking off a successful brand’s style. Still, if a
brand has a truly distinct and honest style of expression, as well as
employees who deliver the brand promise, it doesn’t take much to
tell the real McCoy from the poseurs.
Another strength of tone of voice and image style is that they can
change and evolve over time with more ease than a change of logo.
By retaining a logo and evolving image, you can shift with subtlety
and modernize without obviously changing, not unlike a child
growing steadily but imperceptibly before your eyes. You don’t really
notice the change unless you do a direct comparison of before and
after.
Another strength of tone of voice and image style is that they can
change and evolve over time with more ease than a change of logo.
By retaining a logo and evolving image, you can shift with subtlety
and modernize without obviously changing, not unlike a child
growing steadily but imperceptibly before your eyes. You don’t really
notice the change unless you do a direct comparison of before and
after.
So, do we need to change?
I recall, when working on annual reports, that some designers
would attempt to keep a client’s logo off the cover if they felt the
logo was bad. They felt that the amateurish logo was better hidden
on the back cover so it wouldn’t rob the skillfully designed report
of its professionalism. Is this the result of a designer who does not
understand branding? Is he or she acting like a prima donna, or does
playing down a poorly executed logo make strategic sense?
That all depends on the brand platform and whether or not the logo
is sending messages counter to the brand’s stated positioning. If the
logo affirms the position, it should be used proudly and prominently,
even when of questionable beauty. If the logo sends messages
counter to the positioning, it’s appropriate to minimize the logo and
use other visual elements such as images, graphics, or typography,
to communicate the desired brand character.
So, do we need to
change?
Apple has evolved its logo over time, but has not
altered the essential forms of the logo.
The design of the logo should, within its graphic limitations, reflect
the brand positioning or platform. This brand positioning should
in turn be a reflection of the long-term business strategy of the
organization. So, if the business strategy changes, both the brand
positioning and visual expression need to be reviewed to ensure
they are still aligned with the strategy.
At Interbrand, we often say that a new logo is primarily a signal of
change, and the amount of change to the logo should be related to
the amount of change within the organization. If an organization’s
strategy or positioning has not changed, switching logos may be
confusing because it indicates a shift and creates an expectation of a
new experience, where there is none.
In many cases, a brand can be given new life and vitality without
ever touching the logo. By refining the elements of the visual and
verbal expression, an entirely new energy can be created. Moving
a bit further, this may include adjusting the treatment of the logo
without actually changing its graphic form. A further evolution
would be to refine or update the physical form while retaining major
elements of the logo.
On the other end of the scale, you can trash everything and totally
reinvent the logo. When a company carries too much baggage or
negative perception, it’s appropriate to signal a complete overhaul
by starting from scratch. Often this approach accompanies a
changing of the name.
When taking this revolutionary approach, it’s vital that the company
has changed its business strategy, as well as positioning and
expression. At the time of launch, an organization must be prepared
to deliver a new experience. If not, they risk the appearance of
whitewashing and deception. No one likes an empty promise.
Refining the form of
the logo while retaining
major elements can be a
successful evolutionary
strategy.
Seeing the bigger
picture
Seeing the bigger picture
At times, when presented with a new logo design, clients are
disappointed because the work doesn’t invoke all of the emotional
attachments they associate with their organization. This is a
no-situation for the designer, because until the logo becomes
associated with these experiences, it remains just a graphic.
This is not unlike a person who gets a new haircut, then feels
disappointment because it just doesn’t feel like them. People lose
sight of the fact that the whole point is to grow into whom you
want be, not to remain who you are today.
Logos are very powerful symbols when people associate them
with ideals. Because of this, changing a logo can be divisive and
controversial. Knowing that brand expression can change with
or without the logo, is as vital as knowing whether to take an
evolutionary or revolutionary approach.
When considering a rebranding exercise, it is important to assess
the entirety of the visual system, not just the logo. When designers
and clients together understand the role and limitations of the
logo within the overall expression of the brand, it will allow for
a considerably less stressful and more productive process. The
realization that rebranding doesn’t necessarily mean changing an
established logo may lead your organization to start a rebranding
program that they otherwise wouldn’t have considered.
This is a win-win situation for both clients and consultants –
creating better, more meaningful brands. And that’s why we’re here,
isn’t it?
Q. Which is the tobacco company?
A. Both
Phillip Morris Companies Inc. rebranded to Altria Group
Inc. in 2007
Christopher Armstrong
Christopher Armstrong is Design Director
for Interbrand’s Corporate Branding
practice in Toronto. Christopher has
provided strategic design solutions for a
diverse group of clients including Celestica,
RBC Financial Group, CAE, UPS Logistics,
and Rogers Communications.
www.interbrand.com
Creating and managing
brand value
TM