Posts from — October 2008

This idea is worth repeating.

And author Seth Godin does so here: Your Brand is Not Your Logo.

But I half agree with Seth’s take. I too get nervous when companies think just changing a logo will help them gain market share - their expectations most likely need to be tweaked. But if recall FedEx’s move to ditch Federal Express, that’s exactly what they were setting out to do - increase world-wide market share. Their move had great impact in foreign countries, especially in Brazil. In Brazil, the term “Federal Express,” when translated, refers to an “expedited murder trial” and obviously misaligned with the concept of overnight shipping. Why wouldn’t they change it! And in certain cases a logo can boost sales (for professional sport’s teams for instance) and diversify sources of revenue. The San Jose Sharks merchandise success story comes to mind.

For these among other reasons, I think Seth’s being a bit narrow of what a logo is exactly. I 100% agree that your logo is not your brand, and vice versa, and is one of the many reasons I try not to use the B word. It means too many things to too many people.

But, more fundamentally I disagree with his take because I believe he’s looking at a logo as if it’s just another piece of ephemeral marketing communications. As I’ve written about, and many others before me, a logo done right will last decades more akin to architecture than advertising.

I think a key in understanding my point is again propped up by Paul Rand maxim that “a logo derives meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.” This fits hand and glove with Seth’s point of “creating a product and experience and story that people remember.” However, what I think is faulty strategy is either designing a logo that is too imposing, or isn’t aligned with the story at all like the meaningless logo on the Pepsi can in Seth’s post. 

In the case of BestBuy trying to enhance their position in the market place from being just “cheapest” to be the most “trusted” is an interesting logo test case. Maybe they do need a first impression that connotes something that doesn’t look so “cheap” as their yellow and black price tag. Maybe they don’t. I don’t find the testing and exploration as wasteful or misguided as Mr. Godin makes it out to be. It’s certainly less damaging in the long run than going to market without testing it.

The process for hiring logo design services can be an awkward one.

I feel it’s especially awkward and tenuous compared to other services (like hiring a CPA to do your taxes) for 3 reasons: 1. clients are inexperienced in hiring logo design services. 2. many purveyors of logo design services are generalists (usually focusing on other services) and treat it as an after-thought or lost leader to other higher-fee marketing or advertising services, and 3. treated throughout the sales cycle as just an artistic process and not as an outcome-based way to further a strategy’s success. 

In a nut shell, client’s don’t know how to constructively ask how to hold logo design accountable to their strategy, and designers don’t aggressively position their services as accountable to client’s strategy. And so awkwardness abounds.

I’ve outlined an outcome-based agenda that I feel yields a constructive, lively, valuable discussion that aims at addressing such key issues as performance, value, and expectations. During the meeting focus on a few examples (not one and not dozens) of previous design solutions to discuss the following:

1. A logo’s performance (legibility and reproducibility). Simply put, how well does the logo appear in all applications. For example what happens to the logo’s integrity when very small (or very large), in one-color applications, on a fax, when cut our of vinyl, when embroidered, etc? Can people not familiar with the logo easily read and understand it? This is the most basic and most critical benchmark for any logo design.

2. A logo’s meaning relative to strategy. It’s easy to to get caught up into the subtle aesthetics and symbolism in something artistic, but it’s important to contextualize the discussion strategic. One easy test for a strategically aligned logo is to discuss it in terms of performance (see above), color and typography as it relates to the company’s strategy and/or personality. Color and typography have more archetypal connotations. Red means something different than Green for instance. Helvetica connotes something different than a script typeface. These connotation are easy to talk about and more obvious in relation to strategy. Other imagery and stylistic elements may not be so straight-forward or accepted as archetypal. And is why you don’t see ephemeral styling on many timeless identities like ABC, IBM, FedEx, etc. If done right, they last a lifetime.

3. A logo designing process. Apart from the logo’s accountability in furthering a strategy, the process of how you get there is key in setting proper expectations. Both designers and clients would be better served with a fruitful conversation on the subject of process and scope vs. the cat and mouse game that plague budgets and work scopes (see note below) estimates.

The money question. Questions about how long it takes and how much it will cost are expected but difficult to answer without a healthy discussion. This is mostly because designers feel setting standard prices for (repeated) services is something akin to blasphemy. And clients don’t have a proper baseline to assign a budget for proper logo design, and if they did it’s almost equally profane to share it. So, the issue of money tends to be left to some arbitrary practice of guessing. Guessing how many hours and concepts and revisions it will take to complete - which basically is an act of prejudging how much of a pain in the ass the client is going to be. In the end, this practice rarely leaves either party equally served or satisfied. But in many ways it’s viewed as the best way for both parties negotiate through it. 

A small but helpful tip I’ve picked up is to share your 3-item agenda before the meeting and write it down on a pad of paper in plain sight at the meeting. It’s not only setting expectations ahead of time, but it’s also there during the meeting to guide and even debunk the subject for the other party who can also plainly see the straight-forward agenda.

One tip (of many) I’ve glommed from David Baker is addressing design as a verb, not just as a profession of nouns (a.k.a. business cards, brochures, artifacts - anything printed). He made this point by comparing how similarly design services and print services are sold. He pointed out that if you watched a designer present their work without the sound, they would look just like a printer. They both show pretty printed artifacts and point to particular aspects of ink on paper. No wonder clients ask for things when they hire designers, and not for “systematic ways of solving business challenges visually.” I remember the bottom line from David’s point was, and I’m paraphrasing, if you want that “seat at the grown-up’s table” you first need to look and sound like you belong.

Interviewing doesn’t have to be awkward if you stick to more outcome-based talking points. Logo design services usually isn’t thought of in those terms, but hopefully the three agenda items above can help shape more fruitful conversations and mutually beneficial success.