Category — Manage

I’ve always contended that there are only 2 strategic ways to view color as it pertains to logo design. The first by personality, the second by differentiation.

Archetypally each color connotes a certain personality. Therefore it is wise to chose a color that best matches your corporate personality. And by personality, I’m not referring to a subjective “what do you personally like” process - it’s not about what color the CEO likes and wants to paint his/her kitchen. It’s about determining what you want to communicate about your company, leveraging what a color connotes to and affects your audience, and employing that color to tap into that meaning as you communicate to your audience. If you don’t, you run the risk of unconsciously sending mixed messages. For example, if you’re corporate personality is summed up  as “self-confident, risk taker, passionate, and impulsive” over ”down-to-earth, reliable, and empathetic,” red would be a more strategically valuable choice over blue. Blue does better at representing “down to earth” traits, and red is better at more “aggressive” traits.

Choosing a color based on it’s meaning as it relates to your personality is the ideal way to choose a color for you logo. But it’s not the only strategic consideration.

The second way to look at your color is competitively. Your competition creates a context for how communications are perceived. For example, let’s say you’re a well-establish insurance company that could confidently describe your personality as “down-to-earth, reliable, and empathetic” and easily conclude you’re a “blue” company. While that may be true, blue may not be the best choice for you. I would recommend you check your top competitors to see how they represent themselves with color. It may be the case that all (or most) of your competitors are already using blue. When everyone communicates they’re “down-to-earth, reliable, and empathetic,” then no one is (effectively).

If that’s the case, consider a more granular analysis of your personality. Look at your personality as it relates within the context of your industry in contrast to your competition. You may find yourself more aggressive or innovative than all the other “blue” guys, and may allow you another strategic option to exploit. Maybe you’re the “red” company within your “blue” industry and competitive context. If so, it would certainly help to tap into the archetypal connotations that “red” can do for you, and immediately differentiate you in a sea of blue.

Color is a very basic, easily overlooked, but important aesthetic behavior. It can help you establish an appropriate and memorable “suit” to wear as you compete for potential customers attention.

Those are the 2 ways I’ve always viewed strategic logo colors, but recently have been challenges by a couple redesign candidates that have undermined the above thinking. One of the two redesign candidates has Cherry in their name, and the other has the word Blue as part of theirs. The immediate short-cut is how do you not recommend and use cherry red or blue in their respective logo design? Strategically, it would be at odds to suggest otherwise, right?

My thinking is that the immediate color/name relationship is too convenient, immediate, and powerful to impose any other strategic recommendation. Both clients think I’m over-thinking the color issue. A strategic communication partner thinks that archetypal color that best fits needs to be explored regardless of name.

Maybe I’ve stubbled upon a worthy truism that short-cuts all other strategic considerations. Maybe it’s a convenient cop-out to avoid an uncomfortable client change to recommend. Or maybe there’s a 3rd direction to explore that involves the logo color separate from the overall corporate color palette.

This is Part 3 of series of considerations that will help you prepare and get the most out of a logo redesign process. 

I’ve broken these pre-design considerations into the following posts:

Part 1 : Basic Business Considerations
Part 2: Marketing Considerations
Part 3: What not to bring to the table
Part 4: What you should expect to pay

Stay tuned to future posts for part 4. 

As you may remember, Part 2 focused on information and intellegence to share, this post focuses on how to keep it relevant.

What not to bring to the table:

1. Don’t bring hyper-specific expectation of what you specifically must have it look like. Your a control freak, we get it. But it won’t help accomplish something that’s bigger than your own personal taste if you dictate the entire process. Referencing examples is a reasonable starting point for discussion, but overly projective and fussy specifics ultimately complicate and cloud the ability to have shared expectations. 

2. Refrain from ambiguous adjectives like “high-tech” or “simple” or “state-of-the-art.” Not only are they meaningless without context or description, but they are unnecessarily specific expectations. Take some time and evaluate what you really mean, and use examples if you need to support and communicate your point. Designers can’t read minds. Make sure you leave jargon and empty buzz words in the board room’s trash can.

3. Vet unrealistic expectations. Keep in mind that we’re familiar with the Nike Swoosh or Target’s Bullseye in part because they’ve spent millions (if not billions) making sure we’re aware of their logos. 99.34% of you can’t afford to spend what Nike has on such awareness campaign, so adjust your thinking accordingly. 

4. “I’ll know when I see it” doesn’t consititute sound strategy. Frankly, that’s just a lazy cop-out, and only represents one personal, subjective opinion. It also signals an informal, and at it’s worst disrespectful, attitude toward design and marketing initiatives. It’s one thing when it’s as simplistic as choosing which pen to give out at the tradeshow, and quite another when it’s your identity that’s aligning your customers first impressions of your company’s strategy. It’s one thing to be flippant, and another to being critical. Make sure your critiques start with most basic success factors. Click here for a simple test. And keep in mind, a logo done right, lasts a lifetime.

5. Don’t ask for work to be done speculatively. Some rationalize this sleazy practice as a way to window shop. It’s not only unethical, it undermines the process and will ultimately yield hurried, hackish work. Spec work is a one-sided and disrespectful way to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship. If you’re not convinced yet, remember that the firms willing to do spec work find a way to make you pay, many times as part of greater bait and switch scheme somewhere somehow. Ick. Think about it: someone willing to do spec work isn’t doing it out of the goodness of their heart, and by nature can’t be doing that work in your best interests, just enough to entice you as quickly as possible. You wouldn’t dare ask a doctor, lawyer, CPA, or engineer to do it would you? Why would you ask it here?

Bonus: This should be a non-issue, but please don’t ask to have a swoosh be put around, through, over, under your logotype. Seriously. If you already have one, consider omitting it next time. It’s become a bad cliché. It won’t help you look more global, only more like the thousands that already have done it. Don’t take my word, here’s one of many rants.

These several considerations are designed to help keep your input, your perspective and expectations in check. Good luck.

Now that I’ve covered process, etc, I’ll be tacking the subject of pricing and hiring. Stay tuned for Part 4: What should you expect to pay.