How to Choose a New Logo
(Republished from Identity Forum)
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And more often than not, clients choose logos based on subjective criteria and gut feeling. As a design consultant, I respect gut feeling because it comes from experience and common sense. But at the same time, I advise against letting pure subjectivity overwhelm the identity design decision process. After all, it’s not a tie or a dress, but one of the most important brand communication assets.
Image courtesy of Mike Rohde
However, an identity redesign is not a very common event in an organization’s lifetime, so it is very unlikely that most clients know how to deal with it. How can you expect your client to objectively evaluate design proposals, if you don’t offer guidance? They need a framework, especially since each agency can have more or less different approaches. The following framework establishes a set of criteria that is helpful for both the designer (in creating optimal solutions) and the client (in making decisions). Whenever I have used it, this method significantly reduced subjectivity and allowed for an effective decision.
Here are some of the most common criteria that I use:
- Memorability—essential when competing in a busy market, when you cannot repeat your visual message as often as you’d like, to imprint it in the minds of the audience.
- Distinctiveness—how different, and therefore ownable the logo is within your industry/area; a criterion directly linked to memorability and protectability.
- Durability—rebrandings with shiny, multidimensional logos are in fashion, and initially may help get attention (to the logo, if not the company). But a simpler, less trendy logo can in the long run generate higher ROI. Remember that logos are primarily identification/association devices, not communication devices.
- Likeability—does the main audience like it? Most often, the main audience is the employees. (I advise against testing the likeability of a logo outside the company. After all, the corporate identity is a reflection of the organizational brand, and not a package on a shelf fighting for the shopper’s attention.) Likeability is one of the trickiest evaluation criteria, since subjectivity still plays an important part. But people won’t rally around a new logo and identity unless they like it.
- Alignment to brand look & feel—a lot of times, designers develop the look and feel after they have developed the logo. I strongly advise to agree upon that first, and then come up with a logo. It’s just a more focused process.
- Signification—while the logo is not primarily a communication device, any communicative content (if it is not a wholly abstract logo) should help the organization convey brand values (and not industry clichés).
- Intrinsic vs. acquired meaning—some logos have meaning from the beginning, making it easier to convey certain organizational values (usually figurative logos-see Akzo Nobel); others are more abstract, but acquire meaning and value after being associated with the brand image and behavior for some time (see Visa). A more abstract logo allows changes in positioning and values over time, without the need for a radical visual change (logo makeover)-therefore a more durable approach. On the other hand, if you are looking into communicating your brand values/positioning faster (by using the logo also as a communication device), it’s better to use a logo that has meaning from the start.
- Appropriateness—in the search for distinctiveness, there is a risk to go over the edge of appropriateness, which will result in an identity that will be difficult to adopt by the employees or the market (see Abbey’s transparent logo by Wolff Olins).
- Protectability—a criteria that can (and should) be assessed only by a professional IP counselor.
- Adaptability (transferability)—important when the logo will endorse divisions, sub-brands, alliances or brand extensions.
- Ease of implementation—gradients, special colors, 3D effects might raise production issues and implementation difficulties and result in a longer roll-out of a new identity.
- Cost of implementation—it can be an issue, and not only in a recession. I’ve seen identity implementation projects fade out before finish because of cost issues (most often a consequence of bad planning).
Usually, I seek client agreement with the top six criteria, and then prioritize them, so that the final results can be weighted. This is extremely useful when working with a committee/board, as it offers a solid, objective assessment, hard to refute with merely subjective opinions. Ideally, the assessment for each criteria should be made outside the immediate working team (agency + client) and as accurately as possible. Due to time constraints, it’s not always possible to properly evaluate memorability among customers, or distinctiveness-and you will have to resort to the assessment of the work team members (which is still OK).
In the end, it is the client who has the final decision, but the above framework should help minimize your frustration and increase the chance of a correct logo choice. It did that for my projects.
