Brandacadabra

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:

1. 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.
2. Distinctiveness—how different, and therefore ownable the logo is within your industry/area; a criterion directly linked to memorability and protectability.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. Protectability—a criteria that can (and should) be assessed only by a professional IP counselor.
10. Adaptability (transferability)—important when the logo will endorse divisions, sub-brands, alliances or brand extensions.
11. 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.
12. 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.

Is Design Art or Also Science?

Seth Godin recently wrote about a dilemma marketers have—is marketing an art or a science?

It’s both, and that’s the problem. [...] When we’re artists sometimes and scientists other times, we often seem like charlatans, because we’re associating scientific results with artistic endeavors.

I can fully relate to that feeling, since designers are in an even more delicate situation. While a client expects science from a marketer, they will—most often than not—disregard that component in design work. And here we are—again more often than not—bowing in front of a client’s subjective decision.

On thing I’ve learned is that the client is not to blame. He’s been taught that design is art, therefore something to be judged emotionally. He’s been given concepts to choose from, therefore increasing the need to choose by likeability rather than other criteria. He has been given absurd rationale for concepts created with no logical thinking behind them. So, I think designers are to blame for the status quo.

Seven simple steps toward improvement:

1. Think of design as a problem-solving discipline, rather than a self-expression discipline. Milton Glaser has a thorough definition: ‘design is improving an existing situation to achieve a desired effect’. I agree—moving a pedestrian crossing to another place to reduce casualties is more design than a poster designed one night before the deadline, with royalty-free photography, free type and lorem ipsum.
2. Ask for a brief. Most of the times, clients will offer incomplete information. Lack of information is misguiding, and there’s never too much information—some designers complain about this limiting creativity. I see constraints as helping with focusing the solution, not putting barriers. Anyway, make sure you get at least the basic five questions answered:
   1. who is at the center of the problem (a description of the organization, product or service).
   2. what is the desired action/the message to be communicated.
   3. to whom—more about the audience. Demographic segmentation is useful only if it helps you understand how the audience behaves and what it needs and likes.
   4. how this should be done—the tactical part. Is it a brochure, a communication campaign or part of a larger solution?
   5. why—what is the expected outcome. Most clients will find it difficult to define SMART (simple, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound) objectives. Have them define the goal and how they will decide whether the project is a success, at least.
3. Clearly define what the problem is. Don’t jump to the solution in Photoshop. Think! Take one hour without your laptop/mobile/sketchpad and just think about the problem. Photoshop and sketching are poor excuses for skipping the thinking part, and that results in solutions that are rather decorative.
4. Agree upon a set of evaluation criteria for the design work. Is it memorability? Differentiation? Ease of implementation? Cost-saving? Trying to impose some objective criteria will not save you from the subjectivity of your client, but at least will help you build a case to defend your solution. It will also help you create a more appropriate design solution.
5. Present a short rationale with each solution/concept. It has to be the answer to the ‘how does this solve the problem‘ question. Spare yourself the embarrassment of not being listened to when talking about typography, colors, symbols or other things that might be completely irrelevant to the client. Rather use examples from other designers or agencies that proved to be good solutions to similar problems.
6. Accept failure. In 15 years of being a designer and graphic artist, dealing with hundreds of clients, I’ve learned one thing: it does not matter if you’re right. It matters whether your client thinks the solution is good. It’s a long ethical debate, but eventually the designer’s role is to solve the client’s problem. If the solution is not accepted and implemented, the fact it is the best (at least in theory) is worthless. Accept failure and start over. Just make sure you get clear feedback on why the design solution is not appropriate—never settle for ‘I just don’t like it’.
7. Don’t give up, as long as your client respects you and your work. But, please, do stop if you are at the tenth concept and the client still does not like it. It’s either a difficult client with serious decision-making issues, or your solution. You can be wrong, you know? Anyway, it’s a good moment to give up and spare your client (and most important, yourself) the pain and frustration of what’s to come. Part, but in a professional manner. Tell the client you feel you are not the right person for the project specifics since you were not able to do the job, and excuse yourself for any delays you have caused. You will sometimes lose money, but earn more respect (and, it happened to me, sometimes the client realizes he has decision-making issues and fixes that for the job to go on well).

If you have any experience with promoting design as a science-not-only-art discipline to your clients. Either comment to this article or write to me (marius dot ursache at gmail dot com) and I’ll follow up.