In weeks past, we've mentioned our continued use of LinkedIn, the online business/social networking tool. For most, simply adding to their contacts list (becoming LinkedIn) is enough and that's certainly fine. LinkedIn can be a powerful means of augmenting your address book. For us, in addition to staying in front of our client network by adding new connections, we've attempted to update our status areas, pose a few queries, and answer some questions, as well. Beyond attempts to be helpful, we are somewhat fascinated to monitor how our responses might drive traffic to pinch.nu. As a rule, we tend to let the low-hanging fruit "do you know a good designer?" or "what do you think about this logo?" drop without much attention. But sometimes, a question is just too good to let pass. In the coming months, if we answer a question that involves our approach to brand, type, design or process, we'll post it here, along with the original question. We're interested in your feedback on our position, so don't be shy. As McIsaac mentioned in an earlier post, Bespoke is again accepting comments. So with that, we'll get straight to it.
Question: Is a logo strictly necessary for a brand? (Or is the logo just a means of memorizing a brand or does it add something more as a slogan?) Posted by: Guy Benchimol, Owner and moderator of the non-profit Google Group "Computer Assisted Management for Performance."
Editor's note: As you might imagine, most responded with a resounding "yes!" citing classic "good examples" of brands with recognizable logos and significant juice. You know the ones; Apple, Nike, Google. Hillerns fielded this one, and given the specificity of Mr. Benchimol's question, he took a slightly different tack.
Answer: I would offer another perspective to the majority of (very reasoned) answers supplied above. In full disclosure, I should provide that I'm in the brand development business and one of our core offerings is identity development which, more often than not, is built around or supported by a logo. In hindsight, I should likely put the term "logo" in quotes simply because, and contrary to popular opinion, a logo need not be a bug, need not be a wordmark (or logotype), and need not be assigned a specific color. No, a logo is merely a sign post or marker; a device for easily identifying something. For lazy marketers, it has become the Holy Grail. For intelligent marketers, it is simply a tool. So, do I believe that a logo is useful to brand development? Absolutely. But a logo is absolutely not necessary in the way that most people advocate.
Marty Neumeier of Neutron LLC suggests that Brand is the intersection of Name and Experience. You establish one (Name) and your Customers — or followers, subscribers, loyalists, whatever — define the other (Experience). My experience, first as a consumer and then as a consultant, leads me to agree. As you can see, under this illustration, the paths that join Name and Experience certainly do not require a logo. (I capitalized to define, emphasize and differentiate vectors.)
At the risk of sounding contrarian, I'd challenge you think about what a brand really is. I'd argue that writers are brands inasmuch as the celebrities or sports figures mentioned (in other answers). Short of their efforts to write themselves into their character or subject, or self-promote by way of book tours or otherwise, it's the Experience of the reader that defines the writer's (or the book's) brand. Think of the differences between the "brand" of Danielle Steel and that of say, Jane Austen. Beyond the considerable chasm of craft between these two subjects, there are many other Brand elements at work in the readers' minds. Then consider the confusion (sometimes, anger) in the mind of the customer during a so-called "rebrand" (which is most often centered on a visual language redesign) of one's alma mater or more superficially, their favorite grocery store, and then think how quickly that concern subsides. If the reason that the customer initially recognized, appreciated, chose, or evangelized remains, then the logo — in whatever form, new or old — matters not. Consider a brand such as Ferrari and tell me honestly that the Italian carmaker's logo is necessary to the experience of the brand. I'd argue that, while convenient for hocking tee shirts and hats, a logo for a brand such as Ferrari serves no active purpose. Whether you're a 12-year-old boy with a poster on his ceiling or a serious auto enthusiast, it's the product and the experience that truly defines that brand. Apply this approach to any corporate or social model and then vigorously commit other elements of the visual (and brand) language and it becomes apparent that the logo, while useful, is not "strictly necessary" as you had inquired.