What's Black and White, but NOT Read All Over? Logos.

As usual, this blog post was inspired by a recent conversation with a friend. We were talking about a logo and briefly considered using it as part of a tag-line for a class project. We quickly realized that it wouldn't work because no one would actually read the logo; they would look at it, observe which brand is associated with it, and then read the copy.

With all of the logo-changing craziness that has been going on recently, this got me thinking. Obviously the use of a logo is critical to a brand. It establishes that omnipresent "look and feel", constantly connecting the brand and its executions, no matter what. That's why changing a logo is so risky; it is printed everywhere, on everything that is an extension of the brand. And if the logo doesn't truly represent what the brand stands for, it could be disastrous.

However, despite the importance of the logo, no one actually reads it.

The Walt Disney logo, for example, has been accepted by generation after generation. Everyone knows what the logo looks like and what it is associated with, but a lot of people have a difficult time realizing how the "D" in "Disney" is actually formed. Doesn't it seem like being able to read the name of the brand would be vital to its success? Apparently not. Even after people recognize how the "D" is shaped, they still have to work to see it. I believe that, for the most part, they will just look past it, take in the whole logo and know what it means.

This realization made me think about Starbuck's recent logo change, in which they removed all text. At first, I thought this was kind of dumb. I understand that they want to expand their product line to include more than just coffee, but I always thought, "Ok, so just take the word 'coffee' off the logo, but leave the word 'Starbucks'." Now, I think it was a brilliant idea. The only people that would actually take the time to read the logo would be those who are unfamiliar with the brand and/or their logo. Also, because the logo image is essentially the same, it isn't unrecognizable to the brand's loyal followers. Without the words, Starbucks will be able to stamp that previously mentioned, omnipresent brand voice on every product they choose to create, simply branding it as "Starbucks," not as "coffee".

This could also be one of the many reasons why the Gap logo redesign was a complete failure. Even though the text of the logo was exactly the same, it didn't matter. Because no one bothers to actually read it, the only thing that mattered was how the logo looked. Gap (momentarily) decided to completely abandon its iconic design and go with something that did not seem to be a good representation of the brand, and the brand's followers were not happy.

Anyways, I'm sure you've all read enough about these two logo makeovers to want to read anymore, but I thought I'd open up a (hopefully) new school of thought....Logos are important, but what they say is not a huge contributing factor to their success.