The power of a logo
Because we are surrounded with them and because we see thousands everyday, we often do not think about logos anymore. Some people just want to have them on their clothes and bags, to assert power, social class or identity. Others try to avoid showing them off for fear of being tacky or to reject capitalism and globalisation.
But a logotype is a visual artifact that, whether we want it or not, sticks in our brain – for most city-citizens. It is designed for this sole purpose. We see it, see it again, associate it with a concept, an idea, a value, and it is there, as a screensaver of our minds, printed forever.
This is a process called branding. A corporate image that marketing geniuses have thought in their sleep. A brand creates a logo to express an identity, values it stands for, products or services it represents and to create a process in our minds when our eyes see it: brand association.
And soon, without realising it, you picture a laptop when you see an apple, or a Speedy bag when you see a flower. It is an irrevocable sign that it is too late, and that you are officially obsessed.
Picture: Alize Morand. Monogram pattern copyright of Louis Vuitton.
I suppose I fall into the catergory of one who does not like having large labels on display…although with Nikes it is kind of unavoidable! It is not so much that I do not want to be a walking advertisement, but rather I have always found oversized labels rather vulgar. The emergence of a luxury goods market automatically creates a culture of exclusivity and as such, people trying to attain and show off.
I am always thinking of how something as simple as a logo can come to define a whole lifestyle, and yet it means so many different things to so many different people. The Louis Vuitton monogram to me still recalls images of turn of the century splendour and leather goods. But at the same time, I think of the work with Murakami and the fake bags you seem to find at every local market. You can reinvent the way people perceive a logo, even if you never update the logo. To think, that before Marc Jacobs, Vuitton was struggling and did not mean the glamour it does today.
It is also odd to think of establishments and companies who never market themselves and are successful. I have never seen an advertisement for New Balance trainers, yet they are the third largest trainer company in the world. Similarly someone such as a tailor on Savile Row will never have to advertise, not just because of the name, but the understanding behind who they are.
Oh, and I am a super tea addict. I have a shelf in the kitchen for only tea boxes, and I collect tea sets 🙂 I usually end up keeping the prettier boxes that the tea come in too!
My lily! Finally about my area of passion; advertising and brands!!! ;)))
I totally agree with your point. However we need to keep in mind that it is only a small part of the whole marketing mix.
Logo can definitely hold a strong positioning in the name of branding, but I think the point you are making refers to more traditional means then the age we are in now; today we are more digital and more conversational. Today we remember names, types, faces, colours, images… we remember the 118 118 twins, the Hovis child… For these types of products (especially ‘FMCG products’) packaging is far more important their logo. Coca Cola and Pepsi are great and simplest examples of how little can logo matter…. They have changed their logo many of times, however we always knew it was Pepsi or Cola. If they kept the logo and changed the Pepsi can’s colour to orange, I’m sure we would be a lot more confused than if it was the other way around. Do you agree?
My last point; “The picturing of laptop when seeing the Apple logo’ is an interesting one. Because these hold different meanings to different people. This is established through own experience, emotion or functional/memory of the brand/company. Most brand research goes into this qualitative research to see where the brand stands. Apple might bring out the image of laptop for you, but for someone else it might bring out ‘whiteness and design’ and for someone else it might be an ipod. It is all about consumer experience and/or emotion. For me Apple logo means Steve Jobs and his values 🙂 (you know how much I love Steve Jobs!). I think this could be our next discussion subject 😉
kisses xxxx
First, Dapper Kid and Nes, thanks for your great insight, I’m glad this topic resonated to you, and I really appreciate your thoughts.
Dapper Kid: I completely agree with you, at the end of the day, if the product is good, it’s good, and word-of-mouth can do much more than adverts. I was just reflecting on the passive aspect of being inundated with ads and this having an effect on you, however hard you try to avoid it, because it’s almost subliminal, it’s inevitable at some point. it’s like some trends you hate and after a while you get used to it or you start liking it. One needs a strong willpower to defy the whole system. However, thanks God, it happens sometimes! I will never understand leggings, nor crocs, and I’d love a Speedy bag, but certainly not a monogram, logo-obvious, tacky version! x
Nes: I knew you’d like the topic, and I agree with you: it’s a new era for brands. But the classic logo recognition still works: why do people recognise these brands all over the world just by a shape or a colour? I mean the whole branding thing, not only the logo per se, the packaging too you’re right. About the apple thing, I meant when I see a real apple, I think of the brand Apple Mac (my laptop in this case because it’s the obvious thing, but also the design, the white, the Iphone, etc) and indeed as I was trying to get away from our capitalist/consumption society over-saturated with brands and messages, taking pictures of flowers at my grandparents on a mountain in the Alps, I pictures the Vuitton logo on this flower, which inspired me this topic: sometimes you just can’t help it, it’s recorded in your brain! But then, it’s not the only marketing/communications tool, and brands just cannot rely on it to survice, especially nowadays…x
An interesting post, especially as I’m working in the marketing field 😉 Though to be honest (luckily) I would never have associated the flower with LV! I would however like to add that the initial idea of the LV monogram was never to create a corporate logo for marketing purposes, but instead as a way to trademark products to make counterfeiting more difficult… which obviously failed completely. The logo was merely a result of having the monogram used on all items. In most cases, companies still use a logo just to ‘mark’ it as theirs. The cult-status of logos is just something the consumers created, not necessarily the companies themselves. In some cases a no-logo can be a logo too (see Margiela) or a type of design, such as the Tivoli radios. I think essentially as you already mentioned, a logo is just another way of corporate branding – a reduction of a brand name and brand values into the essence of an image or words. What people make of it is very subjective and dependent on the person perceiving it. I’m no fan of flashing a logo but I can appreciate where it’s coming from. And these days I actually think the logo is only a very small part of marketing with companies focusing more on the CRM, digital distribution, consumer loyalty and as Ness correctly said, anything related to packaging or point of sale. The product has also come back to define the brand. I would actually think more people associate the outline of an iPod or a sleek white laptop with Apple, than the actualy Apple logo.
Hauteworld: thanks for a very interesting input, again! I completely agree with you. I must really have a twisted mind seeing LV in flowers – or as I ended up: be completely obsessed! 😉 I didn’t know about the creation of the LV logo as a way to fight counterfeit – this is pretty ironic really. I guess this post also made me realise how brands are inspired by nature (from flowers to apples, to anything else!), and sometimes end up more omnipresent that actual nature (the logo should remind you of a flower, not the opposite haha!)
Great conversation in this post really 🙂 x
Alize notes above and then clarifies that an actual apple triggered the Apple brand recognition for her. The flower–>LV pattern results in the same. This, to me, suggests that these brands have become very powerful due to the association with everyday objects. If I thought of a product or service every time I saw the color red or typed the word “Got…” how influential is that? (Coca-Cola, milk?)
Next, is the key to a good brand/logo to evoke the same feelings in every customer? Or do you want your customers to each have a unique relationship with your brand? I too thought of ‘whiteness and design’ for Apple, interesting that others had the same thoughts.
hauteworld suggests, rightly, that logos are only one avenue to reach consumers. Which makes me wonder the following. I associate consumer brands with logos, I do not associate business to business products with logos (I associate them with relationships). As two way communication with the customer increases developing into a relationship, do logos become less important to branding?
Lastly, in behavioral economics this concept is called signaling. This is a social construct to allow communications to society by an individual though actions. If I own a LV bag I’m “saying” to society something like “I have an eye for fashion and am a style minded individual. These things are important to me. Please associate me with this item/idea/world view.” Now, if signaling theory is correct, then I allow other’s perceptions of me to be developed by the brands with which I associate myself . This is extremely important because unless the brand has created a universal understanding of what it represents then the owner is subjecting themselves to differing views of the brands image. What says avant-guarde to you may say fashion victim to me, or vice-versa. And to Dappers point, these can change and can be managed. Pick your brands wisely. 🙂
Thanks for the interesting conversation!
Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase buy me as a brand !!! Rires. @ +++
Alize, darling.
Ma cherie. If only I had your writing ability; it is so graceful & effortless – I adore you & your blog so much!
Logo & branding are so important! Not only in recognition, but aesthetics. Call me shallow, but I do choose “new” products based upon whether or not I’ve seen the logo (I tend to see that as being “trusted”) or if it is aesthetically pleasing ;].
Bisous!
La C.
Bob: Thanks to you for this great insight and marketing expertise, I must admit I don’t know so much about behavioural economics, but I definitely get the concepts. As J.N. Kapferer explained recently in Darketing, indeed a brand needs to be famous to an extent, because otherwise, it isn’t luxury but craftsmanship, and even avant-garde trend-setters usually pick a brand that has shown some sort of fashion credentials and recognition. And that’s where logos play a role, as La C. puts it, it asserts credibility and trust, and obviously generates publicity and following.
Pierre-Jean: But what would I see in you, if I see LV in a flower? I guess I would see chic menswear?!
La C.: I agree with you, some logos are just not aesthetically pleasing, and some brands have had to change them because they just looked cheap, or outdated. But some like LV or Chanel, are just classic and I can’t imagine what would happen if they were changed! x