|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Logo study likes "swoosh", flunks giant.
Wall Street Journal, May 18, 1998, by Sally Beatty
Nike's logo works, but Minolta Camera's isn't as memorable. Oldsmobile's new space-age-looking choice is a definite improvement, but the Jolly Green Giant is just too much.
Such are the lessons drawn from a new academic study, which tries to solve the mystery of why one corporate logo will captivate consumers while another is a turn-off. Logos are an elemental form of advertising, not to mention a big investment. They can cost anywhere from $100,000 to $1 million to develop, plus millions more to splash across everything from trucks to storefront signs.
Yet many logos are chosen by marketing managers and chief executive officers based on little more than gut instinct. The new study seeks to give future logo-seekers more to go on. The authors are Pamela W. Henderson and Joseph A. Cote, two professors at Washington State University in Richland. They showed 195 logos to 560 college students, asking that each be rated for memorability and attractiveness.
To help develop guidelines, the students were shown unfamiliar logos of smaller and foreign companies, and asked to measure them by three different design yardsticks: "naturalness vs. geometricality," "elaborateness vs. simplicity," and "the degree of harmony, which combines symmetry and balance." Conclusion: logos should look natural, not overly hard-edged or abstract, and they need a dash of elaboration, though they shouldn't be photographic.
Balance is important, but designs shouldn't be too symmetrical. Nike's "swoosh" logo, on the face of it, violates the guidelines outlined by the study. It's exceedingly simple, abstract even. It has no real detail and resembles nothing found in nature. But because of its slanted shape, it looks as if it's moving, and so it registers to the eye as much more complex.
Previous studies have found that the Jolly Green Giant, part of Diageo's Pillsbury, and the Land O' Lakes woman aren't much liked by consumers as logos. Ms. Henderson says the study helps explain why: "They are too elaborate and go too far." The giant is "fine on your packaging, but he probably should be more stylized" as a logo, Ms. Henderson says. "You can do a Green Giant without having all the photographic detail. You don't have to do every single leaf." The same goes for the Land O' Lakes lady.
But Ms. Henderson says Mr. Peanut (of RJR Nabisco Holdings' Planters unit) works as a logo, because he has been drawn with fewer lines and yet is still recognizable.
And the new logo of General Motors' Oldsmobile? "It's got more depth, and it's more active, yet it's simple," Ms. Henderson says. It also has an abstract design, which studies show consumers generally don't respond well to. But Ms. Henderson says that because of the depth achieved by layering imperfect shapes in the design itself, "you've accomplished the goal of being more elaborate, which will make your symbol more likable and memorable."
Minolta's logo is pleasing, but because its abstract spherical shape, sliced by a series of lines, is so symmetrical, it isn't easily linked by consumers to the famous photography company it represents. "Symmetry is going to get you nowhere if you don't have some naturalness or some elaborateness," Ms. Henderson says.
Different types of companies want different things from logos. If you're a plumber, for example, or a business that customers locate by flipping through the Yellow Pages, the study says you want a design that creates a false sense of knowing -- a logo that you think you've seen before, even if you haven't.
Professionals such as doctors, lawyers and accountants want something else again. A lawyer, Ms. Henderson says, is "not after something that's memorable. All I want is something that is visually appealing and gives a finished look." Such a logo should be "moderately elaborate because it's going to be better liked" that way, Ms. Henderson says. "Most logos in the world today are too simple."
© Wall Street Journal, 1998. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
