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.
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:
- 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.
- Distinctiveness-how different, and therefore ownable the logo is within your industry/area; a criterion directly linked to memorability and protectability.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- Protectability-a criteria that can (and should) be assessed only by a professional IP counselor.
- Adaptability (transferability)-important when the logo will endorse divisions, sub-brands, alliances or brand extensions.
- 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.
- 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 your 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, and I’d like to learn what worked for you-use the comments below.
By Tony Spaeth
08 JUL 2009, 0:13 GMT
Marius, I just reviewed your remarkable “el Raton” identity design solution. I have to ask… were you able to apply your (very useful) selection guidance for this probono client… or did they simply fall in love with el Raton’s spirit?
By Marius Ursache
08 JUL 2009, 16:58 GMT
The above process works only in certain situations (tough to find out which before starting the design process). It is very useful for clients that are not sure what exactly they want, or for clients that have a high drive to choose a logo of their personal liking. It works because it puts responsibility on the client shoulders when taking a decision. Sometimes it scares them—’No, no, we just wanted a logo”, because they don’t see the importance of a corporate identity program, they just need to fill in a gap (the missing logo).
Getting back to the El Raton logo—in the brief, the client requested that we should create an identity that would primarily convey their values (signification), be adaptable (for their events and scientific magazine), and secondarily be distinctive and memorable.
During the work process we realized that it was difficult to create something figurative and not fall within the domain cliches (test-tubes, chemical structures, globes etc.), so we advised towards a more abstract solution, that would be less figurative, so have less intrinsic value. We presented two concepts and the client had an internal debate, being very close to choosing one of them.
I had some sketches that were not fully developed for presentation, and among them was the musketeer mouse. I took one hour to refine it and send it to someone in the client’s team, just to show what could be a really daring solution, but assuming by default that a medical scientific organization would not have the level of understanding (or guts) to even consider that alternative.
I was wrong.
The next day they called and they said they were madly in love with the mouse logo. There was no going back. I did not have to argue, because the new logo was totally on brief. And it was good to see a client that happy with a new logo.
A fun thing—after El Raton concept was approved, I refined the curves and shapes to make it more subtle and daring. Needless to say, the client asked to go back to the exact shape drawn by mouse in a couple minutes, and the refined, proportioned version was turned down.
Lessons learned? Do not ever underestimate a client’s level of acceptance of a good idea.
By Scott Lerman
10 JUL 2009, 18:22 GMT
Marius: My first criteria is whether a logo concept communicates (or is a least a good “container” of) the desired brand personality and attributes—not just to the client, but to their intended audiences.
By Andrew Pourtov
10 JUL 2009, 19:33 GMT
Hi Marius
You have written correct things, but the logo cannot be chosen on separate parametres. I have about 20 criteria for the name of a brand and we apply our technique of weight factors to a choice of the best name. But I do not think, that the logo needs to be estimated by separate criteria.Earlier was considered, that it should be accurate, well reproduced at any print technology and so on. Today’s logos trends have changed our representation about them. There is only one indisputable criterion: the logo transfers the information on brand values (brand platform) or not. If in advance to discuss with the client about values of a brand and to warn him, that the logo will be created to inform these values to target audiences instead of that it is pleasant to CEO of the company, problems will be much less. Otherwise there will be a lottery and a choice on the taste, and also consultation of the wife, the secretary and friends :о)
By Marius Ursache
13 JUL 2009, 14:53 GMT
Scott,
I don’t think the logo is always about communicating something from the first day. It can be just an identifier, like someone’s signature. But, since we’re basically debating the Intrinsic vs. acquired value, here’s what I think:
Intrinsic value is directly related to signification. The more attributes, values and brand personality traits the logo conveys, the easier will be the memorability/differentiation process. On the other hand, future changes in positioning or brand strategy may require changing the identity. Here are some examples:
Acquired value comes after the logo is associated over a period of time with the company’s communication, products and services. And it’s sometimes easier to come up with a new brand strategy and still keep the logo (unless the CEO is after leaving a visual mark of his mandate). Most logotypes fall in this category, but also other abstract logos that convey nothing in the beginning (as a matter of fact, some of these would successfully work for companies in other industries). Examples below:
By Marius Ursache
13 JUL 2009, 15:00 GMT
Andrew,
My previous comment (in reply to Scott) addresses the issue of logo as a communicator of values versus an abstract identifier. I think that both these options have to be considered during the strategic phase of the identity design process.
As far as the other criteria are concerned—of course all of them need to be considered. But on the other hand, each project has it’s needs and specific requirements. We try to prioritize these criteria, so that the client has a more informed assessment when making a decision in the process.
By Scott Lerman
13 JUL 2009, 15:58 GMT
I agree Marius. The tricky part is evaluating the potential of a logo as a fitting container of meaning. While some concepts may seem inherently neutral, they can still communicate radical change–
to 
.
think
I believe that personality is a particularly good basis for logo design. While strategic position, product lines, and target markets may shift rapidly, corporate cultures evolve slowly. (That’s why so may organizations ‘break’ when forced into mergers with unsuitable partners.) Get the character right, and you’re far more than halfway there.
By Marius Ursache
13 JUL 2009, 16:47 GMT
I couldn’t agree more.
From this point of view, tne brand identity I admire a lot is Siemens. A lot has changed (and is changing) in brand communications and corporate culture, but their logo stays the same, despite the increasing rebranding trend during the past decade. Their identity manual evolves slowly but steadily, adapting the communication process to the current needs. But the logo stays the same (why change, after all?)
By Joshua Schoenaker
14 JUL 2009, 11:56 GMT
You’re right. The Siemens logo was designed back in 1989 by Mendell & Oberer. And still standing tall. That’s German design for ya.
I like to watch Paul Rand’s view on these discussions from time to time, to remind myself not to look too deep into things concerning logodesign. LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta4ef1xBeMA
By SCM Designs
06 MAR 2010, 3:21 GMT
A wonderful piece on on logo theory, development and process. Thank you for sharing this. I find your criteria to be wonderfully thorough and I appreciate the fact that you declare that designers need to step in and offer guidance. We all know not all of it may be adopted, but ultimately that is a more significant part of what they seek from us then we think or care to express.