The Homa Files

TakeAway: While some consumers balk at logo changes for aesthetic reasons, others react due to an emotional connection companies wanted to create in the first place. Companies involve consumers in what used to be regarded as internal corporate operations. Sometimes, you get what you ask for.

* * * * *

Starbucks wants to join the small club of companies that are so recognizable they can rely on nothing but a symbol: Nike and its swoosh; McDonald’s and its golden arches; Playboy and its bunny; Apple and its apple.

The danger is that it will join the much larger class of companies that have tried to change their logos only to be forced to backtrack by an electronic lynch mob.

The people who spend their lives creating new logos and brand names have a peculiar weakness for management drivel. Marka Hansen, Gap’s president for North America, defended the firm’s new logo (three letters and a little blue square) with a lot of guff about “our journey to make Gap more relevant to our customers”. The Arnell Group explained its $1m redesign of Pepsi’s logo with references to the “golden ratio” and “gravitational pull”, arguing that “going back-to-the-roots moves the brand forward as it changes the trajectory of the future”.

People have a passionate attachment to some brands. They do not merely buy clothes at Gap or coffee at Starbucks, but consider themselves to belong to “communities” defined by what they consume. A second reason is that the more choices people have, the more they seem to value the familiar.

The debate about logos reveals something interesting about power as well as passion. Much of the rage in the blogosphere is driven by a sense that “they” (the corporate stiffs) have changed something without consulting “us” (the people who really matter). This partly reflects a hunch that consumers have more power in an increasingly crowded market for goods. But it also reflects the sense that brands belong to everyone, not just to the corporations that nominally control them.

Edit by AMW

* * * * *

Full Article:
http://www.economist.com/node/17900472?story_id=17900472&fsrc=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economist%2Ffull_print_edition+%28The+Economist%3A+Full+print+edition%29
 
 

* * * * *

This entry was posted on January 24, 2011 at 6:21 am and is filed under Mktg - Brandmarks & Logos, Mktg - Brands. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.