No need for a logo? So what is there left to distinguish the company name? I have to disagree with Simon Manchipp’s thoughts regarding the rise of the brand world (Insight, DW 1 April). After recently graduating from the University of Portsmouth I focused on semiotics for my major project, and therefore feel I am well rehearsed in the subject.
I believe that logos can strike an insight into the brand without any placement of the brand at all. This is more commonplace around the globe, with an ever-increasing visual market and a decrease in the use of words. I believe that brands ’house’ logos, and one informs the other.
All the information is there in a logo to indicate the target market, the position in the marketplace and any potential ethical stance on things like sustainability. Saying that a logo will not communicate on multiple levels because it needs explanation is untrue – if it does, maybe you need to reconsider your branding process. I agree that a brand can be developed without a logo, but the logo is the signifier, at the forefront of any display for all to see, judge and react to.
There may be a recent decline in the love for the logo due to the cost – we are in a recession, after all, and this can be seen as a ’frivolous’ part of the branding. It is proven that those that are willing to invest in a clear, logical logo and aligned brand will benefit from the audience’s clear understanding of what it delivers.
One example – remember the changes to the Conservative Party logo? When it was changed the public noticed its poor communication, from strong and proclamatory dominance to a green ’scribble’, as it was referred to at the time – this changed the perception of brand, simply through changing the logo. With the General Election upon us, I wonder how much of an impact this will have on voters’ minds?
Ben Paul, Graphic designer, Shilling Communication, by e-mail