logos Archives - saxtonstudio blog

September 15, 2012 In advertising, branding, business, communication, creativity, design, graphic design, marketing By Patricia Saxton

eBay Updo

EBay got a new doo.

It’s always interesting when ia big name company decides to revamp their look, which most noticeably translates to changing their logo.

Sometimes it’s well worth it, sometimes a pointless gesture. Either way, it can be a tricky line to cross, because for good, bad or ugly, there’s a great amount of already established brand recognition involved ~ which means that over time, people, being emotional creatures, have an ingrained response invested, and there’s a risk of upsetting that apple cart. Generally speaking, people don’t like change. They like familiar.

So the trick becomes creating a design that’s new, fresh and inviting while maintaining the “we’re still you’re old friend” feeling that often takes years, sometimes decades, to instill.

So how does eBay’s change measure up? Personally, I think they did a good job. Executionally there’s a glitch or two (noting in particular the imprecise overlap of the e/b), but overall, even without the original quirkiness, it still feels ebay-ish ~ just more representative of their larger prowess (they aren’t the crazy little start-up they once were) and definitely more contemporary.

I saw a thread where a lot of designers (one assumes) commented negatively about the re-design, citing “boring” and “safe” among other complaints. I dunno ~ maybe, like me, they think “I could have done that, and I could have done it better”, so there could be a hint of competitive resentment ~ but for whatever reason, I think they were too critical (this from someone who’s VERY critical!). And, in the end, as I’ve said in other posts, this kind of change won’t leave loyal followers hitching a ride elsewhere.

It’s a nice change, refreshing. In my many years of experience I’ve learned that solid, effective creativity doesn’t necessarily mean over the top “wowing” them with how clever you are.

Could this have been more “creative”? Sure. Did they lose the “fun factor”? Maybe a little. But I like the simplicity. I also like that it’s more sophisticated than it was before ~ after all, the company itself certainly is ~ yet it still feels friendly.

Now it’s up to the business and its’ services to do the rest of the talking.

February 26, 2012 In advertising, branding, creativity, design, graphic design, imagination, intelligence, marketing By Patricia Saxton

Six Businesses, Six Logos

Someone recently asked me, “How do you create a logo? Where do you start?”

I didn’t have a ready answer, except that it just sort of happens ~ ideas, concepts, visuals come to mind, which then evolve, and then get tweaked into a finished product. And while this is the truth of it, I’m sure it was highly useless to the person asking the question, especially the part where it “just sort of happens”.

If I were to try again, I’d say that the “just happening” probably comes from many years of what I’ll call research. It’s being in a business where you’re constantly aware of branding, you’re using different fonts and font combinations on a daily basis, working with shapes and colors and sizes and revolving trends. So that when you sit down to “create”, there’s all this history at your disposal. A muscle that’s been exercised regularly. You know where you can bend and stretch the limits, and you know ~ both intuitively and figuratively ~ what won’t work.

With that in mind, I have 4 rules I’ve always followed when creating a logo:

1.) Clear the head.

2.) Listen.

3.) Find emotional touchpoints and discern the personality of the business.

4.) Distill to its simplest form.

Of course within the process there’s the wonderfully muddy area where creativity swirls. Marrying concepts and tastes, the play of fonts, and the interweaving of symbols and shapes to give a visual voice to the intent of the logo: which is to be distinctive, memorable and clean, ready to leave a solid, ever-present, impression.

Here are 6 recent logos from 6 different businesses: A Non-Profit Foundation for Special Forces families, Landscaping, Real Estate Staging, E-Learning, Speech & Presentation Coaching, and Osteopathy. (I might mention that most of these presented the additional challenge of being particularly long names, which can be trickier when it comes to applying them… more on that next.)

October 17, 2010 In advertising, branding, business, communication, graphic design, presentation By Patricia Saxton

When It's Wrong to Redesign a Brand

Much time, and probably a lot more money, was spent making recent logo changes on some big company re-branding efforts.

EXHIBIT A: Tetley Tea. Tom’s of Maine. The GAP. (old on left, new on right)

The question I ask: “Why”? Have sales been down? Was company morale low? Were they experiencing a scandalous attack? Were decision-making-someones simply bored?

Now, don’t get me wrong ~ I’m all about presentation and the power of “look and feel”, and if any one of these companies had asked me to give them a redesign, I would have gladly obliged. But – not to sound immodest, as I believe most designers given the opportunity would say the same thing– I would have handled it quite differently, and I’d like to think, more effectively.

One lesson I would apply: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. This is the part of “Branding 101” known as consumer recognition.

Brand Connections …

Big Brands elicit a kind of personal connection – for better or worse, we make mental, even emotional, associations with how they look. And that association comes from recognition, which stems from the basic concept of consistency.

For high-profile brands, the success derived from established logo/packaging recognition can seriously outweigh whether or not a look is amazing.

As shown in “Exhibit A”, Tetley’s old package was far from hip or upscale ~ but, as a tea drinker who personally loves the smooth, full-bodied flavor of Tetley’s British Blend, I can vouch that the old package says “rich flavor” much more than the new package, which (I truly hate to say) looks more like packaging for a feminine product.

Tom’s, another brand I enjoy, previously used friendly, round shaped bottles and a graphic treatment that worked well with its natural product, whereas the new look reminds me of a bad Web 2.0 design in an oddly shaped container.

As for GAP, the logo may not have been exciting, but it was solid with really nothing wrong.

Doing it right….

For companies/products with already high recognition, rather than reinvent the wheel, redesigns would best be served by tweaking and updating.

EXHIBIT B: Morton Salt. Ronzoni.

Morton and Ronzoni made changes with the times, without shocking overhauls. They’ve retained their original intent and managed to successfully alter their look by doing it gradually, with key elements maintained and integrity in tact.

The message being, don’t send your customers on a wild goose chase trying to find your *new and improved* packaging, OR throw them into a tizzy because their familiar, trusted product got a makeover and a new doo, like a friend who’s trying to be, or is turning into, someone else.

Beyond the fact that many people don’t like change, there’s something to be said for the comfort of familiarity in a world that moves too fast and holds many a slick deal.

On the other hand, improvements can be refreshing. Kind of like when you’re loathe to part with an old, favorite shetland sweater ~ but that nice new cashmere in a similar style and color might be hard to resist.

Refreshing is good. But different and unfamiliar is not a smart promotional move. Why discombobulate, and possibly alienate, your audience? For what purpose?

To redesign or not to redesign?

Okay, so maybe the Tetley, Tom’s and GAP folks had good reason for the change. Let’s go ahead and assume the most practical reason: lagging sales or market competition.

But let’s also put it out there that the cause of lagging sales or struggle with market competition just might have more to do with things much less glamorous than a logo or fancy packaging ~ things like business plans and marketing structure, advertising strategies or customer awareness issues.

So that usually, and particularly in the case of well-known companies/products, changing the logo is not the remedy.

(Worth noting at this point … if you’re a start-up company, or your business has been around but floundering in a sea of mediocrity, by all means, run to a great designer. Boosting the look of your branding may be just what’s needed to boost momentum and shift the energy.)

Well, what’s done is done (except in the case of the GAP, who apparently quickly reverted to their original logo after public outcry! ) … but the questions remain:

1. Is it worth the shake-up to completely re-brand a good thing? (I think not.)

2. Will re-branding a good thing turn the consumer away? (Again, I think not… although you may whine, as I have. But if you love Tetley tea, you won’t stop buying it because you don’t like the new package.)

3. In the end, was it worth the time and money to do all that dramatic re-doing? (Right … I think not.)

4. Could that time and money have been more wisely used? (Most definitely, yes.)

Conclusion: Sometimes it’s wrong to redeisgn a brand. I rest my case.