Why are brands so strict with their logos? The logo Larry and Sergey are holding is not the constant unchanging logo most brands know. Sometimes it changes on a day by day basis. But it is still recognised. And still manages to keep its single identity. Whilst most brands would be happy to slap an “extra 20% free” flash all over their packaging, they would never dare breach the sacred brand guidelines in order to touch the logo. Rightly or wrongly, does digital let us play differently?
Online, we don’t need to scour the shelves for brands. Brands we want are already bookmarked and if not, the URL is normally pretty memorable. So whereas the logo in the offline world is the mother of necessity for recognition and purchase, online, it is simply a symbol that you’ve arrived. The two roles are very different. If this is the case, can’t brands afford to be more liberal with their logos online? If a brand’s value is playful, why shouldn’t it play with it logo?
On Carnaby Street, Diesel doesn’t play just with its logo, but its entire facade. In FMCG uncognitive recognition is the single most important part of your communication. Afterall, if a consumer does not pick up your product, why invest so heavily in other communications? The world’s smartest comm’s strategy is worthless unless people take your pack to the till. Diesel may not be FMCG, but the high street can be as confusing as Tesco’s, especially Carnaby Street where the majority of shoppers do not know their way around. So I have to wonder whether Diesel’s hideous shop face designs are effective at enabling brand recognition. Maybe they will argue the “made you look, made you stare” approach will be disruptive enough to draw consumers in. Maybe they feel using the brand’s “packaging” is a just another comm’s channel to get constantly changing brand campaigns across rather than to communicate evergreen brand values. Or maybe Carnaby Street simply merits an exception and the loss in entries due to lack of brand recognition is worth it to make the extra noise. One thing’s for sure, Diesel are happy to throw their brand guidelines out of the window in this case.
Nike however has been notoriously strict with its logo through the years and now, boasting one of the most instantly recognised icons in the world, it has the freedom to play with its logo across media channels. Whilst the main brand logo doesn’t need to feature the word NIKE, the NIKEiD log doesn’t even feature the swoosh. But then again, NIKEiD lives predominantly online.
Film studios are also great at playing with their logos. As with online, a studio’s brand logo in the cinema plays a very different role for consumers meaning that studios can afford to let go of their logos once in a while. Warner Brothers frequently manipulate their logo - notable examples include Batman, The Matrix and the Harry Potters. And of course, there is Paramount’s play on their mountain as the opening shot for each of the Indiana Jones films.
In the past, logo’s get treated differently according to the channel they are presented in and this principle is even more applicable now given the wider spread of comm’s brands need to communicate their channels through. Perhaps in digital, where a logo’s role is very different, we will begin to see the traditional brands let go of their logos and allowing them to speak more freely about who the brand truly is.
Loading ...
Post a comment