Descriptive logos (containing visual elements that communicate the type of product/service) influence the perception of the brand more favorably than non-descriptive ones (those that do not indicate the type of product/service). They also found that descriptive signs are more effective — provided they are not associated with sad or unpleasant things, in which case a nondescriptive logo is likely to be better.
Pattern for your company's killer logo
“Everything is beautiful but the logo, let it be bigger... a little more... a little more, perfect.” This annoying phrase, among customers is unfortunately still very common. It is a delusion that if we enlarge our brand, it will gain more attention. Dieter Rams often placed the logo on the back of objects, explaining his treatment in this way: “When you meet a new person, you do not shout your name from afar, but allow a handshake, a moment of courtesy and after a few introductory sentences you present your name/name.”
There is a whole spectrum of tools and instruments to stand out from the competition, from simple graphic techniques, to understanding customer needs, to complex advertising campaigns. The main task of trademarks is to identify and build associations with our product, service, culture, language and way of expressing ourselves.
The economical form of the logo is a huge challenge for creators, the first questions that the designer must answer are, for example, whether the logo should be figurative and descriptive or whether it can be limited to abstract and non-descriptive symbolism. Both forms have their pros and cons, but which one will work best for our brand? To this question, scientists from the Journal of Marketing Research sought to answer.
Efficacy test
Imagine that you are a marketing specialist who is responsible for, launching a new brand called FLOX that sells coffee beans to professional baristas. You have just received a message from your CEO asking you to choose one of two logos. Which logo should you choose: is it on the left or on the right?
The sign on the left is a kind of non-descriptive logo, it is abstract and simple. Choosing the left side, you might come to the conclusion that your customers prefer a sparing form, minimalism and means of expression that affect the subconscious (indirect). And when choosing the right one, you could conclude that your customers will appreciate the valuable, descriptive and direct information about the product contained in the form of a logo.
Logo in the laboratory
Researchers in a recent Journal of Marketing Research study, Jonathan Luffarelli, Mudra Mukesh, and Ammara Mahmood, tried to discover what influences the effectiveness of a logo — in particular, its dependence on whether it is descriptive or not. 597 well-known trademarks were taken to the workshop.
The study defines a descriptive logo as one that contains textual or visual design elements (or a combination thereof) that clearly communicate the type of product or service the brand is selling. A nondescript logo consists of design elements that do not directly represent what the company does or offers. The research team's analysis found that about 60% of companies used non-descriptive logos and 40% used descriptive logos.
For example, the logo of the NBA (National Basketball Association) is descriptive: thanks to the silhouette of a man dribbling with a ball, we know that he represents sports and basketball. The McDonald's logo, on the other hand, is indescribable, and at the first meeting we are unable to deduce the company profile, the need to complement it in the form of advertisements, photos, tests, etc.
In recent years, several brands have modified their logos to make them more descriptive (such as Animal Planet), while others have worked just the opposite (such as Dunkin Donuts). Another example is the Starbucks logo, which for many years included the inscription “coffee” around the siren, making the logo descriptive. After the rebranding, the company reduced its mark by removing the word “coffee” and changed from descriptive to non-descriptive and forced consumers to rely solely on illustrations to recognize the brand.
If you think about it in the case of large brands whose level of awareness is very high, such as Nike, Starbucks or BMW, you can afford to simplify the form to less descriptive. Such a play forces an associative effort on the recipient, it forces him to solve the rebus titled what is missing here. Such intellectual fun treated to the brain ends with an even more strongly etched memory image - 1:0 for Nike. If you are a young brand and your marketing budget is not impressive, you should go for a descriptive logo that outlines your product or service.
Discovery? I don't think
The researchers found that a descriptive logo can “positively influence brand evaluation, purchase intent, and sales performance.” In other words, descriptive logos tend to earn more for the company compared to their less descriptive counterparts. The study explains that descriptive logos are easier to process and tend to communicate “authenticity”, which is an ever-fashionable slogan and something consumers value. Of course, this is not so simple.
The study also suggests that companies offering multiple products or services, such as Uber, Procter & Gamble or Samsung, refrain from descriptive logos because attempts to visually capture unrelated products or services can embarrass the consumer. And if you offer a product with a little less charm (funeral homes or bug repellents), then also avoid the visual association. Perhaps this explains why 60% of brands today have logos that are considered “nondescript”.
And what next?
Quantitative research is of great value, but in the case of design, which is subjective and each brand is different, it can at most play a complementary role. They must be taken into account, of course - but it would be a mistake to accept them as sacred truth and a guideline for subsequent projects.
There are a ton of factors to consider when designing a visual identity, these are the hours spent on one-on-one conversations, researching competitors, customers, context, organizational history, strategy, vision, and mission. This cannot be thrown into excel. It takes a lot of experience and a lot of empathy.
It is impossible for two companies to be the same. And most importantly - spectacular creations can be expected from minds unencumbered by charts and formulas. If you are wondering when to use data during design, unfortunately I have only one, annoying answer - it depends.
Design is a balancing act between data and creativity.
The Challenge
The role of the designer is to understand the needs of the client - the client, and then translate this knowledge into a functional and aesthetic format. A craft honed to perfection, without understanding the client's assumptions, is really - useless. Therefore, any study aimed at getting to know your client's audience, their environment and context is worth its weight in gold. And this is where I think quantitative research can work best, to synthesize and narrow the field of observation
Conclusion
The team of researchers, despite their efforts, did not make groundbreaking discoveries. However, between the lines can be noted the increasing importance of the question: where does the design fit, and where are the conclusions about the meaning of the data? For me, design is a combination of art and practice, a strange mixture of logic and magic - which extremely rarely gives simple answers.
