Contrary to what many believe, the logo is still the main event in communicating the essence of what a brand represents. Within our obsessively condensed attention spans, the logo is more important than ever.

Make no mistake, logos are ubiquitous and so are their creators. In an era of $100 logo design and crowd sourcing, one might conclude the discipline of logo creation has been reduced to automated assemblies of database centered type fonts, symbols, icons and pictograms. Seemingly, anyone with a flair for color and arrangement ought to be able to cobble together a decent logo.

Many big name brands have recently tweaked their logos in a crowd-sourced craze to connect with their customers (think Gap and JC Penney). Seemingly brand owners have devalued the importance of their logos through their adoption of these online easy-do-it yourself-generic-creativity-generating portals.  As a result, web sites like HP’s Logoworks have become thriving businesses.

On the other hand…

Creating a logo that brings enduring value and differentiation to the business enterprise it represents requires deep insight and highly specialized talent and skill.

As our world gets smaller through the technology advances in how humans interact and communicate, logos that are instantly recognized and clearly understood are more important and more valuable than ever.

The logo must work so much harder today–especially when compressed down to sixteen pixels favicons, used as buttons, links, or embedded in content on a mobile screen. The space is getting smaller and the white noise in the slush pile of the marketplace is getting louder. Truly effective logo design is being pushed to new limits delivering instant recognition in ever-smaller digital footprints.  Beyond the communication idea, these are important design considerations many brand owners are just beginning to realize and evolve their identities with the times.

And more importantly, when a logo can transcend any language, linguistic or cultural barrier, and still represent a compelling brand story, its value to brand owners increases exponentially.

What Paul Rand said about the importance of the logo three decades ago still holds true today: “If, in the business of communication, image is king, the essence of this image, the logo, is the jewel in its crown”.

Logos have always been an abbreviation for our preferences, and symbolic of the value that defines who we are and what we promise. For centuries, logo forms have been stitched into the visual fabric that surrounds and connects us. The logo and the ideals it represents are more important than ever–and so is the discipline and process of creating them.

Another iconic retail brand takes a stab at crowd sourcing their logo. This time it’s JC Penney. Although it appears to be another gapification of identity design, JCPenney seems to have slid this in under the radar. Where are all the pundits who were so vocal on Gap and Starbuck’s recent identity changes?

Apparently JCPenney (unlike Gap) took great pains to vet this generic jewel, claiming the new design won the approval of thousands of customers, and was endorsed by two design schools. (think contributions to their scholarship funds). Read the Adage story.

After a rigorous process sifting through 200 design submissions, turns out the winning logo was designed by a third year design student. Congratulations to the design student!  I’m sure this effort will lock into a solid entry-level position at one of the big brand design shops.  Here’s what the CEO had to say:

“We’ve made significant progress transforming our Company over the last several years by infusing great style into our assortments, delivering world-class customer service, and introducing new and innovative retail technologies that have made JCPenney a retail leader in the digital age,” said Chairman-CEO Mike Ullman. “Our new logo reflects the modern retailer we’ve become while continuing to honor our rich legacy.”

Really? How does this new logo do that exactly?  I never cease to be amused at vacuous corporate PR (bullshit) copy writing.

Far more interesting to me than the design, I haven’t heard a whimper from the snotty nose bloggers who dissed all over GAP. This seems completely strange to me. Nobody seemed to notice this at all.  If nobody noticed (or cared), how will this design represent JC Penney’s so called progress at creating a more exciting and relevant shopping experience?

Love to hear your comments!

In a recent conversation with a prospective client in the pre-information gathering phase of qualifying consultants to help them with a corporate name and identity change, they asked “ can you give us an idea on your fee?” I answered the question with our standard minimum-level fee estimate “it all depends”.

I answered the question by explaining our minimum fee requirements.  Of course, that brought the conversation to an abrupt conclusion.  Apparently they placed a lesser value on the solution than the criteria our minimum fee required. We quickly determined that we were not good fit for them at this time. I recommended them to a talented freelance graphic designer. No harm, no foul…

Later I began to think more about the cost question. Why do clients fixate on the consulting fee– the smallest cost component in a fully implemented corporate rebranding initiative? From the client’s point of view, what should corporate identity development cost? I began to do some research to see if there was any form of pricing standard or guideline that potential clients could learn about and use to help them qualify the cost question early in their search for a brand and identity consultant.  Surprisingly I didn’t find much useful information out there. I checked in with a couple of my colleagues in the identity business, the common answer: “it depends”.

There’s useful information from identityworks.com, and an article on the question at hand. Read it here. This site contains useful information on the state of the global identity business as well as download on mapping out the process. Take a moment and check it out.

Key factors affecting corporate identity development costs.

The nature of identity change (both strategically and creatively) is quite different for a corporate organization than it is for a category brand (product or service). While neither is a trivial undertaking, corporate identity development not only involves top line naming and logo development, but also involves complex assessment, planning and strategic planning with executive management. Additionally, subsidiary identities, naming structures, product brands and the scope of implementation over a variety of physical properties will vary significantly depending on the size of the organization.

Category brand identities are no less important, but implementation, or the scope of the physical applications involved are notably not as complex. Category brand identities commonly express themselves in media advertising signatures, product packaging, retail environments and various forms of marketing communications. Strategic and creative development consulting fees for an organizational identity change commonly depend on these factors:

Direct engagement with CEO / CMO executives.
Rarely are such endeavors delegated to lower level managers who would have full authority to make critical decisions. If you have a steering committee structure with lots of opinions to cater to, you’ll most likely be required to pay more in consulting fees.

Size and scope of the organization, subsidiaries, business units, brand architecture.
If the identity change requires complex planning, rigorous market research of various audience segments around the globe, the development costs can be significant.

Reputation and experience of the identity consultant.
Will your corporate identity be developed by a generalist like your advertising agency or PR firm, or do you require the specialization of a global identity firm; or would you be better served by a smaller consulting team consisting of a highly specialized identity or brand strategists in concert with top identity design talent?

How much time is available to complete the assignment?
Assuming you are working with specialized talent in both strategic and design counsel,  there can be many business reasons why the process might be accelerated which would place a premium on the development costs.

A rule of thumb (sort of)

Because there are so many variables, development costs (consulting fees) for rebranding an organization can vary significantly from consultant to consultant. Usually buyers of these services have little or no knowledge, experience or appreciation for all the processess involved.

For enterprises with annual revenues of $250 million+, (exclusive of extensive market research, audience segmentation analysis or physical property and media channel implementation), here’s what you can expect:

Assessment / Planning / Strategy / Naming  $50-100K

Verbal and Visual Identity Design Development  $50-75K

Design Applications and Documentation (print or web based) $60-80K

This fee range assumes you’re considering a seasoned and highly skilled identity consultant with specialized expertise in corporate identity development.

The value of specialized expertise.

Identity development costs can be significant one-time expenses for any size organization. But when understood as an excellent one-time opportunity to leverage the event of a rebranding, there is no better investment to build the foundation to command greater attention and awareness, elevate perceived quality and renew market confidence.

Of course the cost to implement such a program over time (physically and in media communication channels) will always exceed the costs to develop the initial identity strategy. Highly specialized identity consultants come as close to creating and shaping the vibe of a client company as you can get, without actually being the CEO. Just think about all the valuable outcomes an institution’s name, logo, theme line, trade dress, unit names and unit signature system can potentially achieve:

establishing the ‘preferred positioning’ the entity intends to earn;

facilitating the entity’s distinguishing culture and quality that appeals to top talent;

revealing to vested audiences the coherence and purposes of the entity’s composition;

building the foundation of the entity’s value proposition to customers

determining the criteria around  “where we’re going, how must we best organize ourselves and behave to get there”.

Your identity (corporate or brand) is more than the face of your organization in the marketplace. It deserves the investment specialized expertise delivers to build lasting influence and market value over time.

Relative to the value you believe your corporate identity represents to your vested audiences, what price would you put on its development? Or think of it this way–what price would you pay to ensure a successful outcome?  What ever that “number” is for your organization, determines the perceived value you have for the benefits of the specialized expertise an identity consultant provides.

I have to constantly remind myself that most people will perceive any price as high when they believe they are buying a commodity in abundant supply. I hope this provides you with some useful insight on the subject. As always, your comments are most welcome.

When organizations and brands are in the process of changing their identity, I’ve noticed a tendency that it’s easier for executives to focus their energy on “breaking the change to the world” through measured marketing communications, rather than creating a prior strategy of bringing the inner-vested into the identity conversation early on. People naturally want to know “why are we doing this, and what’s in it for me?”

In communicating the aspects of identity change, is your focus on the inner (employees and shareholders), or the outer (more marketing)?

There are powerful market forces that shape identity change. Corporate identity changes are often driven by the CEO as a response to forming the outer market’s perceptions of the value to their enterprises, particularly after a merger or acquisition.  Brand identity changes are usually driven by circumstances in the outer media and sales channels.  These outer drivers are powerful forces indeed. Identity changes have an equally compelling effect on people inside the organization who will be tasked with contributing to “a new idea” they may know little about.

When you provide the reasons why your identity requires change, it’s imperative to have these ideas resonate positively within your organization first, before the outer world. When that happens, it’s like putting Miracle-Grow on the seeds of your brand image.  People on the inside must believe the changing organizational or brand identity will have a positive impact on their lives before they’ll be an influential-buzz-generating machine twittering away in our transparent digital age.  The reason most successful brands seem to have an inner glow about them is no accident.

Having an internal communications strategy in place at the very beginning of the process, is fundamentally important for a successful outcome. Better when clarity begins the process.

What’s your take on this?

The Sans Radio SHACK Attack.

I’m amused with the new name adopted by RadioShack. You can check out the promotional roll-out events here. In an effort to be more relevant in the challenging retail environment of consumer electronics, I think RadioShack’s intention to transform itself into a more compelling and “hip” retailer is a good idea long overdue.  Alas, it might be too little, too late.

This name change seems to be a half-hearted effort with a half-baked result. My intuition tells me RadioShack’s management is still not quite sure what they want to become, or if they are even doing the right thing. Of course, I am not privy to the real facts behind the story, but as a blogger with an informed opinion, I think this provides an interesting example of why a name change must be an “all-in” affair. I rolled my eyes at the CMO’s hedging remarks that this is not really a name change?  Then what is it–advertising?

Let me begin with the name change to– “The Shack”.  (Interesting that it coincides with Pizza Hut’s recent moniker change to “The Hut”.  I wonder if they are using the same ad agency?)  It seems to me, management must believe the key descriptor in the name (radio) is no longer an accurate handle that describes a relevant, and emotionally powerful customer-facing frame of reference.

On the surface, one might agree with the “logic” behind this rational, we are way past the glory days of transistor radios, CB’s and home radio operators for which this brand is iconic. One could make a convincing case for a name change. However, this effort seems blatantly superficial!

The hard truth remains– people have stopped caring about RadioShack (and Pizza Hut too), pure and simple. Here’s what has not appeared to have changed much at THE SHACK:

oh-hum store environments with generic products

a third-tier electronics component retailer with a low-value consciousness and blurry positioning.

a management culture that continues to value safety and security, over love and innovation.

I’m not being critical of the name change to “THE SHACK”.  In my opinion, (aka rant) I don’t think it matters what you call them. I’m just saying that customers care more about the experience of value your brand provides them. You can’t change the name and not the substance behind the name and expect that alone will make your business matter to people again.

A highly targeted positioning, an emotionally rich and relevant value proposition, and an unforgettable experience of value will comprise a brand worthy of customer advocacy. Best Buy has these bases well covered, plus their name says it all.

By the way, you may not realize this, but all the mobile communication products and services that are a large part of the merchandising mix at the now RadiolessShack are, in fact, just a newer type of radio. Go figure…

What’s your take on it?

I wrote an earlier post on naming a few months ago. The point of that article was focused on the structure of various naming configurations. It was a left-brain attempt to outline some conventional naming structures designed to serve as a guide to help those who might be in the middle of a naming process. What I didn’t outline in the previous post was the right-brain approach to naming…

When you engage in a naming initiative from the right side of the grey matter, the concern is less on structure and convention, and more on creating a clear mental image that serves the desired positioning of your company, product or service. A great name is just too important a business asset to come just from one side of the brain.  The right brain approach is the one that connects verbal cues with clear mental pictures. This is very important because people think and remember in pictures! Before I go deeper, let me share a couple of stories from marketing folklore.

For many years, there was a small but growing athletic footwear company with a check-mark shwoosh logo called Blue Ribbon Sports. Not a terrible name, but not compelling enough to create a powerful mental image of winning foot races. Wisely, the company changed its name to a word that came from a Greek Olympic chant meaning “win, win, win!  With this more evocative name, coupled with a more aspirational positioning and promise, Nike took off to the heights of greatness only a few companies will ascend to.

Then there was the Pequod Coffee Company, a name under serious consideration from a start-up company from Seattle. The owners had a fascination with all things Moby Dick. (Apparently one was an English professor). What useful and compelling mental images and associations does the name “Pequod” bring to your mind?  Alas, someone said something to the effect “since you are so set on the Moby Dick theme, and you already have a mermaid as your symbol, why not use the name of the Pequod’s first mate, Starbuck? At least it easier to pronounce and it sounds better”.  From there, another marketing legend is born!

For all you marketing communications executives working in a company with a three-letter acronym name that is not AT&T or IBM, this might cause you to think more about a name that will provide your company with more powerful visual imagery that will separates you from the slush pile of all the other companies with dull, boring and meaningless three-letter names.

In a cluttered brandscape, owning a name that sparks a clear mental image that communicates the promise you make to your customers can be the white hot center of your competitive advantage.

What mental images does your company name convey? Are these visual associations aligned with what makes your business matter to people?

Each year countless names are added to the brandscape. Naming is a strategic discipline of creating the most appropriate word or words that identity a company, product or service. Creating a memorable name, one that has legs with an audience, and one you can build equity in over time is a tough challenge indeed.

Anyone who has ever sat in a room writing ideas on a whiteboard will agree that creating an enduring name is far more difficult than it may seem–it’s also the least understood of all the business or marketing communication practices.

When we were going through our own process of  “naming” our firm, we held tightly to our criteria of having our name be one syllable simple and highly evocative of the value we bring to our clients. PULL fit us perfectly in its simplicity and in its promise. We gave this matter our full attention and consideration. It was not a casual process. Our business name, like yours, is our most important business asset.

Ten common naming structures to guide your thinking.

What about developing names that identify organizations and brands with global reach? Creating words that transcend legal, language and cultural references gets even more challenging–not to mention the complex trademark and URL considerations that go with it. Naming is the most important element of a brand proposition. It’s the first perception by an audience about who you are and what you represent. Names should never be developed as an afterthought. A good name requires and deserves your full consideration.  If you are thinking about naming right now, you may find the following structures useful to your process. Of course, a naming and identity consultant might be handy in the process too… just a thought.

Real Words:
These are names that are simply re-purposed words. (e.g., Adobe, Amazon, Fox, Yelp, Saphire)

This category also includes misspelled words (e.g., Digg (dig), flickr (flicker)) and foreign words (e.g., Vox (Latin for ‘voice’).

Compounds:
These names consist of two words put together (e.g., Firefox, Facebook, LightScribe).

Phrases:
These names follow normal rules for combining words (but are not compounds) (e.g., MySpace, StumbleUpon).

Blends:
Blended names have two parts, at least one of which can be recognized as a part of a real word (e.g., Netscape (net + landscape); Wikipedia (wiki + encyclopedia).

Tweaked Words:
Tweaked word names are derived from words that have been slightly changed in pronunciation and spelling – commonly derived from adding or replacing a letter (e.g., ebay, iTunes).

Affixed Words:
These are unique names that result from taking a real word and adding a suffix or prefix (e.g., Friendster, Omnidrive).

Made Up, Evocative or Obscure Origin Words:
These names are generally short names that are either completely made up, or, since their origins are so obscure, they may as well have been made up (e.g., Bebo, Plaxo).

Puns:
Puns are names that modify words/phrases to suggest a different meaning (e.g., Farecast (forecast, fore -> fare), Writely (rightly, right -> write).

People’s Names:
Using a general name or the name from a personal connection (e.g., Ning (a Chinese name), Wendy’s (founder Dave Thomas’ daughter’s nickname).

Acronyms:
The least favored in our view. Names derived from the first letter of each word in the longer, more official name (e.g., AOL (America Online), FIM (Fox Interactive Media).