[ocaml-biz] logo connotations

[Brandon J. Van Every]

William D. Neumann wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
> > Not really.  Logos *can* carry connotation.  They don't have to be
> > completely arbitrary symbols that are drilled into people only by
> > repetition.
>
> Yes they can, but they don't have to.  A logo can be good or
> bad completely independently of
> whether it conveys a message about what it represents.

In my opinion, they should, and failure to do so is bad design.  Some
businesses succeed anyways despite the bad design of their logos, i.e.
if you throw enough money into marketing, and your product itself
doesn't suck, stuff sticks.  That's a rather unsophisticated deep
pockets approach to marketing problems though.

> > And a lot of logos suck.  If the logo doesn't make some kind of
> > connection to the product, it is failing to do a big part
> of its job.
>
> I guess we have different views on what logos are there for.
> In my mind they serve three main
> purposes: To catch the eye and get someone to look at the
> product behind the logo;

Yes, a graphic design should not visually suck.  I think that's pretty
basic.  I am guessing all of the visually bad logos come from companies
that were in a hurry, contracted the artwork on spec, and got what they
paid for.

> To eventually
> serve as a stand-in for the products name (You see the
> swoosh, your mind says Nike; you see the
> searchlights, your mind says Fox. But the connection doesn't
> have to be there from the outset, when
> O'Reilly first started using engravings for their covers,
> they said nothing about O'Reilly.  But after
> years of seeing the covers next to the name the two have
> become linked -- engravings on the covers
> == O'Reilly);

Any logo that doesn't basically suck will have this 'familiarity
property' if a business survives for umpteen years.  What about getting
there in the first place?  The reason to deal with connotation is
because you need every advantage you can muster when starting your
business.  It's not enough to say, "Oh, 10 years from now it won't
matter."

> To serve as free advertising (as in, "Hmmm I
> see that swoosh everywhere, maybe Nikes
> are worth trying out," or "Damn, I'm seeing that flipping
> camel everywhere... maybe Perl is a good
> language to work in.")  Anything above those two jobs is pure gravy.

There's nothing free about that advertizing.  All those Nike swooshes
are bought and paid for somehow.  All the paper book covers with camels
on them too.  The only place you might get something for nothing is the
internet.  Even then, driving the traffic and achieving critical mass
aren't free.

> > Apple's logo said *enormous* things about their corporate culture
> > back when the 'rainbow' logo was first produced.
>
> And it says jack about the product.

Connotations *DO NOT* have to literally explain a product.  They must
provide associations that are desireable in the minds of the target
demographic.  How often have you seen 'sexy woman' attached to some
product?

> > > Dell,
> >
> > Again, "corporate, solid, no nonsense."
>
> You get that from a skewed block E?

No, from the blocky, no nonsense type treatment.  Same as the IBM logo.
The skewed E is only to catch the eye and distinguish the mark.  "Bland
and corporate" is a connotation, don't forget.  When you're gonna sell a
lot of boxes to a lot of corporations, that's actually what you want.

> The engravings were chosen
> because they gave O'Reilly books a different
> look, hoping to catch the eye of a browser (see job #1 of a
> logo above).

I bet "we think techies like animals" is in there too.

> > The connotations of logos are extant in many cases.  Particularly
> > with the more compelling logos, i.e. Apple.
>
> And I don't think that's the case.

Well, if you don't see the connotations of Apple's current logo and
brand identity, you're just not perceptive about advertizing campaigns.
That branding is the main thing that has pulled Apple out of the gutter
and gotten them back into the biz again.  Maybe you don't see it because
you think it's all just about "looking good," that somehow this isn't in
and of itself a connotation.  Apple's connotation is "we embrace your
entire graphic design lifestyle.  You, the New Media chic, are our core
customers.  We know what good design is, and PCs don't."

> I only think the meaning
> stays alive with those who where around
> when the original meaning was established -- and it's not the
> kind of thing that is passed down from
> generation to generation (Son, let me tell you about this
> here logo...)

I don't see why we're talking about how to design logos for 10 or 20
years from now.  Let's deal with problems now, shall we?

> To me, logos that will likely always offer something to say
> about what they represent are logos like
> Paramount's (the peak, the top, the best),

Interestingly, it has never said anything to me other than "a mountain."

> Prudential's (solid, unyeilding),

I'm not sure that rock would mean so much if it weren't the Rock Of
Gibraltar.

> Travellers' (protection),

Yes, the umbrella was clever in a long term sense.

> RSA, Rockwell, RCA, Sandia National Labs, The World Wildlife
> Fund, CEI's Reddy Kilowatt, etc.

I can't think of the logos for most of these companies.  I do know that
RCA has a dog listening to a grammophone.  That's a rather literal
connotation for the Recording Company of America.  Maybe you should
consider the school of thought of not just having a connotation, but
actually depicting what the product does.

> > I am wondering if
> > you're just not a verbal thinker, so you don't see a reason to
> > attach descriptive words to logos?
>
> I don't see a reason to go fishing for descriptive words to
> attach to logos because to me that's not their primary job.

I think you are biased too strongly towards this so-called "primary
job."

Operatively, what are you going to do?  Refuse to discuss OCaml's
possible brand identities?  Pooh pooh the exercise, claiming "it's all
in the eye candy?"


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.