OPINION ZONE: Does your logo need an update?

December 2008 | Posted by Carolyn Pikoulas
It seems like 2008 has been the year of the "Rebrands". Companies like Walmart, BestBuy and Pepsi have updated their corporate logos in an attempt to refresh their image to their customers. But is this really necessary? Are the costs it takes to change signage, collateral, packaging, and products worth it?

Over the next three years, Pepsi is reportedly spending 1.2 BILLION dollars to completely re-brand its beverage line. The idea was to modify the familiar logo into a "smiling" mouth. Diet Pepsi has a slight smile, regular Pepsi has a more open smile, and Pepsi Max has a laughing mouth. But is spending $1.2 billion the best way to boost sales? Will they ever gain a return on their investment? Couldn't the money go into something worthwhile (like a charity) to generate some good PR?

Pepsi isn't the only one changing. Take a look at the redesigned logos of the companies below. Some, I'd say, were good choices; others probably weren't worth the price.

Is it just me, or does anyone understand why the ‘M' in "Animal Planet" is on its side? Is it supposed to be something like the hidden arrow in the FedEx logo? Am I missing something?

 
Walmart looks a little more friendly with its starburst, lighter color and lowercase font. (I still won't enjoy shopping there).

 
Capital One added a generic "swoosh" to their logo. So, it must be better, faster and stronger, right? FYI- to designers, swooshes are the most common and unimaginative shape there is for logos (unless you're Nike).

 
Mapquest did a good job of keeping its identity, just making it cleaner and more readable.

 
BestBuy's new logo is uninspiring. It lacks the pop and boldness of its old logo.

 
Hmmm...everyone's going with a lowercase font. The new hand looks a bit frail (probably because no one under 40 uses the phonebook anymore).

Woolworth was in much need of a change. The slogan was too overpowering. The new logo is fresh and smart with a unique apple shape that also forms the letter ‘w'.

There are fewer companies these days who hold on to the same logo year after year. But some, like CBS, know the value of a good brand from the start. Since 1951, CBS's iconic "eye" logo has remained unchanged (except for the font). William Golden, the designer, was tired of the symbol after only one year and wanted to create something else. But the president at the time reminded him, "Just when you're beginning to get bored with what you have done is probably the time it is beginning to be noticed by your audience." 57 years later, it's still the same.

Even Tylenol kept their brand after the scare in the 80's when poisoned tablets were found in some of their bottles. They had a very good reason to change their brand. The public was frightened and bad publicity was prevalent. Instead, they kept the brand and reassured the public with new tamper-proof packaging. The brand survived and is still a leader in over-the-counter medicine. They managed the crisis and kept their most valuable asset: a recognizable brand. This may not be the best answer for every company who goes through bad publicity. But Tylenol worked tirelessly to regain their customers' trust, instead of hiding behind a new image.

One industry where change is good is technology. Logos in the technology industry should evolve as their industry is constantly improving and evolving. A logo that looks outdated gives the perception that the company isn't cutting edge or doesn't keep up with the times. I, for one, am glad that Apple isn't rainbow-colored anymore.

The first step in determining whether or not a new logo is needed (and to what extent) is to understand the reason for wanting to change market perception. Remember that a logo is intended for immediate recognition. If it's constantly changing, customers have a hard time identifying not only which company the logo stands for but, more importantly, what the company itself stands for. How does it differentiate from its competitors? A logo means nothing until the brand makes it worth something.

Some reasons to rebrand:
Outdated: In situations when a brand has been firmly established, yet is simply outdated or needs to be refreshed due to the addition of new products or services, tweaking is required (rather than a full-blown rebrand). AT&T is a good example of this. The company has evolved over the past several years and expanded its services into TV and Internet. The new 3-D, web 2.0-inspired logo reflects that.

Mergers: Corporate mergers will often result in complete rebrands. In these cases, the intent is to erase any previous brand identity and replace it with completely new imagery and messaging.

Bad Publicity: If a company's image has been tainted beyond repair, a new logo and brand identity might be required to reverse consumers' attitudes toward the company and its services or products.

Not all rebrands have been successful. Remember New Coke in the 80's, for instance? The moral of that story was: don't fix what isn't broken. Before the release, the company had advertised that Coca-Cola's less-sweet taste was preferred over Pepsi. So, the new sweetened formula of New Coke did not go over well with loyal customers. When they realized their failure, the company dropped New Coke and reintroduced Coca-Cola "Classic" just three months later. In six months, Coca-Cola was outselling Pepsi at twice the rate. (Actually, maybe New Coke was a success after all.)

While it's impossible to know for certain what the outcome of a rebrand will be, you certainly can put yourself in a position to be successful by making solid decisions, beginning with building a brand. Following the release of a new logo and brand message, an exciting rollout should be orchestrated; employees must be passionate about the new brand, because rebranding is a companywide endeavor.