A logotype is a combination of a trademark, which is a visual symbol of the brand, and the name of the brand set in distinctive type.
Logotypes come in all shapes. Round, square, oval, horizontal, vertical. But all shapes are not created equal in the eyes of the consumer.
Since the eyes of your customers are mounted side by side, the ideal shape for a logotype is horizontal. Roughly two and one-fourth units wide and one unit high.
This horizontal shape will provide the maximum impact for your logotype. This is true wherever the logotype is used: on buildings, brochures, letterheads, advertisements, or calling cards.
This horizontal bias is especially important when a logotype is used on a retail establishment. In the neon jungle, a vertical logotype is at a severe disadvantage. The Arby’s cowboy-hat logo is an example of the penalty of verticality.
Of equal importance to shape is legibility. Logotype designers often go way overboard in picking a typeface to express the attribute of a brand rather than its ability to be clearly read.
Typefaces come in thousands of styles and weights, but customers are only dimly aware of the differences. To paraphrase David Ogilvy, no woman says, I would have bought that detergent except they had to go and set the headline in Futura Demibold.
What typeface does Rolex use in its logotype? Ralph Lauren? Rolls-Royce? Serif or sans serif?
The truth is, the words (Rolex, Ralph Lauren, Rolls-Royce) are what communicate the power of the brands. The typefaces used in their logotypes can help or hinder the communication process, but only slightly.
On the other hand, if the typeface is virtually illegible, the logotype has little or no meaning in the consumer’s mind. Not because of the typeface used, but because the prospect can’t read the words. Legibility is the most important consideration in selecting a typeface used in a logotype.
Certainly, there are perceptual differences in the feelings that typefaces communicate. Sans serif typefaces look modern; serif typefaces look old-fashioned. Bold typefaces look masculine; light typefaces look feminine.
But these differences become obvious only by exaggeration. Would you really want to set your brand name in black-letter Gothic (the typeface used in the New York Times logotype) in order to make your brand look like an old, established brand? We think not. While it may make a visual impression, few prospects would be able to read (and therefore remember) the name.
It’s a vicious cycle. In order to get the average prospect to notice the “mood” of the logotype you have to exaggerate the characteristics of the typography. And when you do that, you lose the logotype’s legibility. It’s not worth the trade-off.
The other component of the logotype, the trademark, or visual symbol, is also overrated. The meaning lies in the word, or words, not in the visual symbol.
It’s the Nike name that gives meaning to the Swoosh symbol. The Swoosh symbol doesn’t give much meaning to the Nike brand. After a symbol has been associated with a name for a long period of time, the symbol can represent the name, through a kind of “rebus” effect. But it’s still the name that carries the brand’s power.
So the Swoosh stands for Nike. But the advantages of using the symbol alone are slim and occur only in certain situations. Perhaps you can see the symbol at a distance where the name alone would be unreadable. Perhaps you can use the symbol on the product itself or on articles of clothing where the name would look too “commercial.” Perhaps after spending hundreds of millions a year for over a decade to link the Swoosh to Nike, you can get away with ending your commercials with only the symbol. But what is the advantage in doing so?
Compare Shell with Mobil. Shell uses a shell trademark on its gasoline stations without the word “Shell.” Mobil uses a logotype with blue letters and a red “O” to spell the word “Mobil.”
Is the Shell approach superior to the Mobil approach? We think not. The best you can say is that the Shell approach works, thanks to a simple name and an easy-to-translate simple visual. But what are the advantages of the Shell approach?
Very few. And there are some disadvantages. As people grow up and new prospects come into the marketplace, how will they learn that the yellow symbol means “Shell”? Especially if the prospect doesn’t know that Shell is a brand name for a gasoline.
A great deal of effort has gone into creating elaborate symbols for use in logotypes. Crests, shields, coats of arms, and other heraldic symbols have poured out of America’s design shops in great profusion. For the most part, these efforts are wasted. The power of a brand name lies in the meaning of the word in the mind. For most brands, a symbol has little or nothing to do with creating this meaning in the mind.
There are only a handful of simple symbols that make effective trademarks. (The Mercedes three-pointed star is one of them.) At this late date, if history hasn’t willed you one of these simple symbols, it’s probably too late to create one on your own.