1 A Study of Logo Form, Tone and Attribute Preferences ... - ANZMAC

A Study of Logo Form, Tone and Attribute Preferences Across Stakeholder Groups by
an Employment Agency Sourcing Jobs for People with Disabilities.
M. S. Yousuf *. University of South Australia. mohamad.yousuf@unisa.edu.au
Dr. Elizabeth Hemphill. University of South Australia. elizabeth.hemphill@unisa.edu.au
Keywords: logo, form, tone, brand, identity, stakeholders, disability, agency, jobs.
Abstract
This research examines a practitioner’s approach to logo redevelopment striving for appeal
consistency across stakeholder groups. A specialist employment agency (Finding Workable
Solutions) facing difficulties communicating a consistently positive image to local business
owners, clients (people with disabilities seeking work), internal staff and other stakeholders
donated online survey data for analysis. 223 participants selected their preferred logo form
and tone from three logo designs and rated other logo attributes such modern and professional
using Likert scales. Data contained Staff (24%), Clients (18%), Local Business Owners (8%),
Staff of Local Organisations (13%), Staff of Other Organisations (22%) and Other (15%).
Analysis revealed all stakeholder groups preferred the same logo form and tone suggesting
consultative logo redevelopment to be an useful method of achieving consistent stakeholder
group appeal. However, Local Business Owners exhibiting more rational attitudes than other
stakeholders groups warrant targeted strategies to manage interpretation and meaning of logo
attributes.
Introduction
Corporate identity helps a company to stand out from others and is therefore strategically very
important as a central, distinctive and enduring feature of an organisation (Whetten &
Godfrey, 1998). Organisations transmit these features through visual identity elements like
buildings, products, uniforms, staff, paperwork and the logo (Hynes, 2009). A corporate logo
is considered to be the most efficient tool to communicate desired values with stakeholders
(Van Riel & Van den Ban, 2001). The rationale behind this is that pictures are perceived
faster than words (Edell & Staelin, 1983).
Corporate branding involves multiple stakeholders, including employees, investors, suppliers,
regulators and local communities in addition to customers (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). A strong
corporate brand will communicate a corporation’s mission and philosophies to each
stakeholder clearly (Balmer, 1998). Within a brand, a logo should readily evoke a similar
meaning among stakeholders of the organisation (Durgee & Stuart, 1987; Kropp, French, &
Hillard, 1990; Vartorella, 1990). Without this consistency corporations are at risk of
misinterpretation (Keller, 1993) among stakeholders, which may in turn evoke negativity and
harm the corporate image (Bird, 1992). Strategic attention should therefore be paid to
corporate logo design elements, particularly shape and color (Hynes, 2009), as these serve as
a signature of a company (Snyder, 1993).
A stakeholder is any individual or group affected by an organisation or affecting an
organisation’s achievement of its objectives (Freeman, 2010). Stakeholders interact, cooperate
and/or compete for resources (Neville and Menguc, 2006; Freeman, 2010). For example,
internal stakeholders of employment agencies, e.g., staff, and external stakeholders, e.g.,
people looking for jobs and employers that have job vacancies, have different needs of an
1

employment agency and may therefore value differently attributes of the agency brand. This
study examines the case of one employment agency whose employees find jobs in local
organisations for unemployed people with disabilities (PWDs). This agency embarked on a
brand ‘refresh’ because staff experienced difficulties explaining to PWDs and local employers
what the existing logo was meant to represent and what the organisation did.
Unemployed PWDs facing social isolation (Teasdale 2010, p. 94) and declining employment
opportunities (McVicar 2006, p. 520) are supported in their job search (Luecking, 2008;
Olney & Lyle, 2011) by specialist employment agencies (SEA). Local employer reluctance
to employ PWDs (Hergenrather, Turner, Rhodes & Barlow, 2008) can lead to PWDs
becoming frustrated with job searching. SEAs need all the help they can get to communicate
positive messages to these stakeholders about what they do. A consultative approach to logo
development could achieve a logo design that holds a consistent appeal to all key stakeholders
and communicates consistent messages about the brand to all stakeholders. This paper reports
one SEA’s experience of consultative logo redesign across stakeholder groups in the
community it serves to determine the merit of such an approach for practitioners.
Background and Literature
Corporate logos are the graphic design elements that a company uses, with or without its
name, to identify itself or its products (Bennet 1995; Giberson & Hulland 1994). A logo
captures the essence of the company’s philosophy and product’s main attributes in a single
symbol (Muzellec, Doogan & Lambkin, 2003). Companies tend to use a logo as a means to
communicate with both internal and external stakeholders (Zakia & Nadin, 1987). Thus, logo
selection is a critical vehicle for an organisation to communicate its image, help gain attention
in the clutter of brands and speed the recognition process of the company and its offerings
(Henderson & Cote, 1998).
More recently, brand identity research reveals non-brand name elements like logo color and
form to act as distinctive assets of a brand (Romaniuk & Hartnett, 2010) that evoke a brand
name in the memory of the customer and help to identify a brand in a buying situation.
Distinctive assets are about identifying a brand rather than unique selling propositions. When
an element of a brand becomes a distinctive asset, it makes it easier for consumers to notice,
recognise, recall and buy the brand (Sharp, 2010). Highly unique and prevalent colors are
particularly useful as distinctive assets (Romaniuk & Nenycz-Thiel, 2012). The distinctive
nature and value of brand elements are critically important to retail consumer buying
decisions (e.g., supermarkets) (Yang & Raghubir, 2005) and in targeted advertising and
market communication activities (Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg, 2007). Therefore, logo
design should consider uniqueness and prevalence of both color and form to help potential
customers identify and remember the brand in a buying situation.
A good logo is recognisable, familiar and produce a consensually held meaning in the target
market (Durgee & Stuart, 1987; Kropp et al., 1990; Peter, 1989; Vartorella, 1990) by using
appropriate stimuli that conveys a clear message and avoids misinterpretation (Keller, 1993).
Semiotics literature recommends that the meaning of the stimulus can be assessed by
examining the core or consensual meaning it evokes (Perussia, 1988). Understanding the
suitability of a logo among various stakeholders requires examination of the evoked meaning
of the stimulus associated with the logo color, shape and font.
General guidelines in the branding literature suggest logos to transmit both functional (e.g.,
2

professiional,
frienddly)
and emmotional
(ee.g.,
modernn,
sleek) be enefits of tthe
companny
to all
kinds off
stakeholdeers
(Mitcheell,
2003; Brandt
& Johhnson,
1997 7). Further, familiarityy
and the
evoked meaning of
logo desiggn
(both coolor
and forrm)
are imp portant logoo
attributes (Hynes,
2009). LLogos
unde ergo re-deveelopment
frrom
time too
time for mmany
reason ns such as mmergers,
acquisittions,
divesttitures
and movement in the globbal
markets s (Siegel, 1989;
Spaethh,
1994;
Wathenn,
1986), ne ew productss,
new brannds
(Siegel, , 1989), packaging
chhanges
(Morrgenson,
1992), tto
improve competitivveness
(Hors sky & Swyyngedouw,
1987) and to t appear frresh
and
modern n (Morgan, 1986; Moorgenson,
1992; Sieggel,
1989). Strategic managemeent
of a
corporaate
logo is th herefore crittical
to an ooverall
brandd
strategy.
Corporaate
branding
strategy success lar rgely depennds
on mee eting specif fic requiremments
of
multiplee
stakehold ders includinng
employe ees, supplieers
and loca al communnities
in adddition
to
customeers
(Hatch aand
Shultz, 2003). We expect thatt
a logo ma ay not transmmit
the samme
image
across stakeholder r groups soo
we inves stigate twoo
research questions. Are stakkeholder
prefereences
for loogo
form coonsistent
aacross
stakeeholder
gro oups? Andd,
are stakkeholder
prefereences
for logo
color tone
consisteent
across sstakeholderr
groups?
Method
We adoopt
a case sstudy
(e.g., Woodside, 2010) appproach
to ex
confinedd
set of loggo
form andd
tone choic ces. For praactical
purp
the studdy.
For theeoretical
purrposes
largee
scale quaantitative
stu
stakeholder
groupss
would be required to o establish aany
boundar
We seleected
Findinng
Workablle
Solutions s Inc. (FWSS;
www.fws
a big brrand
it com mpetes with the other big
brand inn
the market
smaller brands (SSharp,
20100).
Data we ere collecteed
using a
stakeholders
for a period of oone
week ( (May 8th too
16
(www.qqualtrics.comm).
Particippants
were iinvited
to re
for an iiPad;
a lotteery
license was acquirred
by FWS
The datta
containedd
222 usablle
surveys. Participants
includinng
Staff (23.8%),
Cliennt
(18.4%), Local L Busin
organisaations
(Loccal
staff; 122.6%),
stafff
working i
staff; 222.0%)
and Other O (15.2% %). Particippants
descri
th xamine a sp pecific SEAA
with a
poses this is s important to focus
udy with eqqual
size coohorts
of
ry conditionns
for our ffindings.
s.org.au) as our case stuudy.
As
t to a greateer
degree thhan
with
an online ssurvey
avaiilable
to
, 20122)
via a uni ique web reference
egister theirr
contact dettails
to enteer
a draw
S. Data weere
donatedd
to the reseearchers.
s self-select ted into stakkeholder
caategories
ness Owner r (8.1%), Staaff
workingg
in local
n organisattions
that aare
not locaal
(Other
ibed themseelves
as at leeast
18 yearrs
old.
Particippants
selecteed
the logoo
they pref ferred fromm
three diffferent
logo concepts oor
forms
(Hynes 2009) (Figuure
1). Partticipants
we ere then asked
to rate atttributes
of their preferrred
logo
form (uusing
a fivve
point Likkert
scale, where 1=sstrongly
dissagree
and 5=stronglyy
agree)
includinng:
the desig gn looked pprofessional
l; the designn
looked sle eek; the design
looked modern;
the desiign
looked familiar; thhe
design llooked
frienndly;
the ddesign
told me a bit abbout
the
organisaation.
All logos
were the same colour c and ttone
(PMS Purple 269 9; PMS Greeen
577;
http://wwww.australiiasigns.comm.au/qsonlinne/PMS-coloor-chart.htmml).
Figuure
1 Logo fforms
Particippants
then selected
theiir
preferredd
colour tonne
variant fr rom three different d varriants
of
their preferred
logo o form. Forr
each logo o form variaant
1 colou ur tones wer re PMS Purrple
269
3

and PMS Green 577, variant 2 colour tones were PMS Purple 271 and PMS Green 577 and
variant 3 colour tones were PMS Purple 265 and PMS Green 577.
Results
RQ 1. Are stakeholder preferences for logo form consistent across stakeholder groups?
Table 1 reports that stakeholder categories consistently preferred Logo 2, the only exception
being clients (PWDs) who were more evenly spread across Logo 1 and Logo 2.
Table 1: Logo form preference (% n)
Logo Total
(n=223)
Staff
(n=53)
Client
(n=41)
Local
Business
Owner
(n=18)
Local
staff
(n=28)
Other
staff
(n=49)
Other
(n=34)
1 18.8 9.4 43.9 16.7 10.7 12.2 20.6
2 64.1 81.1 41.5 44.4 57.1 71.4 70.6
3 17.0 9.4 14.6 38.9 32.1 16.3 8.8
Table 2 reports participant ratings of logo attributes for their preferred logo. We conducted
one-way analysis of variance tests for each logo to determine attribute rating consistency
across stakeholder groups. Stakeholder groups did not vary in their rating of most attributes
(e.g., Looks sleek, modern and friendly) for their preferred logo form. However, business
owners rated Logo tells me about the organisation and the Logo is professional significantly
higher than most other stakeholders. Although stakeholder groups hardly varied in their
ratings, Local Business Owners were most frequently different from other stakeholder groups.
Table 2 Stakeholder ratings of logo attributes (mean values (standard deviation))
All Staff Client Local
The logo ...
Bus.
Owner
Looks
4.4 4.2 4.2 4.7
professional (0.8) (0.9) (0.8) (0.5)
Looks sleek 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.2
(0.8) (0.8) (0.8) (0.6)
Looks modern 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.4
(0.8) (1.0) (0.8) (0.7)
Looks familiar 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.4
(1.1)
Looks friendly 4.2
(0.8)
Tells me about
the organisation
3.7
(1.1)
(1.1)
4.1
(0.8)
3.2
(1.1)
(1.0)
4.2
(0.7)
3.7
(1.0)
(0.9)
4.1
(0.8)
4.1
(0.5)
Local
Staff
4.4
(0.8)
4.2
(1.0)
4.4
(1.0)
2.5
(1.1)
4.2
(0.9)
3.8
(1.2)
Other
Staff
4.4
(0.7)
4.1
(0.8)
4.3
(0.8)
3.0
(1.1)
4.2
(0.8)
3.7
(1.1)
Other ANOVA
F(5,217)
4.5
(0.7)
4.2
(0.8)
4.4
(0.6)
3.0
(1.3)
4.5
(0.6)
4.2
(1.0)
2.38, p

Variant (PMS Purple
(P) & PMS Green (G))
Table 3 Logo tone variant preferences (% n)
Total
(n=222)
Staff
(n=53)
Client
(n=41)
Local
Business
Owner
(n=18)
Local
staff
(n=28)
Other
staff
(n=49)
Other
(n=34)
1 (P269 & G577) 79.7 80.8 70.7 83.3 82.1 85.7 76.5
2 (P271 & G577) 18.0 19.2 24.4 16.7 17.9 10.2 20.6
3 (P265 & G577) 2.3 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 4.1 2.9
Discussion and Implications
This paper aimed to determine the practicability of involving stakeholder groups in logo
development by considering the congruency of stakeholder group perspectives for an SEA.
Improving the consistency of positive messages about the SEA across stakeholder groups
might contribute positively to the job that SEAs do. Improving SEA’s ability to source jobs
for PWDs could reduce the financial burden on governments offering disability support
benefits (McVicar 2006, p. 523). As corporate logos are an important tool to transfer the
corporate objective and image to internal and external stakeholders (Van Riel & Van den Ban,
2001), congruency of stakeholder perceptions is important. The key finding of the research is
that stakeholder’s preference for logo form and tone are consistent across stakeholder groups
despite local business owner’s perceptions of some logo attributes appearing more rational
than other stakeholder groups.
Local Business Owners rated the logo tells me about the organisation and the logo is
professional more highly than other stakeholders. These results suggest that business owners
have a separate value system from other stakeholders (e.g., clients and staff) for interpretation
of logo attributes; placing greater importance on functional characteristics of the organisation
than internal staff and consumer who placing greater importance on emotional characteristics
of the organisation. As both emotional and functional characteristics of a brand are important
for durability (Roper & Davies, 2007) the different perspectives of stakeholders groups are
important for logo form development.
Various colour tones were included in this study. All stakeholders preferred the strongest tone
of the color; an idea consistent with color theory’s suggestion that strong use of color is useful
when someone wants to sell something to another (Fraser & Banks, 2004, p. 12). These
results suggest a consultative approach to logo development is essential for organisations
dealing with multiple stakeholders in order to connect all the stakeholder groups similarly
with the organisational vision. This paper is a first step in understanding the value of
considering stakeholders perspectives for logo development to corporate image consistency.
The small number of business owners participating in the study limits the genralisability from
our findings. Further research should seek to quantify boundary conditions through
replication across similar not-for-profit agencies, which by definition serve a complex range
of stakeholders. Further research could also investigate the efficacy of consultative logo
design with respect of communicating ‘what the organization does’ across stakeholder
groups.
This paper reports logo preference using predetermined attributes which limits respondent
options and quantifies the communicative value of the logo design rather than finding the
actual view of the different stakeholders for the corporate logo and effects on business
5

transactions. Future research should test logo preference without any selected attributes to
obtain less biased feedback. This is particularly important for the business stakeholders,
possibly a more rational stakeholder group than other groups such as employees or PWDs
(Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004). As a very important aspect of brand identity elements for
organisations struggling to communicate effectively to their different stakeholder groups, we
recommend SEAs embrace consultative logo design and carefully consider the ratings of
attributes stakeholders attach to a logo design in addition to logo form and tone. In so doing,
SEAs could more consistently affect local employer inclusivity of PWDs in the workplaces.
References
Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Corporate Identity and the Advent of Corporate Marketing, Journal
of Marketing Management 14, 963-99.
Bennett, P.D. (1995). Dictionary of Marketing Terms. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business
Books.
Bird, L. (1992). Eye-Catching Logos All Too Often Leave Fuzzy Images in Minds of
Consumers. The Wall Street Journal. (December 5), B-1.
Brandt, M. and Johnson, G. (1997) Power Branding: Building Technology Brands for
Competitive Advantage, International Data Group Thought Leadership Series, San
Francisco, CA.
Durgee, J.F. and Stuart, R.W. (1987). Advertising Symbols and Brand Names that Best
Represent Key Products Meanings. Journal of Consumer Marketing 4 (Summer), 16-23.
Edell, J.A. and Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print
advertisements, Journal of Consumer Research 10, 45-61.
Fraser, T. and Banks, A. (2004) The Complete Guide to Colour: The Ultimate Book for the
Colour Conscious, Ilex Press, London.
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, UK ;New York,
Cambridge University Press.
Giberson, R. and Hulland, J. (1994). Using Logos as Cues to Recognition: A Preliminary
Study. Working Paper Series 94-24. Western Business School. University of Western Ontario.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the Corporation into Corporate Branding,
European Journal of Marketing 37, 1041-1064.
Henderson, P.W. and Cote, J.A. (1998). Guidelines for Selecting Modifying Logos. Journal
of Marketing 62 (April 1998), 14-30.
Hergenrather, K.C., Turner, A.P., Rhodes, S.D. and Barlow, J. (2008). Persons with
disabilities and employment: Application of the self-efficacy of job-seeking skills scale.
Journal of Rehabilitation 74, 34-44.
Hynes, N. (2009). Color and meaning in corporate logos: An Empirical study, The Journal of
Brand Management 11, 261-64.
Horsky, D. and Swyngedouw, P. (1987). Does it Pay to Change Your Company’s Name? A
Stock Market Perspective. Marketing Science 6 (Fall), 320-35.
Hynes, N. (2009). Colour and meaning in corporate logos: An empirical study. Brand
Management 16, 545-555.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing Measuring and Managing Customer –Based Brand
Equity. Journal of Marketing 57 (January), 1-22.
Kropp, H.R., French, W.A. and Hillard, J.E. (1990). Trademark Management- Not Brand
Management. Business 40 (October-December), 17-24.
Luecking, R.G. (2008). Emerging employer views of people with disabilities and the future of
job development. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 29, 3-13.
Lynch, J. and De Cherantony, L. (2004) The power of emotion: Brand communication in
business-to-business markets. Brand Management 11, 403-419.
6

McVicar, D. (2006). Why do disability benefit rolls vary between regions? A review of the
evidence from the USA and the UK. Regional Studies 40, 519-533.
Mitchell, A. (2003). Customers aren’t fooled by fake brand emotions, Marketing Week 3 rd
April, 32-33.
Morgan, H. (1986). Symbols in America. 6 th Ed, New York: USA Viking
Morgenson, G. (1992). Is Your Product Your Advocate? Forbes 150, 468-74.
Muzellec, L., Doogan, M. and Lambkin, M. (2003). Irish Marketing Review 16, 31-40.
Neville, B. A. and Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder Multiplicity: Toward an Understanding of
the Interactions between Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics 66, 377-391.
Olney, M. F. and Lyle, C. (2011). The benefits trap: Barriers to employment experienced by
SSA beneficiaries. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 54, 197-208.
Perussia, F. (1988). Semiotic Frame: A Method for the Experimental Analysis of Images.
Psychological Reports 63, 524-26.
Peter, J. (1989) Designing Logos. Folio 18 (July), 139-41.
Romaniuk J., and Hartnett. N. (2010). Understanding, Identifying and Building Distinctive,
Brand Assets, Report 52 for Corporate Sponsors. Adelaide: Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for
Marketing Science.
Romaniuk, J., and Nenycz-Thiel, M. (forthcoming, 2012). Measuring the strength of colourbrand
name links, Journal of Advertising Research.
Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B., and Ehrenberg, A. (2007). Evidence concerning the importance of
perceived brand differentiation. Australasian Marketing Journal 15, 42-54.
Roper, S., and Davies, G. (2007). The corporate brand: dealing with multi-stakeholders.
Journal of Marketing Management 1, 75-90
Sharp, B. (2010), How brands grow, South Melbourne, Oxford University Press.
Siegel, L.B. (1989). Planning for a Long-Life Logo. Marketing Communications 14 (March),
44-49.
Snyder, A. (1993). Branding: Coming Up for More Air. Brandweek 34 (December 6), 24-28.
Spaeth, T. (1994). Do Logos Really Matter? Across the Board 31 (March), 51-53.
Teasdale, S. (2010). How can social enterprises address disadvantage? Evidence from an
inner city community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 22, 89-107.
Van Riel, C. and Van den Ban, A. (2001). The added value of corporate logos: An empirical
study, European Journal of Marketing, 35, 428-440.
Vartorella, W. (1990). Doing the Bright Thing with Your Company Logo. Advertising Age 61
(February 26), 31.
Wathen, M. (1986). Logomotion: Corporate Identity Makes Its Move into the Realm of
Strategic Planning. Public Relations Journal 42, 24-29.
Whetten, D.A. and Godfrey, P.C. (1998). Identity in organizations: Building theory through
conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.
Woodside, A.G. (2010). Case Study Research, UK, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Yang, S., & Raghubir, P. (2005). Can bottles speak volumes? The effect of package shape on
how much to buy. Journal of Retailing 81, 269-81.
Zakia, R.D., & Nadin. M. (1987). Semiotics, Advertising, and Marketing. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 4, 5-12.
7