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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 1: A Study of Logo Form, Tone and Attr
Page 5 and 6: Variant (PMS Purple (P) & PMS Green
Page 7: McVicar, D. (2006). Why do disabili

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?