What’s in a name? Brands that dare to go bare

You’d therefore think that most of the major players would have distilled their brands visual identity down to their simplest elements to create –maximum recognition, minimum clutter.

But what actually happens in the real world can be very different?

Maximum Recognition

We all know that good brand re-imaginations are about timely evolution - ensuring that core recognisable elements are protected but subtly updated. After all brands spend millions of pounds to ensure consumer know what they look like and what they stand for.

Tinkering with such equitable elements can be very dangerous and can cause genuine confusion and frustration amongst brand advocates. Push too hard, too quick and you loose all visual recognition and end up creating a disconnect with customers – something the Gap brand can testify to.

Minimum Clutter

For those brands with established brand symbols the natural progression would be to trade off words for the visual elements – simply because us humans are simple creatures and always see pictures first.

Taking a brand with a recognised brand symbol and removing the brand name is a more common trend than we might think. Most recently Starbucks took the gutsy move to drop their name and the word coffee from their logo. Other well known brands that have successful embarked on this journey include Nike & Shell

But why remove your company name and rely solely on the symbolism of your brand?

Avoids dilution of brand equity:

By removing words you avoid the dilution of brand equity that can come as a result of multi-language use. An image does not need to be translated into 6 global languages. So Global campaigns can be executed seamlessly, economies of scale can be realised, brands can open their arms to all consumers.

Simplicity and convenience:

Why waste consumers time and overegg the pudding by using words and pictures when pictures will do fine?

Technology:

We’re all spending more time in digital media so it makes sense that brands follow the norms of this media - software apps nearly all rely on icons

Creates emotional connection:

The use of imagery can also create more emotional connection to a brand. Consumers are likely to feel more connection to cuddly Colonel Sanders than to the harsh KFC text.

When successful, these visual ‘divorces’ leave the consumer unaware of any actual change but the net effect is that brands can look more assured, confident and dominant.

Shell and Nike are good examples of brands that have successfully dropped the company name from their logo.

But going ‘logo’ only isn’t right for all brands!

They work best if you have a unique, well established symbol and a clear structure for use.

Simply put if your icon isn’t iconic enough the transition will be difficult. Good icons need to be different unique, recognisable unchanging, everlasting

Take the Microsoft flag vs. the apple

The MS Flag is a more complicated and abstract image vs. the apple,

It lacks in these core areas and is therefore seldom used in the same way.

Those logo’s going solo also need to have been in market long enough and been used in the correct way to trigger recognition

The apple logo has been through some transition but it’s ‘core’ (excuse the pun) remains the same over a 30 year period

It’s usage has also been carefully controlled. You know when you expect to see it, it’s not been watered down through over use, miss-use, subrand extensions or surrounding clutter. In short this visual asset has been protected which means it’s asset has remained intact.

But the larger the product portfolio and the number of categories it operates in, the harder it is to retain a core logo that fits all. This is especially true for companies that have diversified quickly.

Virgin example

What is clear is that consumers want everything simpler, faster, easier. Brands that can mirror this both in their identities and through their products and communication strategies will be better adapted to survive.