ArticlePDF Available


In an increasingly saturated marketplace, brands help create preference for a product. And as a key component of brand identity, a logo provides instant recognition for the brand and the product. Logos help transcend international boundaries and language barriers because of their "visual" character. But although companies spend considerable amounts of money to create and promote effective logos, there are no clear guidelines for doing so. With supporting evidence from a review of the academic literature, the findings and recommendations presented here should help in making logo designs stronger and more objective.
58 Business Horizons / May-June 2002
In the year 2000, Coca-Cola appeared once again at
the top of Interbrand’s list of the “World’s Most Valu-
able Brands,” with an estimated value of $72 billion.
Coke’s brand is worth more than half the market capital-
ization of the company itself, and a staggering ten times
the company’s book value. This estimate reflects the pres-
ent value of the economic profits the brand is expected to
earn—over and above “normal” profits, or over and above
what an otherwise equivalent product might achieve
without the benefit of the brand. This is understandable,
considering that Coca-Cola was found to be the strongest
brand in the United States and in the world based on rat-
ings on “share of mind” and “esteem” (Owen 1993).
Everyone recognizes the name and its stylized logotype.
Nike's swoosh logo is worth $3.6 billion. And of course,
every kid can recognize the “golden arches,” which has
helped lead McDonald’s to success in the marketplace
and boost the value of its brand name to $27.9 billion.
In the absence of other factors, brands provide much
needed differentiation and influence customers’ choice.
The approval rating for Kellogg’s Corn Flakes increased
from 47 percent in a “blind” test to 59 percent when the
name was revealed. Similarly, reports Aaker (1991), the
preference for Armstrong tiles rose from 50 to 90 percent.
The pace of today’s technology changes has made it diffi-
cult to differentiate purely on physical attributes. Con-
sider the various brands of televisions, VCRs, and per-
sonal computers. It is ironic that in such technologically
sophisticated products, the similarity between different
brands is not unlike the remarkable similarity between
various brands of gasoline. They have become commodity
items. The only strong differentiation is based on the
brand image.
Economic globalization is reducing price differentials.
Costs are becoming lower, and often the only way to
charge a premium is to cultivate a brand. Success in
implementing an effective brand image can greatly affect
success in the market. In the international arena, Volkswa-
gen Fox receives favorable evaluations because it is Volk-
swagen, a brand image based on its German origin. Only
In an increasingly saturated
marketplace, brands help create
preference for a product. And as
a key component of brand identity,
a logo provides instant recognition for
the brand and the product. Logos help
transcend international boundaries and
language barriers because of their “visual”
character. But although companies spend
considerable amounts of money to create and
promote effective logos, there are no clear
guidelines for doing so. With supporting
evidence from a review of the academic
literature, the findings and recommendations
presented here should help in making logo
designs stronger and more objective.
Chiranjeev Kohli
Professor of Marketing, California State University, Fullerton
Rajneesh Suri
Visiting Assistant Professor of Marketing, School of Hotel
Administration, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York;
Assistant Professor of Marketing, Drexel University,
Philadelphia (Fall 2002)
Mrugank Thakor
Associate Professor of Marketing,Concordia University,
Montreal, Quebec
Creating effective logos:
Insights from theory
and practice
8 percent of the people surveyed,
says Ratliff (1989), knew that it is
manufactured in Brazil.
Interestingly, globalization is pro-
moting the standardization of
products. However, with the
increasingly fragmented commu-
nication media, the only thing
standardized from the consumer
perspective is the look and feel of
the product. So marketing man-
agers use brand identity to create
a distinctive image. A brand name
goes a long way, but can be lim-
ited because of language differ-
ences. Logos help transcend
country boundaries and language
barriers because of their “visual”
character. They are particularly help-
ful in nations with lower literacy
rates, providing instant recognition
for the brand.
Brand identity has three components:
name, logo, and slogan. Undoubtedly,
the name is the most important, but a
logo can be an immensely helpful tool.
There is a fair amount of research on
names, but we were unable to come up with
a comprehensive article on logos. That’s what
we aim to accomplish here, providing some
suggested guidelines for their design and use.
The role of logos
Logos are a key part of a company’s communica-
tion efforts. Taco Bell spends 20 times more on its
permanent media—signs that carry only its name
and logo—than it spends on advertising. Nike’s swoosh
has become so prominent that the company’s ads often do
not even mention the name. Despite their importance and
the investments made in logos, however, there are no well-
established guidelines for creating them. It is not surpris-
ing, then, that many logos are unrecognizable or even
viewed negatively, which could end up hurting the brand
or company image.
With the competition for in-store purchasing intensifying,
it is evident that the instant recognition resulting from
packaging and logos is a good investment to make. Trade-
marks and logos help cut search costs for consumers by
providing them with a sense of assurance about product
quality. Their role is particularly helpful in aiding recogni-
tion, especially for low-involvement, frequently purchased
items such as gasoline. This should not be surprising, con-
sidering that some 60 percent of consumer purchase
decisions occur inside the store. Cues provided by well-
designed logos can lead to faster recognition, which is very
helpful because consumers spend, on average, less than 15
seconds to make a purchase in many product categories.
Logos can help a brand in two ways. First, they can be used
in conjunction with the name. Not only can a picture en-
hance the memory for accompanying words, but using a
logo influences the speed of recognition. While logos may
be used to stimulate the memory for a brand directly, they
may also help remember the brand name. A study of pre-
schoolers was conducted to understand their learning of
brand names. According to Macklin (1996), when visual
cues were provided along with brand names, children re-
membered the brand names better. The presence of addi-
tional visual cues, such as a picture and color, helped im-
prove the memory further. This is because with nonverbal
59Creating effective logos: Insights from theory and practice
processing, all elements—text and graphics—are processed
simultaneously, whereas verbal processing follows a se-
quence. Thus, pictorial representations are retrieved from
memory much faster than non-pictorial ones, especially
when there is consistency across the various elements of brand
identity. Because all logos contain some degree of pictorial
representation (even logotypes, a stylized presentation of a
name), retrieval is faster and more efficient because all ele-
ments can be processed simultaneously and it does not
have to follow a sequential pattern.
Second, logos can be used in place of the name when
there is a space or time constraint. Billboard advertising,
for example, does not provide an opportunity for pro-
longed exposure. Similarly, the ready in-store recognition
provided by logos helps stimulate purchasing. “I think if
you’ve got two or three kinds of peanuts sitting there,”
said a survey respondent, “I would probably grab the one
that has [Mr. Peanut’s] picture on it…just because it’s
something you know” (Callcott and Phillips 1996). This
is particularly important in this day and age, when there
are so many brands and the market is saturated with pro-
motional messages. A logo that readily cues the product
is a big advantage.
Deconstructing logos
There are two facets of logo design: content and
style. Content refers to the elements contained in
the logo, including text and graphic representation.
Style, on the other hand, refers to how these elements are
presented. The main thrust of logo design is on the con-
tent. Bell, Holbrook, and Solomon (1991) suggested that
individuals may rely on social value and aesthetic value in
the same consumption context. This was supported by a
qualitative study by Pimentel (1996), in which respon-
dents were shown color photographs of geometric patterns
and were asked about the content and visual quality. The
respondents’ evaluations were influenced by both, but
with a stronger emphasis on content. Most remarks were
about content, even when specifically asked about visual
quality. People apparently look for meaning in logos.
Giberson and Hulland (1995) support this assertion. They
found that a logo is retrieved faster from memory when a
product category is cued in the logo. This makes a case for
the emphasis of content over style by suggesting a connec-
tion with the product category. Thus, logos that incorpo-
rate a hint of the product category would be more effec-
tive. Examples include the Gerber baby, the chicken icon
for “Chick-fil-a,” and the hitter in the Major League Base-
ball logo. The study also found that although having a
logo had a strong effect on recognition speed, the type of
logo—graphics- or text-dominated—did not. Style, then,
is not critical.
This does not imply that style elements should be over-
looked. Sometimes low-content and high-image logos are
a necessity. In the case of multiproduct companies, it is
difficult to have a logo with high content. This explains
the use of purely abstract logos by such multinational cor-
porations as Citibank, AT&T, Fujitsu, and Agilent Tech-
nologies. Besides, style can be important; according to
Berlyne (1971), survey respondents had fairly consistent
aesthetic ratings among themselves, evaluating styling
somewhat objectively and uniformly. To the extent that
style makes a difference, then, companies should proba-
bly pay attention to it.
Not many studies have looked at the myriad logo ele-
ments in an effort to understand how logos are evaluated
and on what dimensions. Henderson and Cote (1998)
performed a very thorough factor analysis of a large num-
ber of design dimensions on which logos are evaluated
(independent variables) and the response dimensions
(dependent variables), with some interesting and prag-
matic results. The response dimensions that emerged
included correct recognition, false recognition, affect, and
familiar meaning. Correct recognition occurs when the
respondents recognize the stimuli they have seen in the
past. False recognition occurs when they profess recogni-
tion but have not really seen the logo in the past. It is
important to note that false recognition can be desirable
when only a low investment can be made. While care
should be taken not to infringe on another company’s
trademark, the desire may be to make people believe they
have seen the logo. Affect refers to the overall liking for
the logo, and meaning refers to the ability of a logo to
capture a clear connotation of the product or the com-
pany. Logos with high meaning are “highly codable” sym-
bols that evoke consensually held interpretation within a
culture or subculture.
The emerging design dimensions included elaboration (a
combination of complexity, activeness, and depth), natu-
ralness (representative of commonly experienced objects),
harmony (balance), parallelism (placement of multiple
lines or elements adjacent to each other), proportion (the
relationship between horizontal and vertical dimensions),
60 Business Horizons / May-June 2002
Elements of logos should be
chosen and designed with an
eye toward the relevant and
specific marketing objectives.
repetition (elements being similar to each other), and
roundness (primarily circular elements).
Henderson and Cote found that correct recognition is
bolstered by high naturalness. A moderately high level of
harmony but slightly less perfect symmetry also makes
recognition easier. This is partly because of the plethora of
perfectly symmetric logos, which makes them more com-
monplace and confusing, and leads to false recognition.
False recognition is aided by moderately high parallelism
and high harmony—almost reaching symmetry. This
makes sense because these elements make logos less dis-
tinctive and more commonplace.
Strong positive affect logos can best be created with high
levels of naturalness and elaboration. Elaborate logos
maintain the viewer’s interest. A high level of naturalness
makes them more satisfying to look at and leads to a
stronger positive affect, which is particularly helpful in
high-image logos. Finally, familiar meaning can be im-
proved by selecting a design that can be easily interpreted.
Logos with familiar meanings, as discussed above, also
increase recognition and are evaluated more favorably.
Although the variety of marketing objectives and the
resulting appropriateness of the design dimensions may
seem complex, it underscores the lack of rules that can be
universally applied. Elements of logos should be chosen
and designed with an eye toward the relevant and specific
marketing objectives.
Updating logos: Good
business or needless hype?
Should a company update its logo? If so, when?
Because logos make recognition and information
retrieval quicker and more efficient, one of their
main purposes is to cue a brand more efficiently. This
tends to make a strong case for building recognition with
a logo and not changing it. It is why companies such as
Arm & Hammer retain the same logo for decades. In
doing so, they are maintaining instant recognition.
However, logos may need to be changed, perhaps due to
changes in the company name (Federal Express to FedEx),
a strategy change (United Airlines becoming employee-
owned), a shift in service emphasis (the US Postal Service
wanting to emphasize speed), or a desire to update to a
more modern image. Some logos make a straightforward
case for change and update. Betty Crocker’s hairstyle and
clothing have been continuously updated over the years
because the company wants to portray an image appeal-
ing to the contemporary woman. Not updating her ap-
pearance would have made her look old-fashioned. The
same held true for Aunt Jemima, whose image was mod-
ernized from its original stereotypical image of a smiling
black “mammy” on a pancake mix box or syrup bottle. If
it had not been updated, the logo may have turned off
too many consumers.
Logos may also be changed for other reasons. Companies
may find novelty appealing and so continuously update
their logos. Examples include the Prudential Rock and
General Electric. In these circumstances, the important
question is, “If a logo has to be changed, what kind of
change is most effective?”
If not done right, a logo change or update may be coun-
terproductive. To really determine whether logos need to
be updated, it is important to focus on how they are eval-
uated (1) over time and (2) by individuals of varying lev-
els of expertise. Viewers process information differently,
both at perceptual and experiential levels. Naïve respon-
dents tend to be subjective and have strong preferences
for familiar subjects. They rely exclusively on affective
responses. Viewers trained in graphic design, on the other
hand, are more objective in their evaluations and prefer
“high art,” which challenges them and expresses the artist.
They use cognitive and objective evaluations. Logos are
created by graphic designers (trained), but are meant for
the general public (naïve). This leads to a discrepancy
between the evaluations the market will provide and the
choice the designers will impose, with important implica-
tions for the effectiveness of the logos that are chosen and
the subsequent decisions to update them.
Logo evaluation also changes over time, with repeated
exposures. The “familiarity effect,” also documented
under the name “mere exposure effect,” results in a more
favorable evaluation. However, the “boredom effect” may
also come into play, resulting from too many exposures.
In other words, subjects exposed to the same stimuli over
a period of time may raise their evaluation; too many
exposures, and they’ll lower it. Berlyne (1970) and Born-
stein (1990) refer to this up-and-down in evaluations as
the “two-factor” model.
Objects presented for the first time can be perceived as
threatening. The threat is reduced and viewer liking in-
creased with repeated exposures to the stimulus (stimulus
habituation). But when too many exposures result in the
boredom effect, liking decreases. Thus, consumers may
become bored with logo designs that are not updated.
Once people have adapted to a stimulus (a logo), a
slightly altered version of it might create a novelty effect
and they would prefer the new image over the former.
However, if the stimulus is changed too much, they per-
ceive it as a new image and prefer the former. Conners
(1964) reported similar results using incrementally
altered versions of abstract geometric designs as stimuli.
Another plausible interpretation, supported by Sherif and
Hovland (1961), is that a slightly altered logo may fall
within the latitude of acceptance, whereas further alter-
61Creating effective logos: Insights from theory and practice
ation may make the logo different enough to fall within
the latitude of rejection. If this holds in the case of prefer-
ence for logo designs, slight changes are tolerated rather
than preferred. This provides justification for incremental
changes in logos, rather than drastic ones. A series of
empirical studies by Pimentel and Heckler (2000) found
support for this assertion.
Other factors may also explain the discrepancy between
the familiarity effect and the boredom effect. Simpler
images, maintain Cox and Cox (1988), tend to get a lower
evaluation over repeated exposures, whereas the evalua-
tion of complex stimuli improves. Harmon-Jones (1995)
came up with a list of factors that demonstrate the most
robust familiarity effects, including a heterogeneous
sequence of exposure to stimuli. This means being ex-
posed to different stimuli in succession, rather than to the
same stimulus (a homogeneous sequence). While a homo-
geneous sequence may occur in lab settings, the heteroge-
neous effect is more representative of what happens in the
real world. As such, we can expect the familiarity effect to
be stronger and more prevalent. In such a circumstance,
unnecessary logo changes are not advisable.
A small survey of graphic designers used in one of
Pimentel and Heckler’s studies concluded that clients
often stimulate these (unnecessary) updates. Of those
designers, 54 percent felt that logos should not be up-
dated on a regular basis, while 29 percent felt that logos
should be changed for the sake of change alone. Not sur-
prisingly, it was also found that consumers do not seem
to prefer change. The decision to change logos, in the de-
signers’ experience, came from the client, not from the
designers themselves. Thus, if logos are to be changed,
they should be changed for content, not for style, and the
change should be incremental.
Considering the importance of logos for product suc-
cess, it is not surprising that companies make sub-
stantial investments in creating them. It is surpris-
ing, however, that there is no framework available to guide
their design. As such, logo design is still treated more as an
art and less as a science. With this in mind, we present the
following guidelines, based on our discussion of the exist-
ing studies.
1. Choose the image carefully, because
it has a profound impact.
The three branding elements are at the core of a com-
pany’s communication efforts, representing tremendous
investment. Accordingly, the strategy and the creation of
these three elements should be well thought out, because
they have a profound impact on the product. Oldsmo-
bile’s continual struggle and eventual demise is convinc-
ing proof for this assertion. The image of a stodgy car for
the older generation has been impossible to shake off.
The slogan “This is not your father’s Oldsmobile” did not
help much. As a result, the company decided to introduce
the Aurora without any prominent association with the
Olds name, and with a new logo. The lesson to be learned
here is that a strong image may take a long time to build,
but an even longer time to shed.
2. Look at the big picture, and ensure
consistency over time and between the
various elements.
In Callcott and Phillips’s 1996 study, respondents had a
clear preference for a character whose personality was
consistent with the brand. It follows that consistency
across all elements of brand identity contribute to a
stronger brand image. Good examples include Dow’s
“scrubbing bubbles” (because consumers want lots of
bubbles when scrubbing) and the Energizer bunny
(because consumers want the batteries to go on forever).
More important, each element should support the others.
This is well demonstrated by Exxon’s communications. The
Standard Oil tiger was introduced as a symbol of power
with the accompanying slogan “Put a tiger in your tank.” A
more friendly cartoon version of the logo was created in
1962, and again in 1972 when the company’s name was
changed to Exxon. The tiger logo helped ensure continuity
and consistency during this transition, along with the slo-
gan “We’ve changed our name, but not our stripes.” In the
1990s, a personified version of the tiger was introduced,
with an appropriately supportive slogan, “Rely on the
Tiger.” The ‘90s tiger drives a car and relaxes in a boat, sug-
gesting ways in which Exxon gas has enriched the lives of
its customers. Consistency and continuity have been main-
tained throughout all these changes. This was particularly
important in the case of Exxon; because the company
operates in so many nations, it chose a coined name,
which made it difficult to capture any meaningful image
from the name itself. In such a situation, the logo and the
slogan complemented the name very well and did a com-
mendable job of supporting and projecting it.
62 Business Horizons / May-June 2002
If logos are to be changed, they
should be changed for content,
not for style, and the change
should be incremental.
3. Be careful about what you can and
cannot change.
Names cannot be changed, at least for products and serv-
ices. Logos may be changed. Slogans should be changed
to shoulder the bulk of the effort when adjustments in
brand strategy are required. This is because slogans can be
used as succinct selling statements, while the name and
the logo can be used to provide continuity. If a logo is
changed, the change should be made in (1) content,
when it is warranted by a shift in brand strategy, or (2)
style, when the need for an update is felt. The alteration,
however, should be kept to a minimum.
There is ample evidence in support of incremental change
only. Consider Pepsi-Cola. The name Pepsi has remained
the same since its inception. The logo has been the same
in content, but has been continuously updated. The slo-
gan has been changed several times over the years to tout
the product and the brand image:
1902: “Cures nervousness. Relieves exhaustion.” (to
emphasize Pepsi as an aid in digestion)
1903: “Cooling and Satisfying”
1934: “Cost small! Liked by all! Bottle tall!” (to reflect
its value package)
1941: “Nickel, Nickel!” (with a 15-second jingle played
around the world)
1950: “More bounce to the ounce” (post-WWII infla-
tion stressed fun rather than cost)
1953: “The light refreshment” (to reflect consumer
demand for fewer calories)
1961: “Pepsi—for those who think young” (coinciding
with a logo update)
1963: the hugely successful “Come alive! You’re in the
Pepsi generation.”
1969: “You’ve got a lot to live; Pepsi’s got a lot to give”
1973: “Join the Pepsi people—feelin’ free.”
1981: “Pepsi’s got your taste for life” (in some ways
stimulating the “disastrous” launch of New Coke by
archrival Coca-Cola)
1984: “Pepsi—the choice of a new generation”
1995: “Nothing else is a Pepsi”
4. Don’t go with the flavor of the month.
Too many managers are tempted to copy whichever brand
has succeeded lately, or what the market leader has done.
The success of the Nike swoosh prompted several compa-
nies to include swooshes—or rings of Saturn—in their
logos. The swoosh seems to have a ubiquitous presence,
with interpretations ranging from global reach, impact,
full offerings, and spectrum to high-tech feeling and con-
tinuity. Variations now adorn logos for Vanteon, Open
Market, and Ameritech.
There is a problem, though. Such copying lessens distinc-
tiveness and makes a logo look like everyone else’s. Fol-
lowing market leaders is not necessarily a good practice
because they are in a different position and therefore have
a different strategy. Copying a competitor will never give a
firm the opportunity to stand apart, and may land the
company into trademark infringement problems. Besides,
it will cause confusion in the minds of the consumers.
This is undesirable, unless a “me-too” strategy is being
pursued and false recognition is the primary intent.
5. Be systematic and objective.
As much as a simple, blanket solution may seem appeal-
ing, there is none. Every application is unique and re-
quires a different set of criteria. And every design compo-
nent influences the logo’s efficacy. Managers are well
advised to develop a set of criteria for each project, which
will be dictated by the brand strategy. Logos should then
be designed with these criteria in mind, and with an eye
toward specific marketing communication objectives.
6. Test logos in the marketplace.
Slogans are generally tested extensively because they are
often a significant part of an ad campaign. But the testing
of logos is often short-circuited. The presence of a mere
exposure effect makes the situation worse, because evalua-
tions based on a single exposure are not stable or reliable.
This is significant, because industry and academia alike
have traditionally relied on evaluations after one expo-
sure. Practicing managers should temper survey results
with the expected effects of mere exposure to come up
with a logo that will be well-liked by the market in the
medium to long run. Moreover, inputs from both naïve
and trained viewers—consumers and designers—are com-
plementary and add value. A logo choice based on the
input of designers only may be inappropriate.
References and selected bibliography
Aaker, David A. 1991. Managing brand equity. Capitalizing on the
value of a brand name. New York: Free Press.
Barrett, Tara J. 1985. Interactive imagery and recall of advertise-
ments: Interactive imagery, noninteractive imagery, and
printed text. Psychological Reports 56/3 (June): 922.
Bell, Stephen S., Morris B. Holbrook, and Michael R. Solomon.
1991. Combining esthetic and social value to explain prefer-
ences for product styles with the incorporation of personality
and ensemble effects. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality
6/6: 243-274.
63Creating effective logos: Insights from theory and practice
64 Business Horizons / May-June 2002
Berlyne, Daniel E. 1970. Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value.
Perception and Psychophysics 8/5A: 279-286.
———. 19 71. Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-
Billion dollar brand. 2000. Financial @
(17 July).
Bornstein, Robert F. 1990. Exposure and affect: Overview and
meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychology Bulletin 106
(September): 265-289.
Callcott, Margaret F., and Barbara J. Phillips. 1996. Observations:
Elves make good cookies: Creating likable spokes-character
advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 36/5 (September-
October): 73-79.
Christy, Nick. 1998. 100 years of advertising innovation. Beverage
World 117/1 (January): 188-196.
Conners, C. Keith. 1964. Visual and verbal approach motives as
a function of discrepancy from expectancy level. Perceptual and
Motor Skills 18/2 (April): 457-464.
Cox, Dena S., and Anthony D. Cox. 1988. What does familiarity
breed? Complexity as a moderator of repetition effects in ad-
vertisement evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 15/1
(June): 111-116.
Dickson, P.R., and A.G. Sawyer. 1990. The price knowledge and
search of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing 54/3
(July): 42-53.
Giberson, Robert, and John Hulland. 1995. The impact of using
logos as cues to consumer recognition: An investigation using
response latencies. Working paper, University of Western
Haber, Ralph Norman. 1958. Discrepancy from adaptation level
as a source of affect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 56/4
(October): 370-375.
Hansen, Flemming. 1972. Consumer choice behavior: A cognitive
theory. New York: Free Press.
Harmon-Jones, E. 1995. The mere exposure effect and emotion: A
psychophysiological investigation. Working paper, University of
Arizona, Tucson.
Henderson, Pamela W., and Joseph A. Cote. 1998. Guidelines
for selecting or modifying logos. Journal of Marketing 62/2
(April): 14-30.
Hirshman, E., and R.A. Bjork. 1988. The generation effect: Sup-
port for a two-factor theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition 14/3 (July): 484-494.
Klatzky, R. 1984. Memory and awareness: An information-processing
perspective. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
Lindsay, Greg. 2000. I want a unique logo—just like theirs. For-
tune (24 July): 334-335.
Macklin, M. Carole. 1996. Preschoolers’ learning of brand
names from visual cues. Journal of Consumer Research 23/3
(December): 251-261.
Morgenson, G. 1992. Is your product your advocate? Forbes (14
September): 468-472.
Owen, Stewart. 1993. The Landor ImagePower Survey: A global
assessment of brand strength. In David A. Aaker and Alexan-
der L. Biel, eds., Brand equity and advertising, 11-30. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paivio, A. 1971. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston.
———. 1986. Mental representations. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Pimentel, Ronald W. 1996. I don’t know much about design, but
I know what I like: An exploratory study of preference for
visual images. Working paper, University of Central Florida.
———, a n d S u san E. Heckler. 2000. Changes in logo designs:
Chasing the elusive butterfly curve. Working paper, Yaffe Cen-
ter for Persuasive Communications @
yaffe.nsf (15 June); also in Persuasive imagery: A consumer
response perspective, ed. Linda Scott and Rajeev Batra (forth-
coming; Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishing).
Ratliff, R. 1989. Where’s that new car made? Many Americans
don’t know. The Ottawa Citizen, Report on study made in the
USA Foundation, Inc. (11 November): D13.
Saporito, Bill. 1986. Has-been brands go back to work. Fortune
(28 April): 123-124.
Shennan, James R., Jr., and L. Seifert. 1986. Pictures as means of
conveying information. Journal of General Psychology 119/3
(July): 279-287.
Sherif, Muzafer, and Carl I. Hovland. 1961. Social judgment:
Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude
change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Wilson, Lee. 1994. Clearance for design trademarks—Keeping
your client out of court. Communication Arts—Design Annual
36 (November): 261-264.
Winston, Andrew S., and Gerald C. Cupchik. 1992. The evalua-
tion of high art and popular art by naïve and experienced
viewers. Visual Arts Research 18 (Spring): 1-14.
Zajonc, Robert B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure
(Monograph supplement, Part 2). Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 9/2: 1-27.
... Brand logos are an important tool for marketing communication and for differentiating the target brand from competitors (Henderson and Cote, 1998;Henderson et al., 2003;Kim et al., 2016;Melewar and Saunders, 2000;Van Grinsven and Das, 2016). In part, because brand logos can evoke associations and meanings shared by consumers (Wang et al., 2012), the brand logo influences consumers' attitudes, loyalty, reputation and purchase intentions associated with the brand (MacInnis et al., 1999;Müller et al., 2011;Kohli et al., 2002). ...
... Research has shown the importance of logos in influencing consumer perceptions and creating a distinct brand image, including in destination branding (Bossel et al., 2019;Kim et al., 2018). One particular advantage of brand logos is that their visual nature can transcend borders irrespective of languages (Kohli et al., 2002). Our findings suggest that when facing a threat (i.e. ...
Full-text available
Purpose This research aims to examine the role of perceived threat (i.e. COVID-19) on people’s preferences for destination logo designs. In addition, it investigates the influence of childhood socioeconomic status (SES) and sensation seeking on the aforementioned effect. Design/methodology/approach Five experiments are used. Studies 1 A and 1B examine the impact of the threat of COVID-19 on visiting intentions as influenced by different destination logos. Study 2 replicates the previous studies and tests for evidence of mediation by the perceived risk. Studies 3 and 4 investigate the moderating role of childhood SES and sensation seeking. Findings The results show that a salient threat of COVID-19 leads people to display higher visiting intentions when presented with simpler (vs complex) destination logo designs. The perceived risk mediates this effect as well. This preference is evident only for people with low (vs high) childhood SES and only for relatively low sensation seekers. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the branding literature by investigating how situational factors can influence affective reactions to brand logos and to the tourism literature by further investigating the impact of logos on visiting intentions. Practical implications This study provides actionable insights for tourism marketers and logo designers, allowing them to select or create positively perceived destination logos during a potential global crisis. Originality/value This research offers the first evidence that pandemic-related threat perceptions influence people’s visiting intentions when presented with different destination logos, and that these effects are influenced by individual characteristics such as childhood SES or sensation seeking. In doing so, the current study offers a more sophisticated understanding of the potential boundary conditions driving people’s brand logo evaluation.
... Style refers to how these elements are presented. When a logo incorporates a hint of the product or service category, the sense of effectiveness will be intensified (Kohli et al., 2002). ...
... The design of logo and name is still treated more as a less-discovered science in establishing corporate visual identity (Kohli et al., 2002). The research purpose described in the present article is to delineate how Chinese universities construct their brand identity through visual resources of logo and name. ...
This study focuses on the role of visual resources in constructing the brand identity of Chinese universities. By drawing on the theoretical concept of corporate visual identity (CVI), this study analyzed universities’ logos and typography of names from the social semiotic approach. Nine elite Chinese universities were selected as the corpus to qualitatively investigate how the institutions’ logos and typography of their names are designed and utilized for corporate branding. The analysis shows that both the logos and names are graphically and typographically designed as effective visual elements and semiotic resources with meaning potentials to signify the Chinese universities’ brand identity. (Eprint:
... Many logos are low on textual and/or visual design elements describing the type of certification or that activate relevant associations to what they represent (Luffarelli et al., 2019). People look for meaning in logos (Kohli et al., 2002). Logos with high descriptiveness (Luffarelli et al., 2019), more elaborate logos than very simple ones (Henderson & Cote, 1998), and logos that evoke common associations across people (Henderson & Cote, 1998) are evaluated more favorably among consumers. ...
As a result of the increased crowding of the retail landscape with health and sustainability signals and hundreds of different certifications and claims, there is a growing need to determine the critical success factors and guidelines for professional practice. The current paper investigates how different combinations of signals impact consumers’ choice and willingness to pay (WTP). We identify and test two major certifications from a branding perspective. The results show that consumers will have a preference and higher WTP for fish filets with signals (certificates/tags or health/sustainability) that hold higher customer-based label equity (familiarity, understanding, trust) when shown in a choice-based situation. The results show the importance of a clear reference point, label equity (familiarity, understanding, trust), and customer values when using third-party certifications and/or simple taglines.
... Logo is initially designed for presenting brand identification and brand personality purposes which represent a brand signature (Henderson & Cote, 1998). It can be called a universal language (Kohli, Suri & Thakor, 2002) since its distinctive characteristic is the ability to communicate visually. As logo is performed in various marketing activities, understanding perception of logo is the best benefit for marketing management in creating effective logo design. ...
Full-text available
The topics of logo design perceptions have been examined among academic scholars recently. However, elements of logo as one aspect of logo designs were rarely studied and required to be investigated. This research aimed to measure the effects of logo elements comprising type font, graphic form, and color toward brand personality perceptions, as well as to explore the relationship between business stakeholders and brand personality. In addition, logo design meaning and brand personality traits including sincerity, excitement, security, and up to date were evaluated toward logo elements. Two hundred and sixty-five samples were selected using convenience sampling from employees and residents of Thai property developers. The mix method approach was employed for the data collecting through interviewing and questionnaire survey and analyzed by Chi-square tests. The findings reveal that logo design transfers all-inclusive meaning to viewers, encompassing name, graphic, and color interpretation. Besides, there is a connection between logo elements and perception of brand personality, but in order to obtain one salient dimension of brand personality, exhibiting the whole logo was suggested rather than individual element of logo. Furthermore, brand personality was considered vital among market sharing property industry which personality of sincerity was chiefly perceived when stakeholders appreciate a logo of their real estate brands.
... What has been lacking in this domain is evidence that body feedback can influence individuals' judgments of known picture stimuli. On the other hand, regarding the spatial biases, research has been limited to verbal stimuli (e.g., Chasteen et al., 2010;Dudschig et al., 2013;Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), or, if pictures have been used, they were static images conveying a sense of directionality instead of showing real movements (e.g., Chae & Hoegg, 2013;Cian et al., 2014;Kohli et al., 2002;Monahan & Romero, 2020). ...
Full-text available
Many studies suggest that specific movements or postures with shared social meaning can influence mainly verbal stimuli evaluation. On the other hand, several visuospatial biases can interact with this influence. Thus, we tested whether both head and stimuli movements can influence individual attitude towards food pictures. In two experiments, we used images of common foods with a weak positive valence in association with two kinds of movements. In Experiment 1, head movement was induced by presenting food pictures with a vertical or horizontal continuous movement on a computer screen. Conversely, Experiment 2 was conducted to test the effects of participants' own head movements with respect to the same food pictures presented in a fixed position. In neither case did head movements influence product evaluation. However, Experiment 1 revealed that the continuous movement left-right-left in the horizontal condition improved the desire to buy and eat, as well as the willingness to pay for the product shown. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated, respectively, that this effect disappears if the stimulus does not make the return direction, and that it does not depend on the starting or final placement of the images on the screen. These findings are discussed in the context of embodied cognition and visuospatial bias theories.
CV. Petra Kharisma Abadi, now PeKA, is a company that makes and sells food-boxes in Magelang and Kedu areas. The customers are mainly from Magelang, 60% females 40% males, aged between 25 - 55 years. The main problem that I have found from the customer survey is lack of brand awareness, because the target customers cannot recognize the name of the company and its’ product. From the customer survey, I found that the solutions are making a new brand name, logo, and slogan. Besides, the company must highlight the USPs (durability, beauty, and low price). I used theories that focus on my main subjects, which are brand awareness, brand name, logo, and slogan. There are three benefits from the solution: target customers can be more familiar with the company, can boost sales by having the target market’s trust, and can later have a correct method of promotions after good branding.
A logo is an important part of brand image and a key visual element that has an impact on cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions. This article examines how often tourists consciously pay attention to the logos of online travel agencies and brand name types in the context of their demographic characteristics and tourism behaviour. There were a total of 170 participants in the study. Empirical data was collected using two research techniques: a survey questionnaire and click tracking. Data analysis was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, it was assessed whether there is a relationship between the demographic characteristics and tourism behaviour of the respondents and their perception of the logos of online travel agencies. In the second stage, correspondence analysis (CA) was performed to obtain information on the relationship between the frequency with which the respondents pay attention to logos and their preferred type of logo. The study showed that the frequency with which the respondents pay attention to the logos of online travel agencies varies with their education, tourism expenditure, and the number of tourism trips they make in a year. The perception of logos as regards the type of brand name they include varies depending on the frequency of tourism trips and the preferred type of travel arrangements. This study provides important guidance on the design of logos and visual communication strategies, thus helping to facilitate the brand value creation process.
Full-text available
Companies carefully choose slogans to arrest the attention of audience and maximise profit. This is evident in the slogans of telecommunication companies in Nigeria. Existing works had seen slogans as a form of advertisement and a way of displaying ideologies but had not specifically placed emphasis on the unique linguistic features of Nigerian telecommunication company slogans. This work, therefore, complements the researches in this area. This research work examines the stylistic strategies used in these slogans and how they capture ideologies, philosophies, core values, and mission and vision statements of the selected companies. The research, as a descriptive stylistic study, makes use of the slogans of ten selected telecommunication companies in Nigeria. The data for this research work were collected from the companies’ official websites as the internet presents a very interesting platform for them to sell themselves. Other media like the company billboards, souvenirs, vests, products, SIM packs, newspapers advertorials, branded calendars, diaries, etc. are also sources of data for the research work. The theoretical framework adopted for this analysis is the Systemic Functional Linguistics which underscores language as a functional entity influenced by the socio-cultural context in which it is used. The findings show that slogans, as forms of advertisement, are enriched with rhetoric, propaganda and ideology. Certain stylistic strategies which include: brevity of expression, inversion of word order, parataxis, use of ellipsis, use of initial capitalisation, non use of initial capitalisation, use of personal pronouns to establish social relations between the companies and their customers, ambiguity, metaphor, etc. are used in these slogans, meant to gain customers in order to maximise profit. Furthermore, these companies’ slogans are meant to appeal to people to be their customers, are affirmative and portray competition and superiority, summarise what the companies stand for, establish individuality or personal relationship with the customers and show unceasing cares for the customers. This research work concludes that slogans are tools employed by companies to promote their images and make profit. Their brevity makes them ambiguous. However, it makes them catchy and could also make them linger on their customers’ memory forever. Keywords: Slogan, Branding, Telecommunication Company, Stylistics, Systemic Functional Linguistics.
Despite the popularity of t-shirts and slogans' usage on t-shirts, there is virtually no empirical research on t-shirt slogans. This study aims to answer three research questions namely: (1) What are the popular t-shirt slogans? (2) Who are the companies' selling t-shirts with slogans? (3) What are the characteristics of the slogans that are liked by young consumers? Content and thematic analysis were used to analyze the responses. We believe the findings of this research can serve as a foundation for future research on t-shirt slogans and contribute to the existing body of knowledge on slogans.
A model of grocery shopper response to price and other point-of-purchase information was developed and hypotheses were tested by using observations and interviews. The findings suggest that shoppers tended to spend only a short time making their selection and many did not check the price of the item they selected. Perhaps as a consequence, more than half could not correctly name the price of the item just placed in the shopping cart and more than half of the shoppers who purchased an item that was on special were unaware that the price was reduced. Other results on point-of-purchase information processing and behavior are discussed.
The authors develop guidelines to assist managers in selecting or modifying logos to achieve their corporate image goals An empirical analysis of 195 logos, calibrated on 13 design characteristics, identified logos that meet high-recognition low-investment, and high-image communication objectives. High-recognition logos (accurate recognition created by high investment) should be very natural, very harmonious, and moderately elaborate. Low-investment logos (false sense of knowing and positive affect) should be less natural and very harmonious. High image logos (professional look and strong positive image) must be moderately elaborate and natural. The authors illustrate the guidelines with real logos.