Change is bad......(about Facebook's logo)

That is one of the (heavily reasoned) conclusions Jenni Romaniuk draws in her book on building and managing Distinctive Brand Assets (DBAs). The default answer to a proposed change should always be "no. And yes, there are situations in which it may be necessary or wise to do so.

In the case of Facebook, the bottom logo is the logo of the corporate brand. For the user on the Internet, nothing else happens. Their main purpose in doing this is to show that the Facebook group is more than just the platform Facebook as we as consumers know it. So they exist side by side.

There are plenty of examples of situations where things have gone wrong, where they have gone off the rails and where, at the very least, there was no rationale (but often a "good story") behind the change in DBAs. (An illustrious example of this is Tropicana which you can read more about here ).

That is changing, improving. Because, in fact, lately we are seeing many examples of brands bringing back 'good old' DBAs. Like for example Duracel the rabbit (yes, has been gone for 10 years) and OHRA the purple crocodile. Very important here is that these are effigies that are not necessarily originally related to the category. These actions by Duracel and OHRA testify to an increased value attached to recognizability.

Strange really. That recognizability is so important for a brand. I always underestimated that myself. I always thought it was so flat. Being visible, being present, .... You sometimes hear brand people say pityingly; "They're just sticking logos", with an undertone of "But of course that's not what it's about". Well, also!

Another recent example is the name change from 'Allsecur' to 'Allianz Direct', where a lot of budget is thrown at it. Tim and Tom Coronel are very emphatically being used as DBAs to ensure that everything that has been invested in this is not thrown away as value, but rather utilized. A few years ago we would have frowned at this: 'what a waste of budget'. Now we know that brand recognition is very important. Crucial even.

Of course, there is more. In principle, it makes sense to think carefully about who you are as a brand (How Brands Are). At the very least, it already sounds a lot more fun to be involved in positioning, purpose and profiling, rather than planning, promos and placement. We don't always get happy with the corporate identity police by a long shot, either. But we shouldn't underestimate how important that is anyway.

As a brand, the trick is to build a memory structure in the minds of consumers that is simple and consistent, such that they quickly recognize you and think of you in (as many) relevant buying situations as possible. Faint to mention, but take McDonalds as an example.

That's why we took the test and tested Dutch logos in 8 markets for their recognizability. Not that having a recognizable logo is a sufficient condition for a strong brand, but if they had that in order, some brands would do even better.

Exercise: go over this for your brand: suppose we should have an icon for our app? Or: what would our packaging look like if it were 1 by 1cm? Or: in any case, what should we never change about our logo? What, deep down, defines our recognizability? We all know what IKEA looks like. But what is it above all else? The color combination, the shape, the capital letters?