On redesigning an existing logo (Part 2 of 2)

On occasion, say when a company or brand is purchased by another company, there may be a sales or marketing cal to unify the branding. This is positioned as in the interest of sales, so that the customer can understand that a product is now part of this family. I’ve heard this issue actually softened by a marketing rep who said that a logo needed “not necessarily to feel like a brother, but at least like a distant cousin.”

I take it as a given that there are families of which are of a family, and which therefore need to have a resemblance. But these logos still should—no, really must—allow for some discrimination. The goal of these grouped identities would be to say, "these products are related, a family, but each has a particular unique and distinguishing flavor," which are typified by the unique elements of that logo.

Logo design, then, adds authenticity to the business and the identity by communicating uniqueness, quality, and quite simply, what is remarkable about a particular brand, versus another. This identity is what provides the "peanut butter" for the branding, creating instant recognition and drawing a new customers attention as well as pulling a satisfied customer back, sticking to the roof of their collective mouths, and providing distinct flavor.

Given these assumptions, a recent comment I overheard saying a logo looks "too different" from its family seems antithetical. Again, having a family of logos is one thing, but moving a logo away from unique branding to gain that family identification is the opposite of branding. Creation of a family of logos should never occur at the expense of its communication that the product featured is something different, and something special in its own right. Ultimately, each logo must stand alone, and stand for something, in order to justify its existence as a separate logo, or entity, or imprint. If it's not communicating something different, a way that it is unique from other products of its kind in the market, even other products within it's own family, then what is the purpose for its existence as a separate logo? Again, it comes down to the communication goal.

Comparing a proposed new logo on a product against the current logo as it stands speaks volumes to the core issues: Does it maintain a connection to the current brand identity in the mind of the buyers? Does it communicate the uniqueness of the brand? Does it speak to the core value of the product?

If the reason for changes in a logo are not to enhance the brand or uniqueness, but to increase the sameness of the mark to fall more in line with the other logos in the family highlights a core error of homogenization. Ultimately, such efforts are the death of uniqueness within a brand identity. The ultimate purpose of redesigning a logo to fit within a family should be to create a family of individuals, and even as designers work to unify that family, it should not be at the expense of the very real market cost of losing their uniqueness.