If It Ain’t Broke?
Written by Galia Myron Monday, 17 January 2011 12:36
The more loyal the customers, the less amenable they are to logo redesigns.
Expert Q&A
Companies should think carefully before changing their logos, warn researchers who studied a link between customer loyalty and logo redesign. Michael Walsh, PhD, of West Virginia University, along with Penn State‘s Karen Winterich, PhD, and Vikas Mittal, PhD, of TX-based Rice University found that the more loyal the customer, the more resistant to a new brand logo he or she will be.
The recent publicity over the Starbucks announcement to make over its famous siren is just the latest in a series of public debates, fresh on the heels of the Gap logo hoopla at the end of 2010.
How can businesses avoid alienating their most important customers while staying fresh and attracting new consumers?
Below is an exclusive demodirt.com interview with Walsh, who explains the reasons behind this consumer dynamic and what companies need to know to navigate its nuances.
demodirt.com: What inspired you to examine the role of brand logo redesign and customer loyalty?
Walsh: It was something similar to the Starbucks situation. In 2003, Apple Computer announced a change to their logo from a monochromatically red color to a brushed silver hue. Within hours of Apple’s announcement, there were over 200 signatures on an online petition demanding a return to the old logo treatment. When I heard of this, I was intrigued that a management prerogative like updating a logo could "back fire." Surely the Apple managers did not want to alienate their customers yet their decision to change their logo did just that. I started to do some research and discovered some other similar examples. At the same time, there were other stories of logo changes that did not appear to create a consumer backlash. That led to the following question—why do consumers resist some brand aesthetic changes and accept others? Eventually, this topic became my dissertation...which turned into two journal articles published with my dissertation chair, Vikas Mittal and doctoral program colleague, Karen Winterich.
demodirt.com: Your research found that loyal customers feel that their relationship with the company is threatened when the logo is redesigned. Does this mean they worry that the product quality and/or price will change?
Walsh: Strongly committed consumers respond differently to information about a brand than weakly committed consumers. As consumers become attached to a brand, the brand becomes more meaningful for the consumer and they form an emotional bond to the brand. This bond frames a consumer’s emotional response to the brand. A change to a brand component such as a logo raises the possibility that the meaning of the brand has been altered for a consumer. A strongly committed consumer is likely to view such change negatively as a means to protect their vested interests. In this situation change in logo affects how a consumer perceives a brand which might influence perceived product quality or price/value.
demodirt.com: Why do companies choose to redesign their logos—is it to seem more modern, to attract new customers, or something else entirely?
Walsh: All three! In a given year, about one in 50 companies will change its name and logo for a variety of reasons. Logos may need to be changed due to changes in company name. For example Federal Express shortened its name to FedEx in 1994 which resulted in changes to its logo. Other logo changes may reflect a strategy or service emphasis change (in the1990s, United Airlines changed its logo when it became employee owned). Some logos are changed in order to “update” an image. For example, Aunt Jemima modernized its original stereotype image of a smiling black “mammy” on its pancake mix and syrup packages. If Aunt Jemima had not updated its logo, it ran the risk of alienating consumers with a blatantly stereotype image. Finally, logos may also be changed for purposes of novelty. Examples of this would include the Prudential Rock which now features vertical lines in its image.
demodirt.com: Are there examples of some redesigned logos that were a success with loyal customers?
Walsh: The examples I just cited were introduced without much resistance. More recently, UPS (2003), Xerox (2008), Walmart (2008) and the Vauxhaul division of GM (2008) changed their logos without experiencing consumer resistance/rejection.
demodirt.com: What is the takeaway message of this research?
Walsh: As we mentioned in our Journal of Product and Brand Management paper, most companies use a mass approach when they change their logos and presume that their most precious customers—those having strong brand commitment—will be accommodating to the change. This is a mistaken assumption. We advocate a more nuanced approach to ensure that logo redesigns appeal to both highly and lowly committed customers. One strategy [may be to appease] committed consumers by actively soliciting their input and perhaps pre-notifying them before the changes are revealed to the broader public. Giving the strongly committed such a feeling of being an “insider” may strengthen their self-brand connection and mitigate the potentially negative effects of logo redesign. For example, Apple Computer failed to explicitly announce their logo change; the redesign simply appeared on products, packaging, and advertising. Possibly the negative responses were because Apple’s new logo surprised and disappointed their strongly committed customers, who would have expected to know of such a change in advance.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Feedback: "The breadth of topics covered on demodirt.com is always timely and the depth is always outstanding." --Leslie G. Ungar, professional speaker, executive coach, and strategist at Electric Impulse Communications |