Well, no, it doesn’t. And it shouldn’t. And it mustn’t.

A logo is not intended to be hung on a wall or worn out to dinner.  As the cornerstone of your corporate identity, its purpose is to communicate who you are in a healthy heartbeat. And to be effective, a logo must be informed by objective criteria.

Many of the rules that govern logo design are founded in our own physiology.  We process images to make sense of our world. When we see a picture, a painting, or even a postage stamp, we instantaneously synthesize disparate components to form the whole. In fact, we actually see the parts and the whole at the same time.

But what does all of this have to do with designing a logo?

In Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye, Dr. Rudolph Arnheim examines this phenomenon, breaking down the visual experience into its fundamental components such as balance, shape, color, growth, space, light, and movement. Drawing on extensive research conducted by accomplished ophthalmologists, gestalt psychologists, and biologists, Dr. Arnheim formulated hundreds of principles of perception to explain how our brain processes a jumble of retinal impulses into images that make sense to us.

One principle that is integral to the design of a meaningful and memorable logo (and all expressions of corporate identity) is the principle called Grouping. Dr. Arnheim discovered that human beings are hard-wired to group together shapes that are identical to each other

In Figure (1), Con Edison successfully applies the principle of grouping to the shape on the left of its name. Because of the uniformity of both the color and the thickness of the curved bands, we can see an electric plug at the same time we see the letter “e” tucked inside the letter “c”. In other words, grouping allows us to recognize both the parts (the curved bands, the letters “e” and “c”) and the whole image (the electric plug). Like it or hate it, the logo is both powerful and brilliant.

In Figure (2), Afrocube Group disrupts the grouping principle through visual distraction. Shapes, forms, size, color…all different.  We struggle to consolidate them, and even to decipher the name of the organization. Because we can’t readily combine these random visual cues, we dismiss or even ignore the logo altogether. Not good.

To those who subscribe to the notion that the efficacy of a logo is subjective, I say this:

Well- designed logos have little to do with the fact that the person in charge happens to hate the color red, or like type over graphic expression. Regardless of personal taste, we all share a rudimentary – a biologic - preference for design that makes it easier to integrate hundreds of visual impressions into a relevant image. And grouping is one of the many objective design principles that commits your corporate identity to memory, keeps it front of mind, and underscores your brand.

In his next installment (scheduled to be published on May 15) Peter explores another key principle  that governs good design.

Many years ago, I made possibly the biggest mistake in my professional life…a mistake that was definitely among the most valuable experiences of my career, although I didn’t know it at the time.

Back then, I was a Product Manager for a publishing company that developed self-study courses on professional topics that were marketed exclusively to businesses through direct mail.

Our top selling course was promoted on a four page self mailer. It was a one color brochure printed on cheap paper. The type was blocky, the copy amateurish. The graphics were crude illustrations, and the design – what design? And yet this dun marketing piece continued to generate record response again and again and again.

Imagine, I thought to myself, what would happen if we upgraded this stale vehicle with full color, edgy design, glossy stock, sophisticated copy? And so we did. And sales plummeted.

I was dumbfounded, and distressed over the potential cost of my bad judgment to my career. Fortunately, I had one of those managers who viewed failure as intrinsic to learning.

“Why did you change the brochure?” he asked me.

I answered, “because I thought that it made more sense to spend time on improving winners than salvaging failures.”

“Hmmmm. I’m wondering if you’re trying to catch fish with lettuce.” My boss was a Wharton Alumnus, known for his folksy shibboleths. “What kind of person has historically purchased this product?”

I responded, “The lists that performed the best are buyers who lack a college degree. They work in large companies where there is probably a lot of room for professional growth, but they are not managers, even though they have over 10 years of work experience.”

My boss said, “do you think they’re ‘edgy or sophisticated’?”

And it hit me. The answer was an unequivocal No. The individuals who typically ordered this program were junior employees, perhaps seeking an entry-level management position. The old design, however obsolete or coarse (and probably because of this), imparted a kind of reassurance that the material they purchased would not speak over their heads.  It resonated in a way that the new design did not.

History is replete with glaring marketing gaffes committed as a result of forgetting or misunderstanding your market. Gablingers, one of the first light beers, failed miserably to attract its “Joe Six Pack” target by promoting its product as a diet beer. It wasn’t until Miller Brewing Company positioned Miller Lite as “tastes great, less filling” that men turned to a beer that actually had fewer calories…but not for that reason.

More recently, Burger King put its outsized and almost grotesquely costumed King to rest…a character that was not in sync with its family-friendly brand and no doubt contributed to its drop in sales in 2011.

While technology has revolutionized the way we approach and communicate to the market, it has yet to change what motivates people to buy. Marketing should never be about showcasing artistic talent or originality, but knowing who your buyer is, and orchestrating each and every component to strike that perfect resonance between buyer and seller.

At first glance, this is obvious advice.  But in an era of supercyber advances, the marketing vehicle has trumped the message, and that message, in the charming colloquialism of my former boss, is “you can’t catch fish with lettuce.” You really can’t. I’ve tried.

For the CI manager, this is a familiar situation. Employees constantly misapply or even ignore brand standards and practices. Why can’t they understand that even ostensibly small infractions can sabotage a customer experience? And why is this so difficult to explain?

Many corporations offer employees training and education to communicate the full value of the brand proposition and the supporting graphic guidelines. Unfortunately, developing web tools to manage identity assets or putting in place strict governance processes do not always work…in fact, often fail.

Why? The answer resides in the difference between Brand Management and Brand Leadership.

Brand managers tend to concentrate primarily on their image and how to promote it. Their main goal is to preserve the integrity of this image. Brand managers are generally reactive and constantly chase after those who break the rules of the graphics standards. Because of their tactical approach, they have difficulty preventing image fragmentation.

The companies that just manage their brands generally have only a tacit endorsement from senior management. The institution’s leadership is not engaged in the brand strategy, and typically delegates this function to mid level or junior staff

By contrast, Brand leaders are visionary and have long-term, measurable goals in place. They think in terms of brand equity instead of image. They concentrate on brand value and use metrics to help build competitive advantage. Brand leaders understand the fundamental proposition that brand is not just a logo but is the sum total of the experiences customers have when exposed to their products and services.

When the organization’s leadership not only determines but consistently reinforces brand strategy, they motivate employees to do likewise. Each staff member becomes a brand evangelist, safeguarding the rules that support it, and thereby ensuring that the brand experience is always the same for their customers.

Not every brand can start out as a leader. But every leader can actively champion brand, and insist on the primacy of those internal rules and practices that deliver a unified,  positive message to the marketplace. While this often presents significant challenges to culture and requires constant vigilance, it is the only route to brand leadership destination. In these organizations, brand is sacrosanct; its standards and practices inviolate…and a Christmas ornament will always be placed on a tree, never on a logo.

It seems that, as designers and identity developers, we are often faced with this kind of thinking where the client wants their logo to work too hard and be a literal representation of what the company does. A self-explanatory logo is generally difficult to execute and in most cases not the most desirable solution as it will generate a visually complex form, difficult to reproduce, ultimately defeating its main purpose.

Some fortunate direct visual associations can be made when the company name or function is easily translated into a symbol. Apple is a good example. Their original logo was a literal attempt to illustrate the ethos of the company by showing Isaac Newton sitting under a tree with an apple over his head. The resulting logo was a busy illustration that correctly symbolized their brand of innovation but that had none of the characteristics of a good logo. By simplifying it, the logo evolved into a global icon. Another graphic link exists in the FedEx identity where an universally understood symbol – an arrow – is embedded in the logo. Other companies opt to be represented by what some would consider a “non-logo”. Facebook’s identity for example, is nothing more than the word written in an easily readable font without artifice or visual enhancement. Like Apple, the Facebook visual identity says little about the company but once the association is made in the marketplace these brands become immediately and unmistakably recognized.

A logo or an identity program is also not the “brand”. The identity only stands-in for the quality and values of the entity it represents. When BP re-branded along the “Beyond Petroleum” line, it embraced a certain specific value that aspired to be more environmentally conscious. After the Deepwater explosion that aspect of the BP brand came into question and its logo in turn became a symbol of pollution and irresponsibility.

A logo is also not the only device that a company can use to identify itself. Consistent, intelligent, and playful usage of other identity assets like color, typography, and imagery boost the brand and enhance recognition of a company’s visual landscape.

Should logos make specific visual connections or references to the companies they identify? I would suggest that while that is an option, concepts like memorability, distinctiveness, and universality are far more effective than the literal translation of corporate activities.

Brand is the story a company tells about itself. A company formulates a series of concepts about how it behaves, what values it has, why it does what it does, what it aspires to be, etc. It controls this story and disseminates it through a number of different platforms like advertisements, annual reports, web sites, and philanthropic efforts. Usually a cohesive corporate identity system is displayed in support of the brand whenever the company speaks about itself. In theory the brand is also a blueprint for corporate behavior.

Reputation in contrast, is the story everyone else tells about the company. In other words it’s the story the customers, investors, press, the public at large, tell about a company. Generally a company does not control its reputation and very often there are factors like industry reputation that are difficult to manage. The pharmaceutical industry, for instance, is a good example. Any one company can suffer from the public perception of the whole industry.

So if reputation is not truly controllable how does a company manage all these external factors that influence how they are perceived? By ensuring there are no gaps between the story it tells about itself and the story others tell about it. Or to put it in simpler terms: Ensure there are no significant differences between the brand and corporate behavior.

At the core of this concept lies the idea that a brand is more than just a promise. Any one can make a promise. It’s how you deliver on the promise that counts.

Brand is not something that a company should formulate just so that it has a story to tell. It has to live and breathe this story and deliver on the promises it makes. It is the only way to manage reputation. If a company does not live up to its values, for instance, or promises simplicity and delivers complexity, its reputation soon will suffer and so will the stock value.

Most likely it is impossible to fully equalize brand and reputation in the minds of all stakeholders. There will always exist groups with antagonistic views. What is important, however, is to understand that brand has a profound impact on reputation and that when a company gathers metrics on its reputation it should measure the results by comparing them to its behavior and promises.

Brand will drive reputation and if a company does not live up to its brand, reputation will kill it.