“Ceci n’est pas une pomme” or why consumers can’t remember logos
Several experiments show that our minds and visual memory are not as reliable as we think: when prompted to draw famous brand logos, people often fail to create an accurate drawing.
A study by UCLA published in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology asked 85 students to draw the Apple logo. Just one of them did it right. I particularly like the bottom right one that looks like a deformed heart, or lung. Apple must be really vital to this person. More seriously, one might wonder how hard it is to draw such a simple and ubiquitous logo. Surely, drawing an apple does not require extraordinary artistic skills, right?
Another experiment by Adweeks on Times Square somewhat reinforces this idea that logo drawing is not that easy, with some less-than-perfect drawings – and an hilarious French dude – in this video.
Why then is it so hard to draw a logo? The UCLA study found out that our minds are in fact so saturated with information that we fall into some form of “attention to detail amnesia”: we don’t feel that we NEED to remember the logo, hence we stop noticing it and its details to unconsciously free up mental space. You might call it selective memory.
“Our minds are so saturated with information that we tend to forget logo details”
What brands can learn from this study is that their logo might be as simple and recognisable as possible, it does not mean that people can recall it to the point of reproducing it. We can now understand why companies start suing others about vaguely similar logos, or use of the same colours.
If details are not going to make a real difference, your logo needs to be utterly unique and easy to remember.
6 Comments
Join the discussion and tell us your opinion.
Can I ask a semi-wicked question Dr: Why do we want logos that are unique, easy, and distinguishable from “others”? Why is it imperative to draw attention to our offerings by re-calling an image/experience our customers gained (instead of relying on their actual use of it as the chief test)?
Is creating a bond which makes us, customers, reach out for a certain item over the shelf or click on one over the web that crucial for businesses?
“ok, those are three Qs not one!” 🙂
I know I am drifting away from the main idea of this post but I just wonder about the obsession we have toward winning, competition, steady flow of offering(s) before they lose momentum, etc … (being dramatic, I know).
Might be questions that fall under the (existential) Qs category but I cannot escape going that lane whenever I come across conceptualisations that ultimately want us to buy more, and fast. Know what I mean? It can easily be described as naive, I realise that, still I cannot escape the thought of prioritisation in what role businesses, big or small, are advocating or playing. Make a good product, offer a service, promote it (sure), defend it against logo displacement but also remain focused on basics. Not every business can afford the long-run hurdle of customers (testing) their offerings and THEN being loyal to those offerings but the amount of effort by almost everyone to push &/or pull offerings so they are sold and sold as the # 1 criterion to success is frightening.
*ok, I am done* 😀 and I know I will never open a business that makes money 😛
*forgot to subscribe to comments!*
Hi Haitham. Well regarding the logo, first of all, I think it acts like a mental shortcut for customers. You don’t only need it for your existing customers to remember you, but also to serve as a differentitation tool in general. Being unique, or significantly different on the market is important, otherwise why would a consumer choose you and not your competitor? A logo is a symobl that helps you create this differentiated identity if you want my opion. It does not do all the job, but it helps!
Then, for the part of making money, this is a bit more philosophical indeed and less related to the logo itself, but I think that mistaking marketing and advertising with greed and profit is a limited stereotype. Companies need to make money to survive, maybe not profit, but even non-profit companies still need cash to operate. Just like you need employment and money.
So the fact that companies seek to attract business through marketing means does not mean that they have a wrong purpose, wrong values or a wrong way of doing it. I forcefully disagree that marketing is immediately viewed an evil method to extract money out of helpless people by manipulating them. Again, just like individuals, some companies have dubious goals, values and methods, but others don’t and that has nothing to do with the practice of marketing itself.
Sorry for getting all worked up 😀 I’m sure that you’d be very good at marketing your own company even without necessarily doing marketing on purpose 🙂
“the obsession we have toward …” was meant for businesses in specific and our “intelligent” race in general, surely not to marketing per se. I need to work on my “writing”! 😀
It is all intertwined; the specific (logo and its function) as per your post, with the philosophical, more general, aspect of the genuine purpose & role of business and the exploitation of some to such purpose. Of course I know you do realise that loop. Trying to figure out the specific-general connection “even with the isolation of other factors” is hard and the implications of that connection are even harder to agree on (agree as in: OK, what to do now, what comes first, etc..)
I can, already, see my venture going bankrupt 😛
As long as the PhD is going well at the moment…? 😉
Well, it is .. going 🙂