Personally, I don't use Facebook so wasn't too bothered about attending the keynote interview with Mark Zuckerberg. I find the whole Facebook concept a waste of time and a self agreed exploitation of privacy in the quest to get the most friends and to broadcast to the faceless Facebook herd. Slightly off topic but people complain about ID cards yet they happily share their most private details on a site which is rumoured to have ties with the CIA and can target and sell advertising based on users very specific data.
As it turned out, the Q&A with Sara Lacy was a bit of a circus, so I missed out on the hot gossip of SXSWi. If you're wondering what I'm referring too then simply check the link and see what all the fuss is about and watch the video linked above. From what I can gather, she was at times taking centre stage and the audience started to turn on her. Fair enough but from what I can tell, Zuckerberg wasn't the most forthcoming of interviewees and so naturally she became the personality. What do I care though, I wasn't there. Instead, I went to a debate entitled “Logos: Why They're Irrelevant and Can Actually Hurt Your Business” a debate which also became a hot potato.
The general premise of the talk was that the role of the Logo / Logotype brandmark has had it's day. No longer can the Logo carry a company along and you hear very little of the classic 'corporate redesign' jobs which were so common up until a few years ago. The big question was, has the Logo lost it's value in favor of other things like services, navigation and the url?
They stated the Logo's importance in comparison to well designed services, communication, content and usability isn't really that important at all. They questioned whether a good name and url was more important than a good logo mark. The panel raised the question if Logos of the past represented a good sign of trust, then in today's digital climate, is the URL taking that role? After all, many visitors arrive at sites via search engines — a logo free, URL rich process.
Apparently, on average your website will receive 1 new visitor per month for 1.5 seconds. What can you do to make them stay? My opinion then (and now) is that the Logo and site look and feel has a massive influence on that moment. The audience thought this too and the audience began to grill the panel. The panel argued that elements like descriptive navigation are just as important, and I agree completely. Navigation should instantly communicate what is on offer and can really explain a site fast whilst supporting a visual language. I think Zoppa is a great example of everything done right within that first 1.5 seconds.
However, I believe the Logo has an important place in today's service driven digital world and still represents a mark of trust and recognition. For example, in today's online mash-up environments where content merges into a giant data soup. Logo's confirming the content source can at a glance represent source credibility. Many mash-up sites don't offer this simple feature.
The panel and I also agreed that too often clients can get hung up on the Logo at an early stage in the development process when maybe their focus should be on knowing exactly what it is their product's services are. I've met many clients who don't really know what their site should say & do, but they know they want their logo rendered in blue. Perhaps the Logo should develop naturally alongside a website build. Services and content could then help define and shape the Logo rather than the other way round. I will try this approach in the future.
The panel then proceeded to show the infamous Web 2.0 Logo Chart. In my opinion it's a disposable logo graveyard with so many forgettable marks. The panel agreed and asked why couldn't the logotypes in this chart be just simply 12pt Arial. This disregard of the Logo caused quite a stir and personally, as much as I dislike most of the logos in that chart I understand they exist to at the very least resonate with a potential audience. My point here is, if a group of products delivered the same service in the same way, what would then influence the users choice? The logo will always be relevant.
As the talk gathered motion I began to reflect on a project close to my heart, StickerNation. I began to think how StickerNation demonstrated with it's vast image archive how important it is for people to express themselves and bond with an identity. The site featured thousands of personal brand marks created for no other reason than to simply achieve a point of recognition and respect.
Overall it was an interesting talk and myself, the audience and the panel agreed and dis-agreed with many points. Coming away, my conclusion is that brand values and services can't be solved within a single logo. The Logo is be a symbol recognition and a device to help support and resonate with the services on offer. To disregard the Logo completely would be to commit brand suicide.
I'm glad I missed that Facebook Q&A even if I did feel a bit out of the loop on all the gossip in all the bars that night.
