Houston Voices

Consider this research before redesigning your company's logo

You might want to think twice before making a change to your company's logo. Pexels

When Apple toyed with the idea of a logo change in 2003, thousands of users signed petitions attacking the idea. The company quickly realized that change was not necessarily good — and kept the iconic apple.

For most firms, a logo redesign is a way to refresh the brand, making it more alluring to new customers.

If a company does change its look, industry tradition advises, it should go round. Curvier lines and letters supposedly suggest a soothing, harmonious reality, while angles suggest just the opposite.

But research by Rice Business professor Vikas Mittal and colleagues Michael Walsh of West Virginia University and Karen Winterich of Pennsylvania State University shows that regardless of the angle, companies need to be careful about visual do-overs. In general, tolerance for new logos — angular or rounded — depends on the consumer profile. Diehard fans of a brand may find the break in their visual routine irritating. New customers, meanwhile, may or may not find the updated logo aesthetically pleasing.

To test the public's reactions to logo changes, Mittal and his team conducted three different experiments with 215 people, 62 percent of them female and 38 percent male. First, participants were shown a range of logo designs for two leading bottled waters, Dasani and Aquafina. Then they were shown logos by a professional designer who rounded out the images' lines.

Changing the logo design overall, the researchers found, created a sense of dissonance among the most highly committed consumers, who reacted negatively to the new visual information.

People who viewed themselves as more independent minded were less accepting of the rounded logos. Those who thought of themselves as more interdependent in terms of their relationship to family and friends were more likely to roll with the change.

The researchers studied their hypothesis further by recruiting 272 undergraduate students at a large university. To participants who identified as interdependent, the researchers offered the following ad copy: "Everybody's Favorite! Give your family and friends the water that makes mouths water. Dasani. It's been a family favorite for years."

For participants with an independent self-identity, the researchers presented different wording. "Your Favorite!" this ad read. "Give yourself the water that makes mouths water. Dasani. It's been a favorite for years. Today our classic water has been joined by a variety of flavored waters that are sure to please you."

Committed consumers in both groups didn't care much for the new logo. But when the design was rounded, those who identified as interdependent on family, friends and community were less resistant than those who saw themselves as more independent.

The takeaway for business: If your brand is well known, change that logo at your peril. You're likely to irk your most devoted customers. If you must change it, however, make it rounder, especially if you are a global brand. It'll take the edge off – both for consumers and for your company.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Vikas Mittal is the J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Marketing at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Trending News

Building Houston

 
 

Auburn University's SwiftSku took first place in this year's virtually held Rice Business Plan Competition, but it was the second place company that went home with over half a million in cash and investment prizes. Photo via rice.edu

In its 21st year, the Rice Business Plan Competition hosted 54 student-founded startups from all over the world — its largest batch of companies to date — and doled out over $1.4 million in cash and investment prizes at the week-long virtual competition.

RBPC, which is put on by the Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship, took place Tuesday, April 6, to Friday, April 9 this year. Just like 2020, RBPC was virtually held. The competition announced the 54 participating startups last month, and coordinated the annual elevator pitches, a semi-finals round, wildcard round and live final pitches. The contestants also received virtual networking and mentoring.

Earlier this week, Rice Alliance announced the seven student-led startups that then competed in the finals. From this pack, the judges awarded the top prizes. Here's how the finalists placed and what won:

  • SwiftSku from Auburn University, point of sales technology for convenience stores that allows for real time analytics, won first place and claimed the $350,000 grand prize from Goose Capital. The company also won the $50,000 Business Angel Minority Association Prize, the $500 Best Digital Elevator Pitch Prize from Mercury Fund, and the $500 Third Place Anbarci Family People's Choice prize, bringing the company's grand total in cash and investment prizes to $401,000. The company also won the CFO Consulting Prize, a $25,000 in-kind award.
  • AgZen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a pesticide alternative spray and formulation technology company, won the second place $100,000 investment prize (awarded by Finger Interests, Anderson Family Fund, Greg Novak, and Tracy Druce). The startup also won a $300,000 Owl Investment Prize, the $100,000 Houston Angel Network Prize, the $500 Best Energy Elevator Pitch Prize from Mercury Fund, and the $1,500 Third Place Anbarci Family People's Choice prize, bringing the company's grand total in cash and investment prizes to $502,000. The company also won the $30,000 in-kind Polsinelli Energy Prize.
  • FibreCoat GmbH from RWTH Aachen University, a startup with patented spinning technology for the production of inexpensive high-performance composite fibers, won the third place $50,000 investment prize (also awarded by Finger Interests, Anderson Family Fund, Greg Novak, and Tracy Druce). The company also won the $100,000 TiE Houston Angels Prize and the $500 Best Hard Tech Elevator Pitch Prize from Mercury Fund, bringing the company's grand total in cash and investment prizes to $150,500.
  • Candelytics from Harvard University, a startup building the digital infrastructure for 3-D data, won the fourth place $5,000 prize.
  • OYA FEMTECH Apparel from UCLA, an athletic wear company that designs feminine health-focused clothing, won the fifth place $5,000 prize. The company also won the $5,000 Eagle Investors Prize, the $25,000 Urban Capital Network Prize, and the $1,000 Second Place Anbarci Family People's Choice prize, bringing the company's grand total in cash and investment prizes to $36,000.
  • LFAnt Medical from McGill University , an innovative and tech-backed STI testing company, won the sixth place $5,000 prize and the $20,000 Johnson and Johnson Innovation Prize, bringing the company's grand total in cash and investment prizes to $25,000.
  • SimpL from the University of Pittsburgh, an AI-backed fitness software company, won the seventh place $5,000 prize. The company also won the $25,000 Spirit of Entrepreneurship Prize from the Pearland Economic Development Corp., bringing the company's grand total in cash and investment prizes to $30,000.

Some of the competition's participating startups outside of the seven finalists won monetary and in-kind prizes. Here's a list of those.

  • Mercury Fund's Elevator Pitch Prizes also included:
    • Best Life Science $500 Prize to Blue Comet Medical Solutions from Northwestern University
    • Best Consumer $500 Prize to EasyFlo from the University of New Mexico
    • Best Overall $1,000 prize to Anthro Energy from Stanford University
  • The Palo Alto Software Outstanding LivePlan Pitch $3,000 Prize went to LiRA Inc. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • The OFW Law FDA Regulatory Strategy Prize, a $20,000 in-kind award went to Paldara Inc. from Oklahoma State University.
  • The Silver Fox Mentoring Prize, which included $20,000 in kind prizes to three winners selected Ai-Ris from Texas A&M University, BruxAway from the University of Texas, and Karkinex from Rice University as recipients.
  • The first, second, and third place winners also each received the legal service prize from Baker Botts for a total of $20,000 in-kind award.
  • The Courageous Women Entrepreneurship Prize from nCourage — a $50,000 investment prize — went to Shelly Xu Design from Harvard University.
  • The SWPDC Pediatric Device Prize — usually a $50,000 investment divided its prize to two winners to receive $25,000 each
    • Blue Comet Medical Solutions from Northwestern University
    • Neurava from Purdue University
  • TMC Innovation Healthcare Prize awarded a $100,000 investment prize and admission into its accelerator to ArchGuard from Duke University
  • The Artemis Fund awarded its $100,000 investment prize to Kit Switch from Stanford University
The awards program concluded with a plan to host the 22nd annual awards in 2022 in person.

If you missed the virtual programming, each event was hosted live on YouTube and the videos are now available on the Rice Alliance's page.

Trending News