Neuroscience can explain why some logo redesigns flop - News - Digital Arts
People donrsquo;t like change. David Bowie wrote a song almost it ndash; lsquo;turn and face the foreign_rsquo; he sang. If only it were so easy.nbsp;nbsp;
Take for sample_ when Snap_ parent of teen photo-sharing app Snapchat_ slightly thickened the edge of its spectre logo a few weeks ago. On paper or screen_ as it were increasing the keyline edge by a point or seems inconsequential; a less tweak that should pass users by.
Instead_ the firm was lambasted_ users threatened to leave the app for good_ shocked and appalled at the perfect rashness of altering a few pixels. But as trifling as it may seem from the outside_ they have a point.
Updating a brandrsquo;s visual oneness is fairly round_ a periodic exertion in maintaining relevance or adapting to new platforms; in expressing the evolution of that company and its story. With a logo in particular_ it is the leading point of touch with a brand_ the asset that makes it recognisable without name. Think of the Swoosh or Golden Arches ndash; even if you couldnrsquo;t read_ you would know what you were getting.nbsp;
It is what consumers have grown used to_ and any update to a brandrsquo;s onenessnbsp;ndash; whether a new logo_ a piece of packaging or even a branded experiencenbsp;ndash; must accordingly attend both the aware and subaware ways in which nation decode these changes. Using neurophilosophical sources we can apprehend how seemingly insignificant updates like Snaprsquo;s can be met with such disapproval.
Codebreaking
People decode the globe almost them through two separate but kindred ways of processing information in their brains: System 1 and System 2. Most brand purchase determinations take locate in the rapid-processing_ unaware thinking part of the brain: System 1.
System 2 on the other hand_ is where most of our heavy-lifting and learning takes locate. Once wersquo;ve processed in System 2_ it becomes encoded in System 1nbsp;ndash; something proximate_ automatic and subaware. Much like learning to drive_ it leading takes effort and attendable concentration_ but behind time we encode that learning to the point where driving becomes an effortless action not requiring nimble reflection.
The same applies to purchase determination. Through picking a brand frequently_ we encode its oneness in our mind_ creating a shortcut which_ over time_ makes the determination to pick that brand virtually automatic. When that oneness changes_ for whatever reason_ it is as if that shortcut is on detour.
Therersquo;s myriad late samples of just this. Take Mastercard_ which earlier this year updated its logo_ the instantly-recognisable interlocking circles. Mastercard has been incredibly congruous with its congruous red and yellow for so long that it has achieved recollection in System 1 among most consumers. Utilising sources of reductive design_ Mastercard displaced entirely its name from its logo_ in a intrinsic evolution for the digital age. In the case of Mastercard_ its 52-year relevance resources that the loss of a name is of far less significance and disintegration than a younger_ lesser-known brand.
In being_ Mastercard has earnt the right to move to a more simplified logo. The neurophilosophical source is lsquo;gestalt_rsquo; a German term interpreted in English as lsquo;patternrsquo; or lsquo;configurationrsquo;. According to gestaltism_ the ethnical brain instinctively disassembles logos into voter parts_ and puts them back unitedly. By removing the word lsquo;Mastercard_rsquo; we quiet recognise the Mastercard brand owing its inheritance and equity are so powerful. As such_ the redesign was heralded a achievement.
Conversely_ a logo redesign that wasnrsquo;t so well-received was that of Spanish form retailer_ Zara. Its second redesign in a decade was met with scorn and a slew of memes from athwart the design globe. For a brand thatrsquo;s been so congruous for so long_ you have to ask yourself the question: Why change? Moving to a taller_ more contemporary typeface with such remarkably firm leading made the logo over-complex in its composition.
It was too drastic departure from what its customers were used to. The emerging order of neuroesthetics takes a philosophical access to the study of aesthetic perceptions of art_ music_ and any object that can give rise to aesthetic judgments_ like a logo.
A rule of thumb we use at Coley Porter Bell_ Beauty Pays_ is based on this source_ whereby System 1 interprets loveliness as investment_ care_ and self-beliefnbsp;ndash; and hence value.
The Zara redesign without feels like less care_ effort and detail has gone into creating it_ which_ for a form brandnbsp;whosenbsp;products are entirely aesthetic_ is not a good look.
Snap Decisions
This brings us back to Snap_ whose logo redesign was barely a drastic redesign by any measure. So what explains the outbreak?
The effect is not that nation no longer recognise the brand; the logo is quiet manifestly Snap_ behind all. Rather_ users skilled a visceral and proximate reaction to the change. Itrsquo;s due to what neuroscientists term lsquo;thin slicingrsquo;_ the process of finding patterns in events and interactions with things based only on thin slices of experience.
The ethnical brain is capable of decoding huge amounts of information from very little slivers of detail. Jumping to conclusions_ for want of a better term.
But herein lies a precept. A seemingly innocuous update can be a giant leap for the unaware minds of consumers used to digesting your brand in a true way. Essentially_ nation donrsquo;t like changenbsp;ndash; whether they realise it or not.
Vicky Bullen is CEO of Coley Porter Bell_ Ogilvys brand design agency.<_em>
Note: We may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site_ at no extra cost to you. This doesnt like our editorial independence. Learn more.
<_article>