Six Lessons from the Google School of Logo Design for a Digital World

Recently, Google set the design world abuzz when they unveiled their new brand identity. Gone was the familiar, sophisticated serif font reminiscent of classic books and newspapers that rolled off the printing presses. In its place, a new mark that retains Google’s trademark rainbow of colors but with a new sans-serif typeface of the company’s own creation called “Product Sans.” Love it or hate it, Google’s reasoning behind their redesign and what they hope to achieve with this new logo offer some interesting insights that any company in today’s multi-screen, multi-device world should take into consideration.

1. Size matters.

In their article rolling out the redesign, Google cites the need to “create a scalable mark that could convey the feeling of the full logotype in constrained spaces” as one of the challenges that they wanted to address. The need to consider a variety of screen sizes has become incredibly important over the past few years with the growing adoption of small-screened devices – from mobile phones to wearables like smartwatches. The relatively tiny screens on these devices put space at a premium, and most brand marks that were created prior to the advent of these small screens struggle to adapt to a much smaller canvas. For a visual brand to be successful in today’s world, you must ensure that it can scale and adapt to work effectively on any screen size or device.

2. You must consider the whole ecosystem.

In the not-too-distant past, when designing a new visual identity, there were only a limited number of applications that had to be taken into consideration: business cards, letterhead, signage, collateral materials, ads, product packaging, etc. This is why many early websites were little more than digital brochures. Companies took what they already understood (printed brochures) and tried to port them over to a brand new medium (the Web). This was obviously not an optimal solution, and since then, web design has come a long way from the days of static brochure sites. In much the same way, it’s time for logo design to evolve by taking into account the full array of digital platforms in which brands must reside today, including websites, mobile apps and social media sites, just to name a few. Taken as a whole, these make up a complex ecosystem with different channels that build upon and feed off of others. As a result, Google’s new identity takes the form not of a singular logo but of a system comprised of three “elemental states” that are flexible enough to be used across all mediums and platforms:

• Google logotype: The sans serif logtype retains Google’s signature multi-color sequence.
• Dots: A dynamic distillation of the logotype that takes the form of four animated, perpetually moving dots that are used for interactive, assistive and transitional moments.
• Google G: A compact version of the Google logo that works in small contexts.

When evaluating your own logo and how it translates across different platforms and channels, it’s important to make sure that all of its elements and iterations work together seamlessly so that they feel connected to your core brand identity in order to protect the integrity of your brand throughout the ecosystem.

3. There’s more to logo design than choosing a typeface.

Talk to someone who does not understand the nuances of design, and they are likely to assume that the process of creating a logo is comprised of little more than selecting an attractive font and maybe adding an illustrated icon in front of it. In truth, however, logo design is its own unique and complex discipline. Just as Google did, any successful logo design process must consider the weight and legibility of that logo along with “spacing, clearance rules, and specification for in-product treatments.” It also must factor in big-picture thinking, such as how the logo will transform in various applications (when it must be displayed in black and white versus full color, for example) and whether it sets the right tone for the brand. Yes, using attractive letterforms is part of designing a quality logo, but this process goes way deeper than just font selection.

4. Performance matters.

How quickly a website loads is more important today than ever before. With mobile devices making up a larger and larger percentage of website traffic, and with emerging countries becoming an important part of the audience on the Web, the need to create sites that load quickly for all users is paramount. To accomplish this, website designers must look for ways to streamline a site’s overall file size. The new Google logo is only 305 bytes, which is a significant decrease from the old logo, which weighed in at ~14,000 bytes. Google actually had to deliver a text-based, non-image version of their old logo in some instances, but the new one is so small that it can be delivered to all connections, keeping the brand identity consistent. Overall performance is critical to the success of a website – after all, no one ever complains that a site loads too fast. You may not be thinking about download size and performance when creating a logo, but you should be, because improved performance should be a thread that runs through every decision you make on your website. Better performance can mean happier visitors, improved search engine rankings and better conversions rates for your website.

5. You can’t please everyone.

As soon as the new Google logo debuted, there were people praising the design as well as those tearing it down. Even within the design community, reactions on Twitter ranged from “The beautiful balance of utility and joy” to “I love the font in the new Google logo – a revival of Paul Renner’s rarely seen 1934 masterpiece, Futura Jackas” – proof that no matter how well-reasoned or well-intentioned the principles behind your design are, you simply cannot please everyone. One of the most challenging realities of a redesign, whether it is for a logo, a website or an application, is that you are forcing change upon people who did not ask for or expect it. Even if the change is for the better, it’s human nature to favor the familiar and therefore to react strangely to a change that they did not initiate themselves. Couple this with the fact that people are more likely to contact you when they dislike something than when they like it, and a redesign can quickly generate what feels like an overwhelming amount of negative comments. For some companies, this initial wave of critical feedback can be scary and may lead to the temptation to revert back to the old design. But you cannot give into this! If you followed a good process and if the new design is well thought-out and executed, you need to give it time for people to grow accustomed to it and embrace it. You cannot please everyone, but given ample time, you will find that a quality redesign will win people over, and all of those detractors will fall silent.

6. Redesign for the right reasons.

Because introducing a new visual identity can be disorienting for your customers, and because there’s no purely scientific method to ensure your redesign will be well received, it’s important to make sure that there is good reason behind your decision to reinvent the look of your brand. With Google, the logic behind their decision was clear: “Since its inception, the Google.com homepage has been strikingly simple: The quirky, multicolored logo sits above a single, approachable input field on a clean white canvas. But as technology moves forward, the canvas itself is changing, and the inputs and needs are becoming more diverse. New classes of devices and ways to interact and communicate have emerged with wearables, voice technology, and smart devices in the world around us. Users now engage with Google using a constellation of devices, and our brand should express the same simplicity and delight they expect from our homepage, while fully embracing the opportunities offered by each new device and surface.” In short, Google needed a new identity that would represent the brand as effectively to someone who is typing keywords into a search bar on a desktop as one who is using a smartwatch as one who is using a device that may not yet even be conceived – or at least available to the general public. Likewise, while you should never redesign your company’s logo just for the sake of redesign itself, if your brand has evolved since your logo was originally conceived – whether in terms of the products you offer, the audience you serve or the channels and platforms through which they interact with your brand – it may well be worth the risk to introduce a new, modernized identity that will support the growth of your company now and for many years to come.

---

Mistrustcasting: A Tale of Two Brands

One day recently, a high school math class decided to conduct an experiment to ascertain whether Oreo’s Double Stuf cookies actually contain twice the “stuf” – crème filling – as implied by the treat’s name.

The class’s work yielded the faintly damning discovery that the Double Stuf contain only 1.86 more filling than the original incarnation – a shortage of 7 percent. Hardly headline-making news, right? After all, most folks would agree that it’s close enough and simply applaud the teacher’s creative, hand-on approach to this classroom exercise.

And that’s where Oreo should have left it, but they chose not to. Instead, when contacted about the matter by Business Insider, the company issued a formal statement claiming the math class had reached an inaccurate total and that their Double Stuf recipe does indeed include fully twice the amount of filling. So Business Insider put together its own experiment, which came down in favor of the math class.

Oreo’s response made this story bigger than it needed to be, and as a result, the brand’s overall reputation took a hit. After all, if they felt the need to lie about 7 percent of their filling, what else might they be hiding? The cookie controversy served up good fodder for a few days of news bites and morning drive-time humor, but given the public’s lasting love for Oreo, the Double Stuf kerfuffle blew over in short order.

More than filler

The Double Stuf debacle is an entertaining – if relatively innocuous – example of just how easily the integrity of even the most well-known brands can be called into question. That’s why the task of building and maintaining trust in your brand is such serious business. For more evidence, let’s take a closer look at BP and SC Johnson, two huge corporations with very different approaches to brand integrity – and very different reputations.

Both companies deal in products under close scrutiny in today’s increasingly green-minded business and marketing environments. BP is the world’s sixth largest petroleum fuel interest, and SC Johnson is one of the world’s largest producers of household cleaners.

If you look at their advertising and PR, both companies use strikingly similar language, which is logical, given that each company has a vested interest in portraying itself as environmentally responsible and forward-thinking.

But the court of public opinion tells a very different story, making it clear that their efforts to define themselves are yielding drastically different results.

BP’s big problem

More than three years after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is still dealing with the aftermath on many fronts. In addition to the illegal practices which led to the spill, the company has been found guilty of felony for lying in its response to the disaster and has paid out more than $42 billion in clean-up costs, settlements and fines.

BP was found to have engaged in multiple deceptions before, during and after the spill. The company repeatedly refused to disclose accurate or timely information for months after the disaster, which resulted in a far greater impact on the environment than would have happened if the company would have been immediately forthcoming.

A visit to BP’s website shows that the spill still dominates much of the company’s PR efforts. That’s as it should be.

But even as BP touts its gulf clean-up efforts in carefully crafted feature articles, it releases defensive statements whenever its efforts and motives are called into question. For example, in a statement dated August 28, BP responds to recent allegations by the state of Louisiana claiming that BP has not adequately addressed the clean up. Here’s the money quote that leads the statement: "Any suggestion that BP has failed to address the clean up of the Louisiana coastline is both false and irresponsible.”

No acknowledgement of BP’s responsibility, no conciliatory tone indicating that BP is committed to repairing the damage it caused, no apology for all of the suffering. Just a hardline defense, with copy that reads like it was drafted by a stereotypical Hollywood lawyer. This antagonistic tone is at odds with the shiny, happy stories that appear throughout the special section of its site dedicated to the Gulf of Mexico restoration.

This stark discrepancy between rosy PR fluff pieces and sharp legal statements defines the very heart of BP’s brand integrity issue. This is a company whose practices are squarely at odds with the public image it attempts to project.

Start with the logo

Petroleum is hardly a “clean” business; the best any oil company can offer is diligent safety practices and commitment to mitigating its environmental impact.

When BP debuted its green sun logo in 2001, the flowery “helios” mark, it was a clear effort to position the brand as somehow “cleaner” and more environmentally conscious than its competitors. The green sun implies a very different focus than, say, an oil derrick looming over a seascape. Yet in the decade plus since its logo shift, BP has actually decreased its efforts in the arena of solar power, finally announcing plans to shutter them altogether in 2011.

The fact remains that BP is first and foremost an oil concern, with all the environmental risks that such companies encounter. Until BP’s research spending on alternative fuels exceeds the 50 percent mark, that logo is a blatant lie.

Follow the money

Many brands seeking to build trust with the public establish charitable foundations or make contributions to causes. With its image in desperate need of a reboot, BP has made significant donations to gulf cleanup efforts and regional charities that focus on hunger and housing. These are all high-profile, press-release-ready efforts.

It’s certainly better than nothing, and BP does seem to grasp the idea that it needs to spend big to show its concern.

But you won’t find much in the way of marine environmental research on BP’s books or any slowdown whatsoever in the company’s high-risk deepwater drilling projects. No, right along with its more environmentally friendly efforts like wind and biofuels, BP is still using the lion’s share of its research dollars to pursue the same kind of risky drilling that damaged the Gulf of Mexico so dramatically.

As John Bell writes in Forbes Magazine, “BP’s talk about caring for the environment was for naught, as its actions failed to match its message.” Small wonder that a site like boycottbp.com is still growing strong. Or that the brand ranked at number seven in MarketWatch’s 2013 poll of companies with the worst reputations.

SC Johnson’s evolving transparency

While SC Johnson certainly faces environmental concerns, it does have an inherent advantage over a company like BP. After all, a Gulf-scale tragedy is highly unlikely in the arena of household cleaners.

But this field carries its own set of risks. Many of SC Johnson’s products – insect repellents, cleaners and baby shampoo, to name a few – are used by families on a daily basis. And in the last decade, concerns have increased about how these types of products impact not only the health of customers but the greater environment as a whole.

In large part, SC Johnson has responded to such concerns with a careful trust-building approach that includes admission of mistakes and a proactive willingness to change corporate policy and behavior. While there have been a few bumps in the road, even their response to setbacks has been characterized by a tone that emphasizes responsibility over defensiveness.

Open policies

One major area of concern with consumers about household products is the ingredients. Many cleaners and air fresheners tout a natural, organic identity while their labels contain a long list of unpronounceable components unfamiliar to anyone lacking a degree in chemical engineering. In an effort to counteract this, SC Johnson launched its "What’s Inside SC Johnson" website in early 2009, where it has published complete ingredients lists for almost all of its products.

However, the company’s track record is not perfect. Its “Greenlist” label, featured on Windex and other products SC Johnson claimed passed its highest environmental standards, was the subject of several consumer-advocate lawsuits. Because the label closely resembled other third-party designations for independently vetted products, the suits rightly called into question the legitimacy of SC Johnson practice of promoting its own – potentially misleading – self-proclaimed green standard.

Response to criticism

One of the ways in which SC Johnson has been most successful in upholding the integrity of its brand is in its response to controversy. The company trades heavily on its identity as a family-owned business, something that can be difficult to buy given its global scope and multi-billion-dollar annual sales numbers. But when issues arise, it is not a corporate lawyer that does the talking for SC Johnson; it’s Fisk Johnson, CEO and true blood family representative.

In the case of the Greenlist issue, Johnson reiterated the company’s commitment to the environment, but admitted its misstep. “When you're out in front of an issue like this, it means that you're not always going to get it completely right, as was the case with this particular issue," he said.

SC Johnson has also demonstrated a willingness to change its formulas and policies ahead of any legal mandate – and also ahead of many competitors. The company has reduced its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 42 percent since 2000, and it has installed two wind turbines at its largest global manufacturing facility, enabling that facility to produce most of its electrical energy onsite.

Integrity gets results

All of this earnest effort is certainly paying off for SC Johnson. In 2012, the United Nations Foundation for Social Change honored the company as a global Leader of Change, and in 2013, the company received an EPA Climate Leadership Award for Aggressive Goal Setting.

SC Johnson’s mix of staying true to its family roots, increasing transparency with customers and demonstrating a willingness to change combines to reinforce its reputation as a brand that operates with integrity. While the company isn’t perfect, its actions maintain consistency with its image. By any measure of consumer confidence, that’s a powerful – and to borrow from BP’s ill-used lexicon – sustainable strategy.

---