Anyway here is a great post that Seth wrote, Your Brand is not your Logo:
Smart marketers understand that a new logo can’t possibly increase your market share, and they know that an expensive logo doesn’t defeat a cheap logo. They realize that the logo is like a first name, it’s an identifier.
So, when Pepsi and BestBuy start ‘testing’ logos, and proclaiming that a new logo might change their market share, I get nervous. You can’t test a logo any more than you can test a first name. Sure, you can eliminate Myxlplyx as an outlier, but given the success of the Starbucks mermaid and the Dunkin Donuts typeface (two outliers) you can see that this testing is sort of meaningless.
I guess the punchline is: take the time and money and effort you’d put into an expensive logo and put them into creating a product and experience and story that people remember instead.
How ture is this for non-profits? I joined an organisation that was ending the process of creating a new logo. A long process. It was driven by some board members who had just hired a new PR firm and were advised that this process was essential. Ok the old logo was…just that old. But it worked. The new one was fine, said nothing about the charity, and realistically never helped raise any more money.
Yes there are times that a new logo may be needed, perhaps your mission has changed so the old logo doesnt reflect who you are any more, or perhaps you have developed a new tag line and it makes sense to reflect this in a new logo (by the way have you read Nancy E. Schwartz Non Profit Tag Line Report, check it out here)
But for me Seth’s punchline is one you should read and re-read if you are thinking of developing a new logo:
take the time and money and effort you’d put into an expensive logo and put them into creating a product and experience and story that people remember instead.
If people remember and are moved by your organisations story they will donate.
They wont donate because they like your logo