Back in my art director days—when I was attempting to build a brand for myself on Instagram—I would often come across posts comparing two logos, side-by-side, prompting the community to comment on which was better: Version 1 or version 2.

其他回在我的藝術總監天，當我試圖建立一個品牌為自己的Instagram，我會經常遇到比較兩個商標的帖子，并排側，促使社會各界的評論這是更好的：第1版或版本2。

Sometimes these head-to-head battles consisted of rebrands or refreshes of trademarks that had decades of history, and large fan bases, behind them. For example, an 80s-era Pepsi logo versus the 2008 “new” Pepsi Globe, or the early 2000s Golden State Warriors logo versus the 2010 rebrand. But more often than not, they were unsolicited redesigns of existing brand marks with no context given to the purpose of the redesign. Yet they solicited thousands of likes and comments from the community on which version was superior.

有時，這些正面交鋒的斗爭包括具有數十年歷史的商標重塑或更新，以及背后的龐大粉絲群。 例如，具有80年代時代的百事可樂標志與2008年的“新”百事可樂環球標志，或具有2000年代初的金州勇士標志與2010年更名商標。 但通常，它們是未經請求的對現有品牌商標的重新設計，沒有針對重新設計的目的給出任何背景信息。 但是他們從社區中征求了成千上萬的喜歡和評論，而該版本的效果更好。

As an educator, I continued to notice this desire to create and discuss cosmetic touchups of brands no matter how well-known, or successful, the logo was. Every semester that I teach a branding class, it never fails that one student proposes a redesign of the Starbucks logo, or the McDonald’s logo, or even the NBC logo. And the one question that student is always unsuccessful in answering—the same question I find myself asking when I encounter countless community-based redesigns on social media—is: Why?

作為一名教育工作者，無論徽標多么著名或成功，我仍然注意到創建和討論品牌化妝品修飾的愿望。 我教品牌課程的每個學期，沒有一個學生會提出重新設計星巴克徽標，麥當勞徽標甚至NBC徽標的想法。 學生總是無法成功回答的一個問題(當我在社交媒體上遇到無數基于社區的重新設計時，我也問自己同樣的問題)是： 為什么？

As time passed, that “why” began to branch out. Why do we, culturally, care so much about logos? Why do we place so much emphasis on them? Why do we spend so much time talking about them? And, especially, why do we react so strongly when they change?

隨著時間的流逝，“為什么”開始擴展。 從文化上講，為什么我們如此關心徽標？ 我們為什么如此重視它們？ 為什么我們要花很多時間談論它們？ 尤其是當變化時 ， 為什么我們會做出如此強烈的React？

徽標不是品牌 (A logo is not a brand)

“Somehow companies have gotten into the mindset that a logo—this thing that does nothing more than identify us—is incredibly important,” wrote Jon Hollamby of Fast Company in 2018. “We build our brands around them and when we get bored or when shit hits the fan, we redesign them. We manipulate them until they look better, sharper, cooler—anything to try to tell people, ‘Hey, this is who we are,’ or, ‘Look! We’ve changed.’”

快速公司的喬恩·霍拉姆比 ( Jon Hollamby)在2018年寫道：“公司以某種方式進入了一種思維模式，即僅能識別我們的標志非常重要。我們會圍繞它們建立我們的品牌，當我們感到無聊或何時狗屎砸了風扇，我們重新設計了它們。 我們會操縱它們，直到它們看起來更好，更清晰，更酷為止—試圖告訴人們“嘿，這就是我們的身份”或“看！ 我們已經改變了。

The truth is, on their own, logos don’t actually have much to say. But this doesn’t stop us from reacting and discussing, and endlessly judging when a company unveils a new logo… until the next brand follows suit.

事實是，徽標本身并沒有太多要說的。 但這并不能阻止我們做出React和討論，也無休止地判斷一家公司何時發布新徽標……直到下一個品牌效仿。

We become so attached to the brands we love that we often forget the logo—the visual identifier for the brand—isn’t the reason we purchase the product. We buy it for the experience. We buy it because it aligns with our values or enhances our lifestyle.

我們對喜愛的品牌如此依戀，以至于我們經常忘記徽標(品牌的視覺標識)，這不是我們購買產品的原因。 我們購買它是為了體驗。 我們購買它是因為它符合我們的價值觀或改善了我們的生活方式。

Today, Nike sells more than 700 million pairs of shoes per year. But when I bought—or, rather, begged my mom to buy—my first pair of Nikes in the mid-1980s, Nike wasn’t necessarily the brand I was buying. And I certainly didn’t want them because of the logo. I wanted them because of this:

如今，耐克每年銷售超過7億雙鞋。 但是，當我在1980年代中期購買(或者寧愿媽媽要購買)我的第一雙耐克鞋時，耐克并不一定是我要購買的品牌。 而且我當然不想要它們，因為有徽標。 我想要他們是因為：

And today, people choose to purchase (or not purchase) their products for similar reasons. Nike’s Colin Kaepernick campaign earned them $6 billion in 2018 but also kicked off a national boycott that led to thousands of people burning their Nike products on social media: A visceral response to what the logo on their sneakers represented.

今天，人們出于類似原因選擇購買(或不購買)他們的產品。 耐克(Nike)的科林·卡佩尼克(Colin Kaepernick)運動在2018年為他們贏得了60億美元的收入，但同時也引發了全國性的抵制，導致數千人在社交媒體上燃燒其耐克產品 ：對運動鞋上的徽標所表現出的強烈反響。

“The funny thing about identity is that it really depends on impressions,” wrote Mark Wilson in 2018. “The more different people see it, the more it becomes accepted, recognizable, and familiar—and therefore, arguably successful.”

馬克·威爾遜 ( Mark Wilson)在2018年寫道：“關于身份的有趣之處在于，它確實取決于印象。人們看到的越多，它就越容易被人們接受，認可和熟悉，從而可以說是成功的。”

為什么品牌如此重要？ (Why is branding so important?)

This is a fairly simple explanation: People often choose products based on their perceived value, rather than their actual value.

這是一個非常簡單的解釋：人們通常根據感知價值而非實際價值來選擇產品。

It’s less about the logo identity and more about the experiential identity: What customers will feel and experience. That’s the real “why:” Why you’re in business, what you believe in, the values which drive you, and the experience you want your customers to have.

與徽標標識無關，而與體驗標識更多有關：客戶的感受和體驗。 那才是真正的“為什么”：您從事業務的原因，信念，驅動您的價值觀以及希望客戶獲得的體驗。

I’m not a car guy. Far from it, actually. To me, there’s really no difference between a Chevy Spark and an Aston Martin, other than price. But what I associate each vehicle—each brand—with is an entirely different story. Because I know what James Bond drives, and to feel like James Bond I know which brand I would choose.

我不是汽車人。 實際上，遠非如此。 對我來說，雪佛蘭星火和阿斯頓·馬丁之間確實沒有什么區別，除了價格。 但是，我將每種車輛(每個品牌)與之聯系的卻是一個完全不同的故事。 因為我知道詹姆斯·邦德(James Bond)的推動力，并且感覺像詹姆斯·邦德(James Bond)，所以我知道我會選擇哪個品牌。

This choice; this feeling has nothing to do with the logo.

這個選擇； 這種感覺與徽標無關。

那么，徽標是什么意思？ (Well, what do logos mean?)

Logos can’t tell us who or what a brand really is unless we purposefully build meaning into them. Remember: A logo is not a brand, and this holds true for all of the brands we interact with. A brand is what customers experience every time they interact with it. This is, of course, strengthened by a strong visual identity.

徽標無法告訴我們品牌的真正含義，除非我們有意識地在其中添加含義。 請記住：徽標不是品牌，這對我們與之互動的所有品牌都適用。 客戶每次與品牌互動時都會體驗到品牌。 當然，強烈的視覺識別效果可以增強這種效果。

Every single interaction and touchpoint that customers have—from customer service, to usability, to the extra-sensory—adds to a brand’s perceived value and strengthens brand recognition. When a company does this well, the logo becomes damn-near unnecessary.

客戶的每一個互動和接觸點-從客戶服務到可用性，再到超感官，都可以增加品牌的感知價值并增強品牌知名度。 當一家公司做得很好時，徽標就變得非常不必要了。

When you look beyond the logo you notice there are more intricate brand systems at play. Su Mathews Hale, formerly of Lippincott and logo redesigns for Walmart and eBay, said in a 2014 interview with entrepreneur.com, “A company’s logo is its shorthand, a visual cue that tells a story of the brand’s culture, behaviour, and values.” And I think that can be true to a degree, but her soundbite falls at one far end of a very long spectrum of opinion.

當您看到徽標以外的地方時，會發現有更多復雜的品牌系統在起作用。 Su Mathews Hale曾在Lippincott任職，曾為沃爾瑪和eBay進行徽標重新設計，他在2014年接受企業家 .com 采訪時說：“公司的徽標是其簡寫，一種直觀的提示，講述了品牌的文化，行為和價值觀。 ” 而且我認為這在一定程度上是正確的，但她的聲音bit繞在很長一段時間內。

Comparatively, Michael Bierut told Vox in 2016 that logos are “simply empty vessels and you pour the meaning into them.” A great example of this approach is the Apple logo, which has essentially gone unchanged since its debut in 1976. It’s a mark that we all know, (most of us) love, and can probably draw with our eyes closed.

相比之下，邁克爾·比魯特(Michael Bierut)在2016年告訴Vox ，徽標是“完全是空的容器，您將含義倒入其中。” 蘋果徽標是這種方法的一個很好的例子，自從1976年首次亮相以來，它基本上沒有發生變化。這是一個眾所周知的標志，(我們大多數人)都愛著它，并且可能在我們閉上眼睛時會畫出來。

One of the things I admire about Apple’s logo is its defiance against one of the most disconcerting branding anti-truths: A logo should clearly state a company’s business. We all know that Apple sells computers, not fruit, so how does it work so well if it doesn’t tell the company’s story?

我對蘋果徽標的敬佩之一是它對最令人不安的品牌反事實之一的蔑視：徽標應明確說明公司的業務。 我們都知道蘋果出售的不是水果，而是電腦，如果它不講述公司的故事，它如何運作得那么好？

I think the truth falls squarely between Hale and Bierut’s comments: A great (or even really, really good) logo doesn’t tell a brand’s story. Instead, it complements it.

我認為真相正好介于Hale和Bierut的評論之間：出色的徽標(甚至非常好)并不能說明品牌的故事。 相反，它是對它的補充。

Level of importance aside, a successful logo is only one component working within a system of other differentiated elements: Art direction, colour, and messaging, to name a few. This doesn’t mean that all elements require the same investment of time and creative energy — just that the logo alone can do only so much lifting.

除了重要性級別之外，成功的徽標只是在其他差異化元素的系統中起作用的一個組成部分：藝術方向，色彩和消息傳遞，僅舉幾例。 這并不意味著所有元素都需要相同的時間和創造力投入–僅徽標本身就可以起到很大的作用。

Brand loyalty and preference are the results of consistent brand implementation. We can’t expect a new logo, on its own, to elicit positive brand sentiment, and we shouldn’t expect it to do all that work until years of positive equity have been built through consistent branding.

品牌忠誠度和偏好是一致實施品牌的結果。 我們不能指望一個新的徽標本身會引起正面的品牌情感，并且在通過一致的品牌建立多年的正面資產之前，我們不應該期望它能夠完成所有的工作。

But, still, why do people react so strongly, and publicly, when logos change?

但是，當徽標更改時，為什么人們仍會如此強烈和公開地做出React？

這些天每個人都是批評家 (Everyone’s a critic these days)

Roughly 10 years later, most of us are still familiar with the hilariously unsuccessful rebrands for The Gap and Tropicana, but the one I recall most vividly, due to social media, was Instagram’s 2016 brand refresh.

大約10年后，我們大多數人仍然對The Gap和Tropicana的成功改頭換面感到不熟悉，但由于社交媒體，我最生動地回憶起的就是Instagram 2016年的品牌更新。

It was, arguably, a rebrand that made a ton of sense in retrospect. The original polaroid look was nostalgic, and quite fitting when the platform launched in 2010. But as technology changed, and Instagram changed, it became quickly outdated. The new logo screamed “less is more,” which correlated with the goals for their improved user experience.

可以說，這是一個重新命名的品牌，讓人回想起來。 最初的寶麗來外觀讓人懷舊，當該平臺于2010年推出時非常合適。但是隨著技術的改變和Instagram改變，它很快就過時了。 新徽標大叫“少即是多”，這與改善用戶體驗的目標相關。

But online backlash over this new logo was instantaneous. When a group called Sensor Tower analyzed initial reviews of the Instagram rebrand, they found that 70% were negative. An article titled Instagram Launches Rebrand (and the World Loses their Minds) highlighted some of this initial negativity: “It may well go down as one of the biggest design fails of the year.” Another commented, “It’s a bit baffling how this is considered an improvement.”

但是網上對這個新徽標的強烈反對是瞬間的。 當一個名為Sensor Tower的小組分析了對Instagram品牌重塑的初步評論時，他們發現7??0％的人是負面的。 一篇名為《 Instagram Launches Rebrand(和世界迷失了頭腦)的文章》強調了這種最初的消極情緒：“隨著今年最大的設計失敗之一，它很可能會下降。” 另一位評論者說：“這被認為是一種改進有點令人困惑。”

Just one year prior, Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign logo to similar outrage. The internet asked, “What’s that arrow even doing?” Why is part of it red? Is it even saying anything?”

就在一年前，希拉里·克林頓(Hillary Clinton)公開了她的總統競選標志，這也引起了類似的憤怒。 互聯網問：“那支箭甚至在做什么？” 為什么它的一部分是紅色的？ 甚至在說什么嗎？”

Heavily influenced by the mobility of Obama’s O logo, the Clinton campaign logo was incredibly social media-friendly and designed for memorability. You honestly can’t beat the simplicity of eliminating the year and name. But, unlike Instagram, this logo didn’t have to wait a year for praise. In a Quartz article titled It’s Official: Hillary Clinton’s Logo is Actually Perfect, Annie Quito stated, “Clinton’s logo is perfectly functional. It’s unique enough, with a utility that holds up across print, broadcast, and digital platforms. On Twitter, the red arrow is even a nifty, albeit unnecessary, device that directs the eye right to the messenger.”

克林頓競選徽標在很大程度上受到了奧巴馬O徽標流動性的影響，非常適合社交媒體使用，并且具有紀念性。 老實說，您無法克服消除年份和名稱的簡單性。 但是，與Instagram不同，該徽標不必等待一年就可以受到好評。 安妮·基托(Annie Quito)在題為“ 官方：希拉里·克林頓的徽標實際上是完美的”的石英文章中說：“克林頓的徽標功能完善。 它足夠獨特，其實用程序可支持印刷，廣播和數字平臺。 在Twitter上，紅色箭頭甚至是一個漂亮的設備，盡管不是必需的設備，它可以將視線直接引向Messenger。”

但是，認真地講，為什么我們這么在乎呢？ (But, seriously, why do we care so much?)

In 2013, Centerline Digital profiled the new American Airlines logo in a piece called More Than a Logo: Why we Care About Rebrands. The lead followed, “When American Airlines revealed their first brand refresh in 45 years, a lively debate followed. Some people loved the new look while others thought it sacrilege to change a classic logo by a legendary designer.”

2013年，Centerline Digital在名為“超越徽標：我們為何關注品牌重塑”的文章中介紹了新的美國航空徽標。 線索如下：“當美國航空(American Airlines)揭露其45年以來的第一家品牌更新時，隨之而來的是一場激烈的辯論。 有些人喜歡新外觀，而另一些人則認為它是由傳奇設計師來改變經典徽標的犧牲品。”

What it comes down to is: We connect with brands on a personal level. And our emotional ties become so strong that we fear cosmetic changes mean that the brands we care so deeply about are changing too. The best brands—The Nikes, the Apples, the Coca-Colas of the world—continuously nurture the way we perceive them over time, which leads to loyalty. Each impression, interaction, and new element leaves a lasting impression.

歸結為：我們在個人層面上與品牌建立聯系。 而且我們之間的情感聯系變得如此牢固，以至于我們擔心外觀的變化意味著我們如此關注的品牌也在發生變化。 最好的品牌-耐克，蘋果，可口可樂-隨著時間的流逝不斷培養著我們對它們的感知方式，從而贏得了忠誠度。 每一次印象，互動和新元素都會留下持久的印象。

It’s our loyalty that often gets us worked up. But sometimes, honestly, we just can’t help but care about things that don’t matter.

是我們的忠誠經常會使我們精打細算。 但是，老實說，有時候，我們不禁會關心無關緊要的事情。

In 2013 The Atlantic published a reaction to the Yahoo rebrand that stated, “This happens often: The public gets very upset over something that matters not at all. Maybe the new Yahoo design is ‘dull, uninspiring, and limp,’ as one critic put it, but does it mean anything? No.”

2013年， 《大西洋》發表了對雅虎品牌更名的回應，其中說：“這種情況經常發生：公眾對根本不重要的事情感到非常沮喪。 正如一位批評家所說，雅虎的新設計也許是“ 呆板，毫無靈感和and腳 ”，但這意味著什么？ 沒有。”

According to the author, Rebecca Greenfield, we often get worked up over logo changes because we simply have the facilities to do so. In her article, she references The Bike Shed Effect, more formally known as Parkinson’s Law of Triviality. This principle surmises that the amount of discussion on a topic is inversely proportional to the complexity of the topic. Basically the more familiar we are with a topic, the more we will have to say about it.

根據作者麗貝卡·格林菲爾德(Rebecca Greenfield)的說法，我們經常會在徽標更改方面遇到麻煩，因為我們只是擁有這樣做的便利。 在她的文章中，她提到了“自行車棚效應”(Bike Shed Effect)，更正式地稱為帕金森的平凡定律。 該原理推測，關于某個主題的討論量與該主題的復雜程度成反比。 基本上，我們對一個主題越熟悉，就越需要說更多。

The titular example is that a group given the opportunity to debate what colour to paint a new bike shed or the decision to build a nuclear power plant in their home town will likely spend more time on the bike shed because we all know about colours but don’t know anything about nuclear power.

名義上的例子是，一個小組有機會辯論為新的自行車棚涂什么顏色，或者決定在他們的家鄉建造核電站的決定，可能會花更多的時間在自行車棚上，因為我們都知道顏色，但是不知道對核電一無所知。

Weighing the pros and cons of building something controversial and dangerous takes actual knowledge, having an opinion on the colour of a building — or a logo — is something everyone can do with roughly the same amount of expertise.

權衡爭議性和危險性建筑的利弊需要掌握實際知識，對建筑物的顏色(或徽標)有意見，這是每個人都可以使用大致相同的專業知識來完成的事情。

可能發生的最壞情況是什么？ (What’s the worst that could happen?)

In retrospect, most new logos are seen in a favourable light given that the public has had the appropriate amount of time to heal and realize that their favourite brands are still backing up the same promises that they always have. And we need to be prepared because the changes are going to keep coming.

回顧過去，鑒于公眾有足夠的時間來治愈并意識到他們最喜歡的品牌仍在支持他們一直以來的諾言，因此大多數新徽標的出現都受到了好評。 而且我們需要做好準備，因為變化將不斷到來。

Yesterday’s business card has been replaced by a 75 square pixel avatar, and the billboard now fits in the palm of our hand. It’s crucial that companies continue to rebrand to fit today’s digital-focused world.

昨天的名片已由75平方像素的化身代替，并且廣告牌現在可以放到我們的手掌中。 公司必須繼續重塑品牌以適應當今以數字為中心的世界，這一點至關重要。

Michael Bierut (that guy again) said, “the worst thing that can happen [to a new logo] is if nobody reacted at all.” And there will likely be no shortage of comments because the internet always has something to say.

邁克爾·比埃魯特(Michael Bierut，又是那個家伙)說：“ [新徽標]可能發生的最糟糕的事情是，如果沒有人做出任何React。” 由于互聯網總是有話要說，因此可能不會缺少評論。

In his 2018 piece No One Should Care This Much About A Corporation’s Logo, Mark Wilson wrote, “Yes, tens of millions of people around the globe wear a Nike swoosh at any moment. But even if that Nike swoosh was redrawn with the drop shadow of a sloth taking a nap in a cloud of farts, it still won’t really matter. Nike is so big and baked into our society, it’s still gonna sell a lot of sloth fart shoes.”

馬克·威爾遜(Mark Wilson)在2018年的作品《沒人要關心公司的徽標 》中寫道：“是的，全球有成千上萬的人隨時戴著耐克的耐克鞋。 但是，即使那只耐克的耐克鞋帶著一頭懶惰的陰影在放屁的小睡中被重繪了，那仍然沒什么大不了的。 耐克公司規模如此之大，已經融入了我們的社會，它仍然會出售很多懶惰的放屁鞋。”

Obviously this comment should be taken in jest, but it’s presented as evidence of a very compelling truth: A new logo does not change what a brand stands for. When our favourite brands stay true to us, we should continue to stay true to them.

顯然，應該以開玩笑的方式發表此評論，但這只是一個非常引人注目的事實的證據：新徽標不會改變品牌的含義。 當我們最喜歡的品牌忠于我們時，我們應該繼續忠于他們。

Keep reading.

繼續閱讀。