Mazda celebrates turning 90, looks back at logos
12-03-10, 02:25 PM
#31
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rarely are millions ever spent developing a logo by itself. False assumption totally. Millions MAY be spent (but almost never. The millions you speak about are spent in advertising usually) in developing a brand and marketing approach and if you think that's not important to you I'd like you to meet some of our clients and they will surely set you straight.
12-03-10, 02:28 PM
#32
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They may request hundreds of concepts but it really isn't a huge amount of resources.
The important thing to do is to get it right in the first place. It's never good to have to continually change logos as seen with this Mazda topic.
Coca Cola is a great example as one of the most enduring timeless and recognizable logos. To think it was designed so many decades ago and still stands as modern.
12-03-10, 02:41 PM
#33
Nobody is paying someone millions to design a logo, or even a team of designers.
They may request hundreds of concepts but it really isn't a huge amount of resources.
The important thing to do is to get it right in the first place. It's never good to have to continually change logos as seen with this Mazda topic.
Coca Cola is a great example as one of the most enduring timeless and recognizable logos. To think it was designed so many decades ago and still stands as modern.
They may request hundreds of concepts but it really isn't a huge amount of resources.
The important thing to do is to get it right in the first place. It's never good to have to continually change logos as seen with this Mazda topic.
Coca Cola is a great example as one of the most enduring timeless and recognizable logos. To think it was designed so many decades ago and still stands as modern.
I have seen C-level officers spend so much time on designing their logo that it seems stupid. It has to be simple, and something folks can remember.
When they end up with convoluted logos, it is not even funny.
12-03-10, 02:47 PM
#34
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-03-10, 05:27 PM
#36
This is funny
Stung by Verizon ads, and a slew of unhappy customers, AT&T is doing what most companies with image problems do: Fix their problems. No. Get a new logo. A new color scheme. New ads.
12-04-10, 11:11 AM
#37
Lexus Fanatic
I owned three Mazdas (a GLC, 323, and Protege) for a number of years, from the mid-80s to the mid-90s....in fact, the GLC was my first Japanese-designed car (by then, I had had it with unreliable American cars, though my first GLC had a couple of defects, too). Back then, Mazda was using this logo, at least on their American-market cars. I liked it......and didn't care as much for the logos either before or since. I also thought the "Zoom-Zoom" slogan was silly and tacky.
Last edited by mmarshall; 12-04-10 at 11:20 AM.
12-04-10, 11:21 AM
#38
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They've still maintained this same name badge and font. Most companies have stayed with the same font/print style over many years. Toyota, Honda, and most still use the same lettering as decades ago.
12-04-10, 12:45 PM
#39
Logos mean nothing. I never can understand why Mktg and the c-level officers obsess so much over logos. Logos do not make a product better. But a better product makes the logo (whatever it is) recognizable and remembered.
Toyota never had a logo when they became the symbol of reliability. Even now, hardly anybody pays real attention to the crappy logo they have. People still recognize a Toyota because of the TOYOTA in the back.
AT&T is known by AT&T and not the the white & blue world symbol.
any more?
Toyota never had a logo when they became the symbol of reliability. Even now, hardly anybody pays real attention to the crappy logo they have. People still recognize a Toyota because of the TOYOTA in the back.
AT&T is known by AT&T and not the the white & blue world symbol.
any more?
A new study of brand recognition in kids shows that even kids who can't read can recognize corporate logos like Disney, McDonald's and randomly... Toyota.
The study, which involved 38 Australian preschool children ages 3 to nearly 5 years old, found that while the children were not yet able to read, they often knew exactly which logo corresponded with which brand. Certain logos -- including those for fast food chains (McDonald's), entertainment companies (Disney, the parent company of ABC News, and Warner Brothers) and cars (Toyota) -- proved especially recognizable. Others, including those for clothing (Nike) and personal care (Kleenex), fared considerably worse. (No children in the study recognized the Kleenex logo. Kleenex spokesman Joey Mooring said he was unfamiliar with the study but added that Kleenex's "primary consumer demographic" is "moms.")
The researchers were especially surprised to find children identifying brands whose marketing doesn't appear to target kids, including Toyota, which was recognized by 80 percent of the study's participants, and Shell, which was recognized by nearly 53 percent.
McAlister had a couple of theories to explain why brands like Shell and Toyota get kids' attention. For the former, children might associate trips to the gas station with stops for treats at a gas station convenience store, she said. For the latter, children may recognize car brands because they've learned to distinguish between their parents' cars and those of others.
”
The study, which involved 38 Australian preschool children ages 3 to nearly 5 years old, found that while the children were not yet able to read, they often knew exactly which logo corresponded with which brand. Certain logos -- including those for fast food chains (McDonald's), entertainment companies (Disney, the parent company of ABC News, and Warner Brothers) and cars (Toyota) -- proved especially recognizable. Others, including those for clothing (Nike) and personal care (Kleenex), fared considerably worse. (No children in the study recognized the Kleenex logo. Kleenex spokesman Joey Mooring said he was unfamiliar with the study but added that Kleenex's "primary consumer demographic" is "moms.")
The researchers were especially surprised to find children identifying brands whose marketing doesn't appear to target kids, including Toyota, which was recognized by 80 percent of the study's participants, and Shell, which was recognized by nearly 53 percent.
McAlister had a couple of theories to explain why brands like Shell and Toyota get kids' attention. For the former, children might associate trips to the gas station with stops for treats at a gas station convenience store, she said. For the latter, children may recognize car brands because they've learned to distinguish between their parents' cars and those of others.
”
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/kids-...ry?id=10333145
12-04-10, 03:13 PM
#40
Lexus Fanatic
With me, as a very young child, I tended to remember cars more than logos. Born in 1952, I could clearly remember the Renault Dauphine of the mid-1950s when I was about 3 or 4 (with a flat tire), the interior of my uncle's early-50s Dodge/Plymouth (?) when I was riding it it (maybe at age 5?), and some of the wildly-styled cars of the late 50s and early 60's...especially the flamboyant 1959 Chevy and its rear trunk-lid wings. After that, with cars, I remembered almost EVERYTHING.
12-04-10, 03:58 PM
#41
I have to say you're being incredibly naive and misinformed if you think that. Kids as young as 2, who can't even read yet or buy the product can recognise dozens of brand logos. The value of that sort of recognition to a company is worth millions;
http://consumerist.com/2010/04/kids-...nd-toyota.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/kids-...ry?id=10333145
http://consumerist.com/2010/04/kids-...nd-toyota.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/kids-...ry?id=10333145
12-04-10, 04:01 PM
#42
I owned three Mazdas (a GLC, 323, and Protege) for a number of years, from the mid-80s to the mid-90s....in fact, the GLC was my first Japanese-designed car (by then, I had had it with unreliable American cars, though my first GLC had a couple of defects, too). Back then, Mazda was using this logo, at least on their American-market cars. I liked it......and didn't care as much for the logos either before or since. I also thought the "Zoom-Zoom" slogan was silly and tacky.
MAZDA was a better logo than any other of their convoluted signs.
That is one of the reasons they also named their cars MAZDA6, MAZDA3
12-04-10, 04:08 PM
#43
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 2,545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-04-10, 04:23 PM
#44
con·vo·lut·ed/ˈkänvəˌlo͞otid/Adjective
1. (esp. of an argument, story, or sentence) Extremely complex and difficult to follow.
2. Intricately folded, twisted, or coiled.
That is what I mean. How do you relate the brand MAZDA to the logos? You cannot. They are not related. One has to establish that relation in one's mind.
1. (esp. of an argument, story, or sentence) Extremely complex and difficult to follow.
2. Intricately folded, twisted, or coiled.
That is what I mean. How do you relate the brand MAZDA to the logos? You cannot. They are not related. One has to establish that relation in one's mind.
12-04-10, 04:41 PM
#45
con·vo·lut·ed/ˈkänvəˌlo͞otid/Adjective
1. (esp. of an argument, story, or sentence) Extremely complex and difficult to follow.
2. Intricately folded, twisted, or coiled.
That is what I mean. How do you relate the brand MAZDA to the logos? You cannot. They are not related. One has to establish that relation in one's mind.
1. (esp. of an argument, story, or sentence) Extremely complex and difficult to follow.
2. Intricately folded, twisted, or coiled.
That is what I mean. How do you relate the brand MAZDA to the logos? You cannot. They are not related. One has to establish that relation in one's mind.
To contradict yourself, how is a symbol more convoluted than a word? So you're saying the word "Mercedes Benz" is easier for someone to associate with the company than their classic
?And as someone else pointed out, symbols are very important for those who can't read the language as symbols are universally understood. So yes a good symbol is important for a company. It seems you are pulling at straws now to defend your point. You said symbols are useless, then you say kids who can't read yet will associate the word Toyota as a symbol of the company instead of their classic
