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.

其他回在我的艺术总监天，当我试图建立一个品牌为自己的Instagram，我会经常遇到比较两个商标的帖子，并排侧，促使社会各界的评论这是更好的：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.

有时，这些正面交锋的斗争包括具有数十年历史的商标重塑或更新，以及背后的庞大粉丝群。 例如，具有80年代时代的百事可乐标志与2008年的“新”百事可乐环球标志，或具有2000年代初的金州勇士标志与2010年更名商标。 但通常，它们是未经请求的对现有品牌商标的重新设计，没有针对重新设计的目的给出任何背景信息。 但是他们从社区中征求了成千上万的喜欢和评论，而该版本的效果更好。

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?

作为一名教育工作者，无论徽标多么著名或成功，我仍然注意到创建和讨论品牌化妆品修饰的愿望。 我教品牌课程的每个学期，没有一个学生会提出重新设计星巴克徽标，麦当劳徽标甚至NBC徽标的想法。 学生总是无法成功回答的一个问题(当我在社交媒体上遇到无数基于社区的重新设计时，我也问自己同样的问题)是： 为什么？

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?

随着时间的流逝，“为什么”开始扩展。 从文化上讲，为什么我们如此关心徽标？ 我们为什么如此重视它们？ 为什么我们要花很多时间谈论它们？ 尤其是当变化时 ， 为什么我们会做出如此强烈的React？

徽标不是品牌 (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.’”

快速公司的乔恩·霍拉姆比 ( Jon Hollamby)在2018年写道：“公司以某种方式进入了一种思维模式，即仅能识别我们的标志非常重要。我们会围绕它们建立我们的品牌，当我们感到无聊或何时狗屎砸了风扇，我们重新设计了它们。 我们会操纵它们，直到它们看起来更好，更清晰，更酷为止—试图告诉人们“嘿，这就是我们的身份”或“看！ 我们已经改变了。

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.

事实是，徽标本身并没有太多要说的。 但这并不能阻止我们做出React和讨论，也无休止地判断一家公司何时发布新徽标……直到下一个品牌效仿。

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.

我们对喜爱的品牌如此依恋，以至于我们经常忘记徽标(品牌的视觉标识)，这不是我们购买产品的原因。 我们购买它是为了体验。 我们购买它是因为它符合我们的价值观或改善了我们的生活方式。

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，耐克每年销售超过7亿双鞋。 但是，当我在1980年代中期购买(或者宁愿妈妈要购买)我的第一双耐克鞋时，耐克并不一定是我要购买的品牌。 而且我当然不想要它们，因为有徽标。 我想要他们是因为：

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，人们出于类似原因选择购买(或不购买)他们的产品。 耐克(Nike)的科林·卡佩尼克(Colin Kaepernick)运动在2018年为他们赢得了60亿美元的收入，但同时也引发了全国性的抵制，导致数千人在社交媒体上燃烧其耐克产品 ：对运动鞋上的徽标所表现出的强烈反响。

“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.”

马克·威尔逊 ( Mark Wilson)在2018年写道：“关于身份的有趣之处在于，它确实取决于印象。人们看到的越多，它就越容易被人们接受，认可和熟悉，从而可以说是成功的。”

为什么品牌如此重要？ (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.

这是一个非常简单的解释：人们通常根据感知价值而非实际价值来选择产品。

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.

与徽标标识无关，而与体验标识更多有关：客户的感受和体验。 那才是真正的“为什么”：您从事业务的原因，信念，驱动您的价值观以及希望客户获得的体验。

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.

我不是汽车人。 实际上，远非如此。 对我来说，雪佛兰星火和阿斯顿·马丁之间确实没有什么区别，除了价格。 但是，我将每种车辆(每个品牌)与之联系的却是一个完全不同的故事。 因为我知道詹姆斯·邦德(James Bond)的推动力，并且感觉像詹姆斯·邦德(James Bond)，所以我知道我会选择哪个品牌。

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

这个选择； 这种感觉与徽标无关。

那么，徽标是什么意思？ (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.

徽标无法告诉我们品牌的真正含义，除非我们有意识地在其中添加含义。 请记住：徽标不是品牌，这对我们与之互动的所有品牌都适用。 客户每次与品牌互动时都会体验到品牌。 当然，强烈的视觉识别效果可以增强这种效果。

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.

客户的每一个互动和接触点-从客户服务到可用性，再到超感官，都可以增加品牌的感知价值并增强品牌知名度。 当一家公司做得很好时，徽标就变得非常不必要了。

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.

当您看到徽标以外的地方时，会发现有更多复杂的品牌系统在起作用。 Su Mathews Hale曾在Lippincott任职，曾为沃尔玛和eBay进行徽标重新设计，他在2014年接受企业家 .com 采访时说：“公司的徽标是其简写，一种直观的提示，讲述了品牌的文化，行为和价值观。 ” 而且我认为这在一定程度上是正确的，但她的声音bit绕在很长一段时间内。

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，迈克尔·比鲁特(Michael Bierut)在2016年告诉Vox ，徽标是“完全是空的容器，您将含义倒入其中。” 苹果徽标是这种方法的一个很好的例子，自从1976年首次亮相以来，它基本上没有发生变化。这是一个众所周知的标志，(我们大多数人)都爱着它，并且可能在我们闭上眼睛时会画出来。

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?

我对苹果徽标的敬佩之一是它对最令人不安的品牌反事实之一的蔑视：徽标应明确说明公司的业务。 我们都知道苹果出售的不是水果，而是电脑，如果它不讲述公司的故事，它如何运作得那么好？

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.

我认为真相正好介于Hale和Bierut的评论之间：出色的徽标(甚至非常好)并不能说明品牌的故事。 相反，它是对它的补充。

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.

除了重要性级别之外，成功的徽标只是在其他差异化元素的系统中起作用的一个组成部分：艺术方向，色彩和消息传递，仅举几例。 这并不意味着所有元素都需要相同的时间和创造力投入–仅徽标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.

品牌忠诚度和偏好是一致实施品牌的结果。 我们不能指望一个新的徽标本身会引起正面的品牌情感，并且在通过一致的品牌建立多年的正面资产之前，我们不应该期望它能够完成所有的工作。

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

但是，当徽标更改时，为什么人们仍会如此强烈和公开地做出React？

这些天每个人都是批评家 (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.

大约10年后，我们大多数人仍然对The Gap和Tropicana的成功改头换面感到不熟悉，但由于社交媒体，我最生动地回忆起的就是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.

可以说，这是一个重新命名的品牌，让人回想起来。 最初的宝丽来外观让人怀旧，当该平台于2010年推出时非常合适。但是随着技术的改变和Instagram改变，它很快就过时了。 新徽标大叫“少即是多”，这与改善用户体验的目标相关。

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.”

但是网上对这个新徽标的强烈反对是瞬间的。 当一个名为Sensor Tower的小组分析了对Instagram品牌重塑的初步评论时，他们发现7​​0％的人是负面的。 一篇名为《 Instagram Launches Rebrand(和世界迷失了头脑)的文章》强调了这种最初的消极情绪：“随着今年最大的设计失败之一，它很可能会下降。” 另一位评论者说：“这被认为是一种改进有点令人困惑。”

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·克林顿(Hillary Clinton)公开了她的总统竞选标志，这也引起了类似的愤怒。 互联网问：“那支箭甚至在做什么？” 为什么它的一部分是红色的？ 甚至在说什么吗？”

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.”

克林顿竞选徽标在很大程度上受到了奥巴马O徽标流动性的影响，非常适合社交媒体使用，并且具有纪念性。 老实说，您无法克服消除年份和名称的简单性。 但是，与Instagram不同，该徽标不必等待一年就可以受到好评。 安妮·基托(Annie Quito)在题为“ 官方：希拉里·克林顿的徽标实际上是完美的”的石英文章中说：“克林顿的徽标功能完善。 它足够独特，其实用程序可支持印刷，广播和数字平台。 在Twitter上，红色箭头甚至是一个漂亮的设备，尽管不是必需的设备，它可以将视线直接引向Messenger。”

但是，认真地讲，为什么我们这么在乎呢？ (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在名为“超越徽标：我们为何关注品牌重塑”的文章中介绍了新的美国航空徽标。 线索如下：“当美国航空(American Airlines)揭露其45年以来的第一家品牌更新时，随之而来的是一场激烈的辩论。 有些人喜欢新外观，而另一些人则认为它是由传奇设计师来改变经典徽标的牺牲品。”

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.

归结为：我们在个人层面上与品牌建立联系。 而且我们之间的情感联系变得如此牢固，以至于我们担心外观的变化意味着我们如此关注的品牌也在发生变化。 最好的品牌-耐克，苹果，可口可乐-随着时间的流逝不断培养着我们对它们的感知方式，从而赢得了忠诚度。 每一次印象，互动和新元素都会留下持久的印象。

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.

是我们的忠诚经常会使我们精打细算。 但是，老实说，有时候，我们不禁会关心无关紧要的事情。

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》发表了对雅虎品牌更名的回应，其中说：“这种情况经常发生：公众对根本不重要的事情感到非常沮丧。 正如一位批评家所说，雅虎的新设计也许是“ 呆板，毫无灵感和and脚 ”，但这意味着什么？ 没有。”

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.

根据作者丽贝卡·格林菲尔德(Rebecca Greenfield)的说法，我们经常会在徽标更改方面遇到麻烦，因为我们只是拥有这样做的便利。 在她的文章中，她提到了“自行车棚效应”(Bike Shed Effect)，更正式地称为帕金森的平凡定律。 该原理推测，关于某个主题的讨论量与该主题的复杂程度成反比。 基本上，我们对一个主题越熟悉，就越需要说更多。

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.

名义上的例子是，一个小组有机会辩论为新的自行车棚涂什么颜色，或者决定在他们的家乡建造核电站的决定，可能会花更多的时间在自行车棚上，因为我们都知道颜色，但是不知道对核电一无所知。

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.

权衡争议性和危险性建筑的利弊需要掌握实际知识，对建筑物的颜色(或徽标)有意见，这是每个人都可以使用大致相同的专业知识来完成的事情。

可能发生的最坏情况是什么？ (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.

回顾过去，鉴于公众有足够的时间来治愈并意识到他们最喜欢的品牌仍在支持他们一直以来的诺言，因此大多数新徽标的出现都受到了好评。 而且我们需要做好准备，因为变化将不断到来。

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，并且广告牌现在可以放到我们的手掌中。 公司必须继续重塑品牌以适应当今以数字为中心的世界，这一点至关重要。

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.

迈克尔·比埃鲁特(Michael Bierut，又是那个家伙)说：“ [新徽标]可能发生的最糟糕的事情是，如果没有人做出任何React。” 由于互联网总是有话要说，因此可能不会缺少评论。

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.”

马克·威尔逊(Mark Wilson)在2018年的作品《没人要关心公司的徽标 》中写道：“是的，全球有成千上万的人随时戴着耐克的耐克鞋。 但是，即使那只耐克的耐克鞋带着一头懒惰的阴影在放屁的小睡中被重绘了，那仍然没什么大不了的。 耐克公司规模如此之大，已经融入了我们的社会，它仍然会出售很多懒惰的放屁鞋。”

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.

显然，应该以开玩笑的方式发表此评论，但这只是一个非常引人注目的事实的证据：新徽标不会改变品牌的含义。 当我们最喜欢的品牌忠于我们时，我们应该继续忠于他们。

Keep reading.

继续阅读。