Above: Haarlem, with Weapon of Haarlem engraved in streetfurniture.
"THE SCHOLARSHIP OF LOGOS. A substantial literature exists on the impact of logo design on brand loyalty and the way affect transfers from the logo to the brand. Contrary to what one would naturally assume, people do not necessarily transfer their positive feelings about a brand to a logo. Rather, they transfer their positive (or negative) feelings about a logo to the way they feel about the brand. Further, the design elements contribute to the way people will feel about a logo. [The] reputation a corporation or brand enjoys—its “image” and “positioning” in communication jargon—is more than a matter of visual impression. A positive image and distinctive position is created over time by providing desirable products or services and communicating consistently and effectively. While a logo is just one component of that image, it is the one that identifies the others, operating like a flag. Logic tells us that a flag should invoke respect by virtue of the entity it represents, not by its coloration or pattern. Yet, despite logic, we are all swayed—irrationally, perhaps, but most assuredly—by appearances. In one study, in fact, respondents reacted differently 55 percent of the time when researchers com- pared their response to logos alone, with the way they responded to the company name alone without the logo. Logos function as a visual identifier organisations use to build brand loyalty by strengthening recall of positive associations. Empirical research strongly suggests if viewers like a logo, they transfer those positive feelings to the brand associated with it. Likewise, negative feelings about a logo can lead to an even more intense affect transferring to the brand. Perhaps the strongest circumstantial evidence for the strength of this relationship is that U.S. companies often spend as much as 20 times more on “permanent media” (signage and so forth) than on advertising. Nonprofits as well need to create brand loyalty and positive feelings toward their organisations. For a nonprofit group: When well designed, a logo is felt to have positive influence on fund raising, corporate sponsorship, merchandise sales, patron subscriptions, brand loyalty, good will, employee morale, and volunteer recruitment. . . . A consensus has been reached in the scholarly literature that the most effective logos work if viewers remember having seen them (termed “recognition”) and if the logo reminds viewers of the correct brand (termed “recall”). Since corporate leaders want audiences to remember their institutions, a logo functions as visual shorthand for companies, or it is not working. The research literature also concludes that successful logos tend to have several design elements in common. First is “naturalness,” meaning items from the physical world are incorporated. Second, they tend to be only moderately elaborate. A logo that is either too elaborate or not elaborate enough will not succeed. The final element is “harmony,” a function of symmetry and balance. Non abstract symbols (those which are obviously recognisable from the real world, even if highly stylised) appear in the most successful logos. In Western corporate logos, these items include such symbols as Prudential’s rock, Wendy’s little girl, or Jaguar’s cat. […] A group with limited resources needs the ability to elicit a reaction quickly when it lacks the ability to create multiple exposures to its logo. A group in such a situation has the option of turning to “false recognition,” a sense of familiarity when the audience has never before seen a logo. In the United States, companies with low budgets attempt this strategy when they need to have an impact based on initial views of their logo because they cannot afford to build audience response through elaborate promotional campaigns or repeated viewings. Companies in such a situation at- tempt to create a sense of familiarity in the audience from the very first viewings. This can be accomplished through use of certain design elements. False recognition would depend on design characteristics that would make logos less distinctive from other logos. That would mean less “naturalness, high harmony, multiple parallel lines, and ideally a proportion of a height 75-80% of width.” […] Notably, false recognition is different from brand confusion. False recognition, which is a calculated strategy, is the sense of familiarity that accrues to a logo after an elaborate branding campaign. The point is to elicit that sense even though the particular logo has never actually been looked at before. It can be intentionally evoked through the use of some very specific design strategies. None of those strategies are at play in the case of brand confusion. That is what happens when logos meant to be unique and compelling are simply so close to those of their competitors that audiences have difficulty distinguishing one from the other. They undermine the entire point of the campaigns built around the logos. Brand confusion is the mark of failed or failing marketing campaigns; false recognition may well be a central component of a marketing campaign."
Cori E. Dauber in 'VISUAL PROPAGANDA AND EXTREMISM IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT', edited by Carol K. Winkler and Cori E. Dauber, page 142, 143, 144, first published in USA, Juli 2014 by Strategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press
"[ A ] personal emblem […] a pennant, called a sashimono. This was fastened to [the] back as an identifying feature and served as rallying point in the confusion of battle. […]": http://bartvanbroekhoven.com/en-US/running/136-sar-sarsential-toolbox-11
"Much of what we think about when we see a picture stems from our subjectivity and guides our interpretation.": http://bartvanbroekhoven.com/en-US/running/141-sar-sarsential-toolbox-15-14
"Some people want to make the world a better place. I just wanna make the world a better-looking place. If you don't like it, you can paint over it!": http://bartvanbroekhoven.com/en-US/running/139-sar-sarsential-toolbox-14-14
