. I don’t think Paul Neuman asserted that Logos have little to do with brands. While logos may not directly be brands, they are the most powerful brand asset through which customers identify, differentiate and associate themselves with brands. Through billions invested in advertising and promotional efforts, the Nike “Swoosh” logo which was bought for $35 in 1971, ranks among the top 30 most valuable brands in the world, with an estimated value of more than $13 billion (Interbrand). The logo is one asset that will be transferred if at all a company like Nike desires to diversify into other industry.
Logos are powerful and they are have become an important touchpoint in brand building. In 1998, the owners of Rolls Royce Motors, Vickers, decided to sell the car company and BMW was a leading bidder. However, BMW’s final offer came short and was beaten by Volkswagen’s £430m($712.7m). However, BMW was able to license the Rolls-Royce name and logo for £40m. This deal meant that while Volkswagen secured the entire Bentley line and all the fixed assets of the company (Vickers) responsible for all production and distribution, BMW was given control over the trademark logo and automobile models of the Rolls Royce. This for BMW has become one of its most successful deals till date.
Brand touchpoints are important meeting points in building brands; and logos and trademarks are essential components of a brand value. The wolrd’s most powerful consumer brand admits that much. If the Cocacola logo and its trademark bottle design were removed from its total asset valuation; the bottle will be half it’s size.
What are your thoughts on logos and branding?
