Millcroft Vs. Michaels logo
Recently, I was driving to go visit a client. My eye was caught by a logo on a sign for a local golf club, Millcroft Golf and Country club. So I gracefully stopped my car and snapped this photo. What caught my eye was not what it was, but what it wasn’t. You see, for a split second, I thought I was looking at a sign for the retailer Michaels Arts and Craft store.
Now, as you look at the two signs below, it’s obvious why, for a split second, I thought I was looking at Michaels. The two fonts are very similar. The colours are identical. The word length are similar. The shape of the word is similar. The footprint is similar. The only way to diferentiate the two logos, is to read them.
What, read them. Duh. You may be thinking, that’s enought to diferntiate them, isn’t it? After all, they say two diferent things. One says Millcroft and the other says Michaels. What’s your problem Rob?
Oh, wait, let me add in, that the Micheals logo you see above, has actually been redesigned, here is the new logo.
The redesign for Micheals kind of helps the situation a bit. But only for Michaels, not Millcroft. Let’s not forget though, in case you didn’t know, that Michaels has also been very slow to change the store fronts to the new logo. So the old one is still fresh in people’s minds.
You see, people don’t read logos. At the blink of an eye, eyes observe the shapes, convert them into electrical data, the brain reads this data, references it’s huge database of other brands, symbols, shapes and makes it’s best attempt to identify the item being observed. This happens in a split second as 99% of the viewers are driving past at 90Km/h. In this case, and I beleive most cases, this logo will be identified as Michaels.
You may be wondering, who has the problem? Millcroft or Michaels? Well, I think it’s Millcroft that has the branding problem. And here is why…
- Michaels is a very large chain retailer. – A logo should never look similar to a highly recognized chain store’s logo.
- Michaels’ old logo is still very recognized. I’m not sure who exactly was here first, but the Michaels version carries more recognition, hands down.
- The font itself is a non modified type treatment. It’s always a very bad idea to simply use a word, typed out in a font that anyone can purchase and use for their logo. It results in other similar logos that are very easy to duplicate
- The colour of the logo is generic. Nothing stands out about his logo
- Nothing of the Millcroft brand identity diferentiates itself from anything, let alone other golf clubs. A logo identity should be the face of what diferentiates you from your competitors
- This sign looks like a retail store, not a golf club
Moral # 1 of the story is never ever have a logo that is only text from a font that anyone can use.
Moral # 2 of the story is if your logo looks too much like another more recognized brand, change yours
My personal feelings are that if Millcroft were to improve it’s brand/logo identity and communicate what makes it different from other golf clubs, it would greatly improve it’s annual revenue. They should be able to position themselves to be one of the leading clubs in the area.
Ciao,
Robert Scozzari
Posted: December 14th, 2009 under Branding, Opinion, logo identity.
Comments: 2
