Cross-National Logo Evaluation Analysis: An Individual-Level Approach

Abstract

The universality of design perception and response is tested using data collected from 10 countries: Argentina, Australia, China, Germany, Great Britain, India, The Netherlands, Russia, Singapore, and the United States. A Bayesian, finite-mixture, structural equation model is developed that identifies latent logo clusters while accounting for heterogeneity in evaluations. The concomitant variable approach allows cluster probabilities to be country specific. Rather than a priori defined clusters, our procedure provides a posteriori cross-national logo clusters based on consumer response similarity. Our model reduces the 10 countries to three cross-national clusters that respond differently to logo design dimensions: the West, Asia, and Russia. The dimensions underlying design are found to be similar across countries, suggesting that elaborateness, naturalness, and harmony are universal design dimensions. Responses (affect, shared meaning, subjective familiarity, and true and false recognition) to logo design dimensions (elaborateness, naturalness, and harmony) and elements (repetition, proportion, and parallelism) are also relatively consistent, although we find minor differences across clusters. Our results suggest that managers can implement a global logo strategy, but they also can optimize logos for specific countries if desired.design, logos, international marketing, standardization, adaptation, structural equation models, Gibbs sampling, concomitant variable, Bayesian, mixture models

Linking corporate logo, corporate image, and reputation: An examination of consumer perceptions in the financial setting

“…Logo design is becoming more and more important as a means of differentiation for companies from their competitors. Design is a language that communicates to stakeholders, independent of verbal information; design conveys a message or creates effective communications for companies (Andriopoulos and Gotsi, 2001;Van der Lans et al, 2009). It is essential for managers and researchers to understand the significant influence of corporate logo design on consumer responses to the logo, company and product (Henderson and Cote, 1998;Van Riel, van den Ban, and Heijmans, 2001).…”

“…Familiarity with a product or a brand 'refers to the consumer's understanding of the product and to its characteristics, as well as to his/her ability to evaluate its quality' (Herrera and Blanco, 2011, p. 286). Familiarity can benefit a logo because it can increase its effect (Hem and Iversen, 2004;Van der Lans et al, 2009). Furthermore, logos that look familiar tend to be perceived and processed faster, and familiarity towards a company or product impact on consumers' perceptions (Henderson et al, 2003).…”

“…A logo is one of business' most outspoken non-verbal cues. The corporate logo is used in the company's communication process to create positive emotions and enhance the recognition of the company and brand (Aaker, 1991;Balmer and Gray, 2000;Downey, 1986;Henderson and Cote, 1998;Melewar, Karaosmanoglu, and Patterson, 2005;Muller et al, 2011;Pittard, Ewing, and Jevons, 2007;Van den Bosch et al, 2005; Van der Lans et al, 2009) and finally obtain a consensual definition among the target audience. Firms must recognize the implications of design for all responses because multiple responses may be elicited (Henderson et al, 2004).…”

“…The corporate logo is a language that communicates to consumers, independent of verbal information (Van der Lans, Cote, Cole, Leong, Smidts, Henderson, Bluemelhuber, Bottomley, Doyle, Fedorikhin, Moorthy, Ramaseshan, and Schmitt, 2009). Organizations spend extensive time, research and money on developing a favourable corporate logo as a valuable company asset that reflects the organization's identity and helps to mould its image in a positive way (Napoles, 1988).…”

“…Prior literature has indicated a gap in logo, however, very little systematic study on the effect of logos on the consumers' evaluations of logos has been undertaken (Henderson and Cote, 1998;Pittard, Ewing, and Jevons, 2007;Van der Lans et al, 2009). Furthermore, little is known about the relationship between the corporate logo, its antecedents and consequences (Van der Lans et al, 2009;Van Riel, Van den Ban, and Heijmans, 2001). This study provided a novel outlook in conceptualizing corporate logo and its relation to corporate image and corporate reputation.…”