Non-profits have the worst logos. Now that I have your attention, let me explain what I mean by that:
Many times, the problem with a non-profit logo stems from the fact that the logo is trying to do too much. That’s because non-profits, in general, are used to doing too much. An organization may be responsible for saving lives, feeding communities, finding children homes, and a thousand other critically important, community-building initiatives. My experience at the M Network has taught me that the nonprofits we work with go above and beyond, providing as many services as their clients and communities need all while maintaining partner relationships and fundraising.
This “we can do everything” attitude creates a profound and positive impact in the community, but absolutely sucks when it comes to effective logo design. In fact, as a designer, I feel it’s my obligation to say that this is exactly the wrong approach. A logo should never try to do everything. A logo should only ever be a logo. So with that in mind, I offer these observations:
Common faux pas are creating elements with high levels of detail that get lost at scale, being overly literal about the concept, and my favorite, improper use of color.
Why does this specific phenomenon happen with nonprofits? Well, most non-profit logos don’t go through the same process as other logos. Organizations want to focus their funding on helping communities—and they should. Spending money on a pretty logo feels frivolous. Therefore, they don’t invest in the actual thought process of developing their mark. Instead, oftentimes, they find someone who will “donate” a logo for free. Other times, as we’ve experienced, they will make the logo design a “contest” that is entered by amateur artists and judged by people who don’t know much about design or branding.
First and foremost, it’s important to understand that a logo is not an introduction to your organization for people who don’t know it. It’s a reminder of who your organization is for people who already know your organization. What this means is that the longer your organization is around, and the better your marketing efforts are, the simpler your logo can be. (This is why Nike stopped using the words “Nike” on their logo several years ago.”
Investing time at the start of the process is more about understanding who your organization is at its core and developing guidelines that solidify this for the organization and all who come in contact with the brand. Time spent front-loading the creative process makes the development of supporting collateral a breeze. Once it’s determined who cares, how they will recognize you, and what you will sound like (i.e. messaging) things like billboards and ads are a lot less about my personal aesthetic choices and more about what falls in line with the organization’s personality.
Instead of starting out with a strong concept, nonprofits will usually begin with their partners. County or government affiliates will be mentioned underneath the logo. It may even include their county’s logo, and in case you didn’t get all that, there’s a tag line to explain the visual as well.
Another practice many non-profits use is “design by committee” or a design contest. This process is most desirable for non-profits because: 1) it’s cheap or free, 2) it involves the communities they serve, and 3) there’s no one to point to if people don’t like it. I’ve been witness to logos being abused and tortured this way for years. The best way to kill a good idea is to show it to a committee where you have to try and make everyone happy. This method seems to take in all points of view except the one that matters most to your brand, your audience.
What can be done?
An audience’s perception of a company or service is the “brand”. The brand is not the logo. The logo is not the brand. But a logo can help you create a brand identity. It gives your company a symbol through which your audience can better recognize you. It distinguishes you from competitors and does most of the heavy lifting in terms of first impressions, which is good, will entice people to interact.
This is a lot of heavy lifting for one little image to do. This leads a lot of organizations to create logos that are not just complex but have conflicting concepts that aren’t refined enough to produce any emotional connection. A good logo starts with a good concept. That concept is then refined and visually reinforced through line and color. The logo should, in most cases, be a symbol without words, like a hieroglyph that concisely represents a company or organization.
Simple logos function well because they are immediately recognizable. It’s no surprise to see companies like Starbucks continuously refine and simplify their logo. I remember that they received a lot of flak for their last iteration. Many people poked fun at it. I saw memes with zoomed-in versions of their logo where all you saw were two green lines. And that could become reality. Visually their logo doesn’t communicate much anymore, but emotionally it’s very effective. Coffee drinkers associate the Starbucks logo with alertness and happiness. It launches their bodies into a physiological response causing them to anticipate and crave the product, so it doesn’t really matter that the company’s name is no longer in the logo.
Now that I’ve told you what not to do, you’re probably wondering what you should do. Here are some important things to remember:
The logo isn’t for you. It’s for your audience.
When I create a new logo, I start by thinking, who is it for? My primary goal is to make a logo that resonates with the target audience and not necessarily the organization. That’s not always a popular approach for organizations or designers. The organizations want their logo to represent them, and I get it, you’ve got to look at this thing a hundred times a day, so you want to like it. As a designer, it’s my responsibility to look beyond my own desires and direct my focus towards the audience the logo is meant to serve.
Logos that carry emotional weight will always resonate over ones that just look pretty.
The second factor I consider is, how well does the logo function? Function and simplicity, two great things that go better when they are together. The goal is to make a logo that’s easy to understand at first glance. The refinement process is meant to strip away any conflicting concepts within the design. Think Starbucks. Simplicity is about balancing both form and color. It’s about making the logo pleasing to the eyes. Inexperienced designers typically stop here. I mean if it’s pleasing to look at, it must function, right?
Remember it’s not simplicity and then function. They go together. When applied correctly, the logo becomes an identification device. You’re either a Mac or a PC, a Coke person or Pepsi person. And the reason you have such strong feelings one way or other is because there is an emotional response associated with these brands.
A logo should highlight what makes a company unique. Logos that are distinct are more memorable.
The third factor I consider in creating a logo is truth. Does the logo reflect the direction and practices of the organization? This isn’t about the organization’s morals or political affiliations. This is about whether the logo reflects the truth of what makes that organization unique. This will make the logo a strong identifier for the organization and the people they serve. With so many non-profit organizations serving a similar audience, it’s paramount that the logo be distinct and hint as to what makes that organization special.
