Are wordmark logos more effective, or brandmark logos? We see companies like Coca-Cola or Google who are doing fine with very effective wordmark logos, while companies like Apple rely quite a lot on their logos initially.
(I remember reading an article talking about how the glowing Apple logo on the back of the Apple laptops was one of the most important forms of advertising for Macs initially when they weren’t as popular as now.)
I assume by “brandmark” you really mean a brand symbol/icon. If so, then the answer is “yes”; both word marks and brand symbols/icons are more effective.
Each have their place, and a logo designer or brand marketer can’t afford to exclude either from their repertoire.
Would Apple still be Apple if they had only a logotype? Could you imagine IBM as IBM if they added an abstract or pictorial symbol to their brandmark? Should the New York Times print a giant icon on the front page of their newspaper instead of the wordmark they currently use?
Asking whether all logos should be textual or graphical is like asking whether it’s better for a logo to be red or blue. The appropriateness of any logo design choice is relative to the brand it’s supposed to represent. So what you should be asking is “would a wordmark or a symbol/icon (or both) be more effective for conveying my brand?”
Source : Link , Question Author : JFW , Answer Author : Calvin Huang