Design Features and Participants’ Awareness

in Corporate LogoYoko Suzuki

Division of Management Systems Engineering Faculty of System Design, Tokyo Metropolitan University

Hino-shi, Tokyo 191-0065, Japan

1

Presentation for Discovery Summit Japan at Grand Hyatt Tokyo in 18 November, 2016

Introduction

2

Motivation• There are many studies describe design theory, design history, and designer’s

thought.

• But those are mainly qualitative analysis.

• Only few study shows quantitative analysis. (e.g., Doyle and Bottomley (2004))

• Blake et al. (2015) examined Apple Inc.’s logo. But it is about a memory of the logo, not an impression of the design of the logo.

• Quantitative analysis is needed, because we have difficulty to make a choice by implicit knowledge what the image the design has .

• Colors already have matrix of image basis in quantitative analysis.

• We believe that we can make much easier to make a choice by using matrix of image of design.

3

4A. C. Kay, "Microelectronics and the Personal Computer," Scientific American, pp. 230-244, 1977.

Technology

Anthropomorphism

P. Rand, Paul Rand, A designer's art. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.5

Methods

6

Stimuli

• The 13 logos of 8 corporations were used as stimuli, including old and discontinued (Table1).

• We chose the logos according to 3 design categories; figurative, non-figurative, logotype.

• The logos put on a bunch of papers, and randomly showed to participant.

7

Table 1. Corporate name, design category, and notes.

Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21. 8

Corporate name Design category Note

Logo No. Country Former or later Launched year

1 Fukusuke figurative (drawn in detail) Japan Former 1965

2 Fukusuke figurative Japan Later 2003

3 Fukusuke figurative and logotype Japan Later 2003

4 Glico non-figuraitve and figurateve Japan Former 1972

5 Glico logotype Japan Later 1992

6 IBM logotype USA Later 1972

7 Kao figurative (drawn in detail) Japan Former 1890

8 Kao figurative Japan Later 1953

9 Kao figurative and logotype Japan Later 2009

10 Meiji non-figuraitive and a kanji Japan Former unknown

11 Showa Shell (Royal Dutch Shell) figurative and logotype Japan Later 1971

12 Panasonic logotype Japan Later 1955

13 Westinghouse non-figurative and an alphabet UK Later 1960

1" 2" 3" 4" 5"

6" 7" 8" 9" 10"

11" 12" 13"

9Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21.

The logos are cited fromT. Ohta, Changes in logos & trademarks in Japan (in Japanese). Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo: Rikuyo-sya, 1997. (ISBN: 4897372860),P. Rand, Paul Rand, A designer's art. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. (ISBN: 0300034830),and the websites; http://www.fukuske.com, http://www.kao.com/jp/, and http://panasonic.jp.

Preparation

• We leaved the questionnaire survey sheets for participants with volunteers.

• In this study will focus on the question about the image of the logo and whether the participants know the logo or not.

10

Participants

• 42 participants (male: 24, female: 18)

• Age (M=47.12, MD=45.50, SD=11.121)

‣ Minimum age is 32 years old.

‣ Maximum age is 72 years old.

11

Questionnaire

12

• The impression was rated on a 5 point Likert scale based on the following: 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.

• The cognition value (percentage on the participants know a logo or not) was rated on a binary choice format for each 13 logos: 1=yes, 0=no.

Questionnaire

13

• The question items were, Q1 Vitality, Q2 Innovation, Q3 Familiarity, Q4 Confidence, Q5 Reliability, Q6 Affection, Q7 Tradition, Q8 Prospect, Q9 First rank, Q10 Invention, Q11 Character, Q12 Luxury, and Q13 Lovely.

Results

14

Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Communality

Q5 Reliability .836 .298 .175 .819

Q4 Confidence .744 .206 .244 .656

Q9 First rank .695 .385 .011 .632

Q6 Affection .667 .319 .490 .787

Q7 Tradition .637 .217 .228 .505

Q3 Familiarity .592 .232 .559 .717

Q2 Innovation .168 .767 .143 .637

Q10 Invention .275 .704 .301 .662

Q8 Prospect .432 .625 .132 .595

Q1 Vitality .292 .586 .160 .455

Q12 Luxury .207 .550 .365 .479

Q11 Character .254 .433 .405 .416

Q13 Lovely .150 .230 .710 .580Sum of Squared FactorLoading (%)

3.445 2.843 1.651

Amount of Contribution(%)

26.500 21.871 12.703

Cumulative Amount ofContribution (%)

26.500 48.371 61.074

Table 2. Factor loading.

Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21. 15

Average of Factor Loading Cognition Value

logo No. Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 YES (%) NO (%)

1 .128 - .273 .551 85.7 14.3

2 - .651 - .207 - .250 28.6 71.4

3 .078 - .359 .401 59.5 40.5

4 .310 .150 .461 100 0

5 .143 .149 .302 95.2 4.8

6 .223 .769 - .806 97.6 2.4

7 - .460 - .275 - .201 7.1 92.9

8 - .063 .129 .542 88.1 11.9

9 .485 .042 .411 97.6 2.4

10 - .144 - .327 - .081 42.9 57.1

11 .270 .163 - .271 100 0

12 .596 .152 - .749 97.6 2.4

13 - .915 - .112 - .311 9.5 90.5

Table 3. Average of factor loading and cognition value.

Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21. 16

Figure 1. Correlation forFactor1(reliability-confidence) and Factor2(innovation-invention).

Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21.

17

Figure 2. Correlation forFactor1(reliability-confidence) and Factor3(lovely).

Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21.

18

Figure 3. Correlation forFactor2(innovation-invention) and Factor3(lovely).

Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21.

19

Figure 4. Dendrogram for the three factors.

Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21.

20

Discussion

21

Discussion• 1. ‘Traditional’ cluster: Negative value in Factor2.

There are 3 logos of 2 companies. Company names are Fukusuke and Meiji. They have high to middle cognition value. We assume this cluster means ‘traditional’ impression. Fukusuke manufactures tabi. It is Japanese traditional socks always put with kimono.

• 2. ‘Good feeling’ cluster: Positive value in Factor3. There are 4 logos of 2 companies. Company names are Glico and Kao. They have high cognition value. We assume this cluster means ‘good feeling’ impression. Glico is famous as a food manufacture. And Kao produces western style soap in its earlier period.

• 3. ‘Misty’ cluster: Negative value in Factor1. There are 3 logos of 3 companies. Company names are Fukusuke, Kao, and Westinghouse. They have low cognition value. And all average of Factor loading are negative value. We assume this cluster means ‘misty’ impression. We assume Westinghouse has not familiarity in the Japanese.

• 4. ‘Exceptional’ cluster: except 1, 2, and 3 clusters. There are 3 logos of 3 companies. Company names are IBM, Showa Shell, and Panasonic. They have high cognition value. We assume this cluster means ‘exceptional’ impression. All 3 logos include with logotype. We assume logotype evokes inorganic but strong image.

22Y. Suzuki and H. Yamamoto, "Design Features and Participants' Awareness in Corporate Logo" in The proceedings of the 16th Conference of Japan Society of Kansei EnginneringKorakuen Campus, Chuo UniversityTokyo, Japan, 2014, p. C21.

Conclusion

23

Conclusion• Our previous study shows what impression the

students, youngster, have.

• Participants in this study show slightly different impression with youngster’s one.

• The difference appears specially about ‘reliability’ impression and ‘lovely’ impression.

• Further study is needed a comparison with elderly and youngster.

24