I can’t access that marketing stats survey thing because I don’t have an account and I have no plans on getting an account for it.
That said, I’d be careful about drawing too many conclusions from surveys like that without seeing exactly how the question was asked and who was asked.
The first things I’d want to know are:
What was the exact question?
What products or services were being discussed?
---------------> What does “interesting logo” actually mean?
Was the logo the reason for the purchase, or did it simply get the product noticed in the first place?
Was it an impulse purchase, a supermarket item, a luxury brand, a service, a house, a car?
Those questions matter.
For example, if you ask me have I ever bought something because it had an interesting logo or packaging, then yes, probably. I’ve picked up craft beers because the can caught my eye. I’ve looked at products because the packaging stood out.
But that’s very different from saying the logo was the deciding factor in the purchase.
I think logos can absolutely influence attention, perception, recognition and recall. That’s part of their job. But I think their influence drops significantly as the cost, complexity and importance of the purchase increases.
I didn’t buy my house because of an estate agent’s logo (some do)
I didn’t buy my car because of the manufacturer’s logo (some do)
I don’t choose a mechanic, accountant, doctor, solicitor or builder because of their logo.
I choose them because of reputation, recommendations, reviews, quality, price, convenience and trust.
The logo might contribute to a first impression, but it’s rarely doing the work.
That’s why I keep coming back to recognition. A logo helps people identify, remember and distinguish a business. It supports the business. It doesn’t become the business.
As I said before. Google is probably a good example. I wouldn’t call Google’s logo particularly amazing from a design perspective, yet it’s one of the most recognised brands on the planet. People don’t use Google because of the logo. They use Google because the service became so useful that “Google it” entered everyday language.
On the flip side, there are brands where the logo carries significant weight. Take Mercedes. People aren’t necessarily buying the car because it’s a three-pointed star. They’re buying what that star represents. Status, success, luxury, engineering, prestige.
If you asked a young person on a limited budget if they’d buy a Mercedes, many would probably say no because it’s out of reach. Ask a wealthy young person and they might say they wouldn’t drive anything else. At that point the logo has become more than a logo. It’s a status symbol and a badge that communicates something about the owner.
So I don’t think the survey necessarily proves logos drive sales. I think it shows that logos can influence purchasing behaviour in certain contexts, particularly for lower-cost or impulse purchases. That’s a very different claim from saying logos create business success.
To me, that’s the distinction that’s been emerging throughout this whole discussion. Logos can influence behaviour. They can support growth. They can support recognition and trust. But they don’t guarantee success, and they’re rarely the sole reason somebody buys a product or service.
