The real reason behind Microsoft's new logo

(MoneyWatch) The thing about marketing people is they will not be ignored. Sooner or later, even the geekiest of high-tech companies find themselves dropping a few bucks on something other than chips and software code.

A few years back, Intel (INTC) got a new logo signaling its move beyond PCs. Now it's Microsoft's (MSFT) turn. Most of the reactions I've heard are either "it's boring" or "logos are dumb." Of course, some nutty branding person will probably write a whole book analyzing its simplicity, the font, the colors and who knows what else.

Sure, it has to be visually attractive enough for people not to hate it, but that's not really what this is all about. There's more to the software giant's first new logo in a quarter century than meets the eye. Much, much more.

The real issue is this: Microsoft must change a broad and growing perception that it has become irrelevant -- a relic of a foregone age when it was the only game in town and everyone spent all their time using Microsoft applications on Wintel PCs.

While that may still be largely true in the corporate world, the consumer device market has become wildly fragmented. Not only that, but there are already signs that the business world is beginning to follow suit.

It's not just that Macs, tablets and smartphones have become increasingly important in our lives. The bigger issue is that, between social networks like Facebook (FB), LinkedIn (LNKD) and Twitter and all the millions of applications that run on Apple (AAPL) iOS and Google (GOOG) Android, Microsoft's software is truly becoming less and less relevant every day that goes by.

Why Apple's iPad will be a game changer
Think different: Inside Apple's cult-like culture
Did IPO damage Facebook brand?

In case you're wondering why Microsoft's stock has essentially flat-lined for more than a decade, the reason is simple: Investors have little confidence that the company can reinvent itself. So it's imperative for Microsoft to reverse all that negative perception, a task that's far easier said than done. Perceptions that are based in reality are always the toughest ones to change.

Nevertheless, the software giant intends to change. Indeed, that's what it must do. And I find myself more than a little surprised to be saying this, but it looks like they're going about it exactly as I would if I was in charge up in Redmond.

Here's what I think is really behind Microsoft's logo change or, to be more accurate, the plan that the logo change represents. There are four key components:

New versions of existing products. How a company is perceived begins with the customer experience, and Microsoft is rolling out new versions of all its core products, from Windows 8 for PCs and phones to new versions of Office and Xbox services. It's betting big that this crop of new products will excite and delight users while convincing an increasingly skeptical industry that it means business.

Aggressive moves into search, mobile and social. Spinning existing products isn't going to be nearly enough to stem the tide in an increasingly social and mobile world. First there was Bing for search. Then Microsoft's first branded tablet, Surface. It pulled the plug on MSNBC to gain more content freedom and reinvented Hotmail as Outlook. Expect more aggressive moves against Apple, Google and Facebook.

Iconic brand. Now think about the iconic Apple brand. The consistent look and feel across all Apple devices and everywhere you experience the brand -- in the stores, on the website, everywhere. That's what Microsoft aims to do: bring everything under one iconic brand. That's the reason behind the simple, clean look and the change in logo font to the one used in its products. And it's promoting the four-color symbol to show that it's more than just a one-trick pony, a PC software company.

Putting the world on notice. Lastly, CEO Steve Ballmer and company are letting everyone know this isn't your father's Microsoft. It's sending a message to all of Microsoft's key stakeholders -- investors, employees, device-makers, pundits, end users -- that it's aware the world is moving on and that it's not going to give up without a knockdown, drag-out fight. Microsoft has put the world on notice that it intends to reinvent itself.

Make no mistake, this is not just about the logo's colors, Segoe font, digital motion or whatever fluff the branding people are selling. The stakes are ridiculously high here. The world has moved far beyond the PC; it's gone mobile and social. That world belongs to Apple, Google and Facebook. And Microsoft, once the most valuable company on the planet, does not intend to be left behind.

[JenniferAG]

Microsoft may well need to reinvent itself, but a new logo is pretty irrelevant to that herculean effort. You know who cares about logos? Company executives. You know who doesn't? Consumers. They care about how well the company's products and service meet their needs. It's fascinating that companies spend so much money and effort rebranding their look -- as though a square instead of a circle, or blue instead of green, means a hill of beans to potential buyers. When companies focus instead on making their products and service better, buyers will come -- no matter what their logo looks like.

[kristineputt]

Jennifer, with all due respect.... I agree with you in that consumers don't generally THINK they "care about" a logo. But evidence suggests they do, whether they realize it or not. A logo and its color palette are often the first form of communication that a brand has with its customers. Likewise, consistency in its use helps to secure repeat business by being the "recognizable factor" across all mediums. Here's proof: Next time you're driving down the street and are thrown off course by an overhauled logo, you instantly know that the relationship between you (the consumer) and that particular brand has been changed -- for good bad, or indifferent reasons, and all out of your control. Scientific research has proven that when you apply too much red most men won't look at it. Too much blue and women won't look at it. Women are generally attracted to rounder shapes, men to symmetrical. These are simple examples to demonstrate that effective design is not merely aesthetic, it's psychological. I'm not saying a logo brings in more business. On the contrary! I'm saying a logo sets a standard for initial communication with the type of customers the brand wishes to establish relationships with, and then continues to uphold its promise by being consistent. And that's why logos and branding are expensive -- when done by a professional, and when done right. A twelve year old can design a "logo" that looks cool. But will it communicate the brand's integrity? Probably not.

[JenniferAG]

Hi Kristine - thanks for your interesting perspective. Actually I agree with you 100% re the importance of the "recognizable factor" and setting a standard for communication with the audience. It's critical to imprint your brand in your audience's mind and to keep it there -- and your logo is one of the best ways to do that. I'm just not convinced what the logo actually looks like is paramount. It would seem consistency of usage is far more important. I think too that companies tend to use rebranding as a crutch when things are going wrong in their organizations -- let's push a new logo out there and people will start thinking of us differently! Nice try. How about, fix your product or service instead. As for being "thrown off course by an overhauled logo" and "instantly knowing that the relationship between me and the brand has changed" -- I like your seeming conviction on this point, yet speaking only for myself, I can't honestly recall a time when I experienced this. That feels like giving major weight to what is probably a very minor element of the consumer-brand relationship. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts!

[kristineputt]

Yes, I do believe that if Microsoft wishes to stay ahead of the competitive curve, they have no choice but to also update their brand image. Their old logo was stale, childish and well, rather romper-room-ish. And it did NOT convey sophistication. But is this REALLY supposed to be an improvement?

I guess I'm that nutty branding person you make reference to. But in my professional opinion, Microsoft just went from Romper-Room to Romper-Room. While Apple's brand image remains sophisticated and elegant, Microsoft manages to maintain its juvenile and lack-luster appearance. So much for reinventing themselves.

And at the risk of sounding like an arrogant graphic designer, this nutty branding person says, "Not impressed."

[tmittelstaed]

The fact that this article only gathered one single post in the 8 hours since it was posted is, in my opinion, proof that Microsoft is as boring as IBM today.

The fact is that Microsoft and IBM both make money. But the fact is that they don't have "brainshare" anymore in the market.

[stobak2]

You could have said the same thing of Apple 15 years ago. That's the point.

Incidentally, shares of IBM have beat every competitor and major market index, even Oracle, for the past 5 years -- no easy feat. Its market cap is bigger than Berkshire Hathaway, Chevron, Google, GE and AT&T. It's the most consistently performing and powerful IT company on the planet. Boring? Works for me.

ST

[p_syrus]

New Logo: Same Fraudulent Criminal Conspiracy Pushing the Same Crap Software and Same Crap Software Support.