All in a Name (and a Logo) - Questions From the Elks Process

As a follow up to my first Elks blog last week, I’ve had a few more thoughts about the idea of creating a new name and a new visual identity. You may notice that I don’t use the term ‘rebranding’, but that’s a conversation for a whole other day! On topic, there have been many comments that have circulated since the Elks name announcement on June 1^st. I thought I’d address those from my experience.

“They clearly didn’t do any research or thinking if they landed on a name like this.”

Now, I wasn’t involved in this process with the EE, but I can ensure you this is not the case. What people are really saying is “your research didn’t lead to an answer I like”. Likely their research was extensive and would’ve included the following, non-exhaustive, list of questions:

• What is the perception of the name Elks?
• Can the name be misused or does it have negative connotations to consider? 
• What is the grammatically correct usage – Elk or Elks? (This one we know as they addressed talking to Oxford Dictionary and linguistic experts with the University of Alberta)
• How will our different market segments connect to this name? Long time season ticket holders? Casual buyers? Kids? Young professionals?
• What are the tactical marketing options that could come from this name? Are they expansive or limiting? 
• Are there any legal impediments to using this name? Is it registered? Are there other sports organizations that have made consistent, regular use of this name? 

Organizations doing such a major change would always do a level of research. Are they boiling the ocean? Likely not, but it would be extensive enough to ensure comfort that their goals for using it will be largely met and their markets will generally accept, and ideally embrace it.

“The logo is so simple – my kid could’ve drawn it.”

Well, maybe your kid is mega talented and design firms are begging for her work, but if not, it might be worth looking at what a professional designer would consider. I’ve been fortunate to work with many incredible designers and to me, their key skill is being able to convey an idea, or concept with simplicity. People mistake simple for a lack of sophistication and to me, that’s not at all what happened with the Elks logo. Simplicity in a logo is done for a few considerations:

• Applications – For a football team, there are multiple and diverse logo uses including all types of merchandise, on television, small social media applications or painted large in the end zones. In each case, the integrity of a logo must be kept. Embroidering a kids hat, as an example, with tons of little lines and intricate details can erase that integrity. 
• Recognition – when there are fewer (and often unnecessary) details, it’s easier for the eye to grasp the concept of the logo and retain it. It becomes more memorable and easier to retain than a busy, complicated one. 
• Timelessness – there is a desire for this logo to be in place for a long time. While design trends will change, a simple logo can avoid the risks of looking outdated. The Montreal Canadiens ‘CH’ and even the EE, that’s remaining part of the Elks identity, are good examples. 

“I can’t believe it’s taken them this long to come up with a new name. Just decide on one and get moving!”

Many of us look at other jobs and make assumptions of how easy it must be to do it. How could those involved possibly not see what they’re missing? Those criticizing the timelines the EE took in finalizing a name are doing just that. A very public name like this benefits from taking time and following a diligent, intentional process. That process would’ve included the following:

• A deep assessment of the organization’s brand – and by brand I mean the full complement of what the organization is, does, and is perceived to be. It would also include an assessment of where it wants to go.
• Setting parameters – what requirements must the name meet
• The collecting of naming options – from internal or external sources then narrowing that list to ones fitting the outlined parameters that would face initial testing for availability, appropriateness, and value potential.
• A narrowing to a preferred 2-4 – these would face more scrutiny to study existing legal impediments (usage or registration by other organizations), do some initial market testing for perception, effectiveness representing the brand etc., availability of web and social media handles, visual and merchandise potential.

Two choices exist from here - one is to choose a couple finalists and take each down the road of creating visual identities or the other is to make a final name choice first and then embark down the registration process while beginning the logo and visual identity development.

• I’d choose number two. Split focus can see ideas from each start to blend together often rendering them weaker. Focus is key and completing each step on its own creates conviction and clearer direction. 
• With a name chosen, the logo and visual components are next. Designers likely would’ve been involved in parts of the naming process to glean insights on what the organization is aiming to convey. Client meetings would ensue to dive deeper into needs of the logo and visual identity. 
• From there, concepts are sketched, developed and ultimately a range of possibilities are narrowed down.
• The firm must then decide how many to show the client. Their one preferred? Two? Multiple? Each situation is different, but the answer is never multiple if that means 4 or more. This sets the table for indecision, requests to combine features from different options and ultimately a weaker design. 
• Designers treat each option as unique creations that stand on their own. They’re not like Lego sets where you move something you like from one design to another. 
• No matter how many are presented, a firm will highlight how each carries unique visual representations of the brand and from there, final decisions are made and then the real work begins – using it.
• Updating all the places a new name and logo needs to be dropped in (letterhead, signage, nametags, merchandise, invoices, websites, e-signatures…need I go on?) will take a long time. If an organization wants a specific day where the switch is flipped and everything new appears, then all this must be done before. The Elks clearly took that path adding time in the lead up to the reveal.

I recognize this to be a longer blog but hopefully it presents some insight to the work behind the scenes to land on a new name, logo, and visual identity. Despite what some will think, it’s not an easy process and I can ensure the EE staff spent the majority of their waking moments over the last 6+ months on this very project. Largely the launch has been quite well received. I really like what they’ve done (though the helmets haven’t yet grown on me) and think it lends well to the next phase of the organization. It’s not easy work but I commend them for the level of thought and detail that’s gone into what they’ve revealed so far. Next…when’s kickoff?