Opera needs a new logo!
-
naveen-devinda last edited by
Well, if you look at the ratings for web browsers for 2017 by techradar
And what would be the relation with the browsers logos?
I don't think people use or don't use a software just because of the logo.I am already using opera, even though I think the logo sucks. But as I said, a million more aren't using it, even though it has great features. Have you got any explanation? btw, logos do have a very significant impact on people. It's a huge topic that I can't explain with a few words. Just read about the history of google's logo. You'll understand how much research and work people go through when selecting a logo for software- or any business for that fact. If logo's never influence people's decisions, why won't everyone just stick to a logo- which is just a decorated design of the starting letter of their business name? -just like Opera has done?? Why would people do so much research, reviews, surveys, on brand image and stuff. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Savvy?
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
But as I said, a million more aren't using it, even though it has great features. Have you got any explanation?
Yep, this discussion have been coming up once in a while in the last ten, fifteen years, maybe more.
Basically Opera never had the resources to do a good marketing job, to advertise its products. Also, for many years Opera was a paid product and an adware one, what may have contributed for many people not be using it, not to mention the fact that many used to see it as something for more tech people.
btw, logos do have a very significant impact on people
I don't know anyone who had start using a product just because of the logo.
Just read about the history of google's logo. You'll understand how much research and work people go through when selecting a logo for software- or any business for that fact.
For sure, but will people start using a product just because of the logo? I don't think so.
If logo's never influence people's decisions, why won't everyone just stick to a logo- which is just a decorated design of the starting letter of their business name?
The logo is the product/company ID, it is what makes the public recognize the product.
Usually logos have a single 'fixed' element that is the product/company symbol and the rest is just some design to adapt the logo to current times.
Why would people do so much research, reviews, surveys, on brand image and stuff
To make something that people like? But people liking the logo don't necessarily mean people using the product.
Anyway, you still didn't show what would be your ideas for an Opera logo.
-
naveen-devinda last edited by
I don't know anyone who had start using a product just because of the logo.
I have never mentioned or implied through any of my comments that people start using a product because of the logo. But, the logo of a business or product definitely has an impact and will affect the user's first impression on a product.
It's logic.For sure, but will people start using a product just because of the logo? I don't think so.
Why are you repeating the same idea over and over again, once I have mentioned that people don't use a product because of the logo?? I am only talking about it's influence over decisions- influence and not "command".
The logo is the product/company ID, it is what makes the public recognize the product.
Very true, I agree. That's not the only function of the logo. Specially, it is the simplest impression and expression of a business product. If the logo doesn't look good, it reflects a bad impression, negative thoughts, etc etc. It might not be strong enough to affect a decision by itself. But, it can surely play a vital role.
Usually logos have a single 'fixed' element that is the product/company symbol and the rest is just some design to adapt the logo to current times.
I repeat again, then why would businesses do so much research over selecting and designing a logo. It's not as simple as it looks from the outside. Trust me, there's a whole level of science behind logos.
To make something that people like? But people liking the logo don't necessarily mean people using the product.
But people not liking the logo could necassarily mean people being ignorant about the product and its services, right?
Anyway, you still didn't show what would be your ideas for an Opera logo.
I am by no means a designer of logos, nor do I intend to design logos for a company that I have no direct affiliation with. I do not understand it's vision or internal affairs, therefore do not expect any ideas from me. I only can share my personal opinion on a given logo. Which is what I've done.
-
blackbird71 last edited by@naveen-devinda, if the logo is not a reason to start or to continue using a browser, then it's not itself a significant factor in a product's low market share. I believe most people start using a browser because of word-of-mouth suggestions from other users or from favorable online recommendations or reviews. They continue using the browser if they remain happy with how it operates, its feature-set, speed, and so on... but it's hard to see how the logo has anything to do with any of that. As I sit here staring at my taskbar icons for a host of software on my system, I see all kinds of logo designs from the almost-crude to the very detailed - but other than recognition of which software they represent in order to initiate the program's operation, they carry no importance to me by themselves. I personally know of nobody who ever mentioned that the software logo had any bearing on what program they adopted or use.
On the one hand, you continue insisting the logo influences people's decisions, but on the other hand, you keep agreeing that logos don't cause people to use a product. But that latter point makes the role of a logo in their browser decision to be so marginal as to be irrelevant, which is what others are trying to get across to you. If businesses are to expend money changing corporate or product logos, there needs to be some kind of tangible and demonstrable payback that can be quantified or defined clearly.
-
naveen-devinda last edited by
I only have a simple answer for that, it's not the reason, but it's a reason, see the difference??
-
blackbird71 last edited by
I see the difference, but for it to be even "a" valid reason, there needs to be some proof other than the simple assertion that the logo influences usage or adoption in some vague way. I think that what folks are saying here is that there is no evidential proof that Opera's logo has anything to do with its usage. Indeed, a person's opinions are always free to hold. But to make a case for Opera to change their logo, one has to provide some definable evidence of the logo's user influence other than simply asserting it exists. I do know that for a company to expend significant money making such a change (which impacts products, marketing, advertising, and trademarking/legal elements), there has to be something more solid than just an opinion that it "needs to be changed".
-
naveen-devinda last edited by
@naveen-devinda, if the logo is not a reason to start or to continue using a browser
You have not understood my post, It's not the reason, but it's a reason.(There is a difference) Please try to understand what I'm trying to imply before you commment.I believe most people start using a browser because of word-of-mouth suggestions from other users or from favorable online recommendations or reviews.
It's true, but most users start with the most famous ones, like google chrome, mozilla firefox, etc then they decide to shift, why? If Google chrome already is good enough. It's about standing out! "branding" If you can stand out, it will be definitely a reason but not the reason for switching.
They continue using the browser if they remain happy with how it operates, its feature-set, speed, and so on... but it's hard to see how the logo has anything to do with any of that.
Absolutely wrong, I would still be using Chrome, because it's got the best features of all browsers. That's why it's rated number one. On the other hand like I said before Opera is rated second, if you say feature-set, speed are the factors, explain to me, why opera has a high rating but a very low market share? Simple logic. I wouldn't say because of the logo itself, but it's about branding. It's not engaging to the users.
As I sit here staring at my taskbar icons for a host of software on my system, I see all kinds of logo designs from the almost-crude to the very detailed - but other than recognition of which software they represent in order to initiate the program's operation, they carry no importance to me by themselves.
Look, I can't keep on explaining the importance of branding to every person that comments without the basic knowledge of branding. A logo is not used to just identify the software- come on, please read the other comments, I have explained the importance of a logo in brief. I can go on and on, but unless you know how much research organizations put into branding (choosing and designing an engaging logo is also part of it), you'll never understand.
I personally know of nobody who ever mentioned that the software logo had any bearing on what program they adopted or use.
No one is going to tell you, but it happens with everyone, it's about impression, about feeling, it's a mind game. You should do more research about this topic. Trust me there's a lot more into it.Please read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_logo
On the one hand, you continue insisting the logo influences people's decisions, but on the other hand, you keep agreeing that logos don't cause people to use a product.
I will not repeat again, I agree that the logo isn't the reason why people use a product, but definitely is "a" reason why people choose one product over few other competitive products.
-
naveen-devinda last edited by
I can't give you any evidential proof, if you read my first post, it's just my opinion. This is what I feel, I feel that the logo is not engaging, I feel that it could be improvised. I don't know how, but it's just a feeling. I can't give you proof, in fact, no one can give you or anyone proof or evidence regarding this matter.
-
blackbird71 last edited by
...
I believe most people start using a browser because of word-of-mouth suggestions from other users or from favorable online recommendations or reviews.
It's true, but most users start with the most famous ones, like google chrome, mozilla firefox, etc then they decide to shift, why? If Google chrome already is good enough. It's about standing out! "branding" If you can stand out, it will be definitely a reason but not the reason for switching.
I don't really understand your point here. If most users start with 'famous' non-Microsoft browsers, that fame consists of far, far more than a mere logo. Logo recognition, if any, comes
largely after the fame has arrived. Fame, as you call it, is either the result of usage reviews/recommendations regarding the product design/performance or the result of marketing exposure and strategy. Chrome rose to market dominance largely because of two key factors: the design simply worked with almost all websites without expert user intervention and because of Google's enormous investment in Chrome's marketing/tie-ins/publicity. Unless Opera is willing to commit very large revenues to marketing and tie-ins (which it never has been able to do), then its only real path to success - as with all the alternative browsers - remains with getting users to switch to it for reasons that have to do with features, performance, or user controls not available in the Chrome browser. And that 'success' will probably never result in anything approaching number-one market share.Put another way, fame (apart from the result of a better design) is the result of comprehensive marketing, of which 'branding' itself is only a part - and logo a very tiny part of that in the real browser world. Unless Google/Chrome unexpectedly stumbles in major ways, their existing 'fame' and Google's vast resources will overwhelm any other browser that merely attempts to gain adoption simply via marketing-based 'fame'.
They continue using the browser if they remain happy with how it operates, its feature-set, speed, and so on... but it's hard to see how the logo has anything to do with any of that.
Absolutely wrong, I would still be using Chrome, because it's got the best features of all browsers. That's why it's rated number one. On the other hand like I said before Opera is rated second, if you say feature-set, speed are the factors, explain to me, why opera has a high rating but a very low market share? Simple logic. I wouldn't say because of the logo itself, but it's about branding. It's not engaging to the users.
This actually makes no sense. You switched to Opera because it has something important to you that Chrome lacks, as many other Opera users have similarly done. Chrome is number one because its feature set and performance are all that most generic users demand and because it's been powerfully (and expensively) marketed. Alternate browsers like Opera exist by supplying feature or performance elements that Chrome lacks for users to whom those matter. Unless those alternative browser makers commit resources akin to Google, their marketing (and browser adoption rates) will never rival Chrome. And simply changing a logo to enhance branding is a far cry from what would be required.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
But, the logo of a business or product definitely has an impact and will affect the user's first impression on a product.
It's logic.So I guess I'm an illogical person.
Why are you repeating the same idea over and over again, once I have mentioned that people don't use a product because of the logo??
For me this is what you have been saying since the beginning: People don't use Opera because of its logo. So I guess it's not wrong to think that you are also saying that people use something because of the logo.
I repeat again, then why would businesses do so much research over selecting and designing a logo
To see which one people will like the most? To see if it fits the business current target? To see if people will still be able to identify the product in that logo?
Because they have enough resources to spent on such researches?
Trust me, there's a whole level of science behind logos.
Maybe but I still don't think they have such power in influencing people's decisions.
OK, maybe if you have two completely new similar products costing the same, never advertised before and with the same packing, the one with the logo better designed would be more picked up.
But people not liking the logo could necassarily mean people being ignorant about the product and its services, right?
Maybe, if those people had been evaluating the logo of new product.
I am by no means a designer of logos, nor do I intend to design logos for a company that I have no direct affiliation with. I do not understand it's vision or internal affairs, therefore do not expect any ideas from me. I only can share my personal opinion on a given logo. Which is what I've done.
So what is the point of this topic?
You opened it to say that in your opinion Opera needs a new logo but you don't want to say what would you change on it. It doesn't make sense to me.
-
leocg Moderator Volunteer last edited by
It's true, but most users start with the most famous ones, like google chrome, mozilla firefox, etc then they decide to shift, why?
Because a friend advised them to use other browser? Because they found out that the other browser had a feature that could be useful for them? Because they read about it somewhere and became interested in it?
Absolutely wrong
Why? I would say it's absolutely right, people do use a software while they like it, they find it useful and it fits their needs.
In fact I guess it's valid for any product.
On the other hand like I said before Opera is rated second, if you say feature-set, speed are the factors, explain to me, why opera has a high rating but a very low market share? Simple logic. I wouldn't say because of the logo itself, but it's about branding. It's not engaging to the users.
I already answered that one: Opera never advertised itself. Many features that now are usual in any browser were first implemented by/in Opera but almost all of them only started to be knowing when other browsers like Firefox and Chrome 'copied' them.
Also, who rated the browsers? Regular users? More 'tech' ones? Heavy users? All of them?
Look, I can't keep on explaining the importance of branding to every person that comments without the basic knowledge of branding.
So maybe your topic shouldn't be here in this forum but in a branding discussing one.
A logo is not used to just identify the software- come on, please read the other comments, I have explained the importance of a logo in brief.
I remember have read a few articles about some famous logos and their meanings and history and I would say that if it were not for those articles I would never had found out by just looking into the logos.
So at least for me those logos seemed to have failed in showing those meanings.
No one is going to tell you, but it happens with everyone, it's about impression, about feeling, it's a mind game.
What if someone say that s/he doesn't believe in it that much, how would you convince her/him?
-
naveen-devinda last edited by
I don't really understand your point here. If most users start with 'famous' non-Microsoft browsers, that fame consists of far, far more than a mere logo. Logo recognition, if any, comes
largely after the fame has arrived. Fame, as you call it, is either the result of usage reviews/recommendations regarding the product design/performance or the result of marketing exposure and strategy.You don't understand because you lack the knowledge of branding, did you check-out the link I sent you, about Google's logo?
I really don't know how I can emphasize on this anymore, logo recognition is not the point. It's not about recognition, it's about the affect. There is a difference. Fame doesn't just arrive to your doorstep just like that, just because it's good, and reviews, it about publicity. And when competition increases, -which is what is going on now,because we have more and more browsers- this is where branding plays its role.Chrome rose to market dominance largely because of two key factors: the design simply worked with almost all websites without expert user intervention and because of Google's enormous investment in Chrome's marketing/tie-ins/publicity.
Lol, I think you have already accepted the fact that it's about publicity. https://www.garyvaynerchuk.com/how-important-is-a-logo/ please read this. I believe it would change your views and broaden your view about logos and the extent to which it can interfere users and their decisions. It's a post by Gary Vaynerchuk-an American serial entrepreneur, four-time New York Times bestselling author, speaker and internationally recognized internet personality.
They continue using the browser if they remain happy with how it operates, its feature-set, speed, and so on... but it's hard to see how the logo has anything to do with any of that.
I really think it's fool's errand to repeatedly explain to you about the effect logos have on our "minds". I would strongly suggest you to read the link above and also about the history of Google's logo.
This actually makes no sense. You switched to Opera because it has something important to you that Chrome lacks, as many other Opera users have similarly done.
Google Chrome didn't lack anything, I switched just coz I wanted a change. Just a change, change is triggered by?? branding! I hope you have some idea.
Chrome is number one because its feature set and performance are all that most generic users demand and because it's been powerfully (and expensively) marketed.
It's really funny how you blindly say marketed, Don't you know brand name, logo, etc etc are parts of this procedure. I just feel that an engaging logo, could be a cheap alternate for Opera's marketing strategy. We may not be the lead the market share for obvious reasons-as you mentioned- but there are still people who would change their browser for a good set of performance elements, and this set of people is quite a big share. What's going to help trigger this change? Yes, you've got it. Logo will play its part definitely. Not the part, but definitely "a" significant role.
Alternate browsers like Opera exist by supplying feature or performance elements that Chrome lacks for users to whom those matter. Unless those alternative browser makers commit resources akin to Google, their marketing (and browser adoption rates) will never rival Chrome. And simply changing a logo to enhance branding is a far cry from what would be required.
What's required? I don't know Opera's agendas. That's not the point I am making in this post. And yes, you are very right about "supplying feature or performance elements that Chrome lacks for users to whom those matter"- This is exactly my point, there are yet so many people to whom these performance elements do matter, BUT THEY JUST DON'T SWITCH. WHY? WHY?
WHY? This is where I believe the logo can have a significant influence. Please do not comment on this post without a shade of knowledge in branding and brand images. please. -
