Discounted Expectations
The recent online leak of Walmart’s new logo was followed by a collective eye roll from self-respecting designers nationwide. The idea alone of Walmart (tightened from Wal-Mart), an immobile giant rooted, much like the Republican Party, in the indefinite concept of value, updating its logo seemed wrong. Forced, almost. And the new logo itself did little to curb the scorn. Having been compared to (very) generic web startup trademarks and even described as clip art 2.0, the mark has very little to say. But I think the deeper problem, and what makes the logo sadly appropriate, is that Walmart as a company has very little to say.
Don’t blame the logo. Aside from its lack of originality there is nothing inherent in the shape that makes it drastically worse than, say, Target’s target, a mark not only generic but painfully literal. A logo is the face of a franchise but the differences usually take place behind the scenes. What matters is the methods through which the image is expressed and more importantly the ideas and inspiration behind the image. The idea behind the adjective. We may be looking at a brand’s visual attributes but we are usually seeing the soul of the company expressed through its identity. This means that, despite our best efforts, good design alone cannot redeem a bad and insincere brand.
Walmart’s image reflects a middle of the road brand strategy. Ignoring innovation and fearing distinction, Walmart tries to be everything to everyone. And in doing so it becomes nothing to anyone. Being safe is risky says Seth Godin in his differentiation manifesto Purple Cow. Ironically, a brand that plays it safe in order to be liked runs a strong risk of being disliked. The Walmart brand tries hard to not offend anyone. What they fail to realize is that market conformity is the most offensive crime of all.
