Wal-Mart’s New Logo Is a Head-scratcher

I do not hate Wal-Mart.

The title to this week's essay certainly belies a distinct point of view regarding the company's recent logo change, but it does not come from a place of elitist indignation or new age, anti-consumerist, big box angst.

In fact, I stand in humility and awe at what Wal-Mart has been able to accomplish.

Born not of New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago, Wal-Mart's modest beginnings in rural Arkansas keep the company grounded. At its core, it believes in the power of the average family to make it successful.

Instead of an aggressive growth plan, venture capitalists, and slick marketing, Wal-Mart stuck with its founder's values: Thrift, competitiveness, and old-fashioned customer service.

Instead of seeding consumer taste with new fashions, new trends, and new ways of thinking, Wal-Mart found creative ways to give people exactly what they wanted: pretty good stuff at rock bottom prices.

Instead of hiring expensive consultants, Wal-Mart literally invented modern distribution efficiency through trial and error. (I have seen their distribution center in Menomonie, Wisconsin first hand. There are no adjectives to describe how impressive it is.)

One could make articulate - and in many cases accurate-arguments that Wal-Mart's success has not been a good thing. That the company put main street America out of business. That the company is too big, too wealthy, and controls too much. That the company simply peddles cheap junk, creating a feeding frenzy of consumerism that ruins the financial viability of those people least able to control themselves. That the company forces its suppliers into draconian terms to feed an insatiable lust for lower prices.

Perhaps that's true. But personally, it sounds like a good deal of hooey.

But that is precisely why the change to their visual identity is so perplexing.

Wal-Mart is successful because it is-authentically-what it says it is: A pure commerce machine. Something uniquely American in concept, and a vision of superiority in retailing the world over.

What concerns me about the company's logo change (and recent tagline change as well) is that the iconic company has drifted from its roots.

According to the company: "This update to the logo is simply a reflection of the refresh taking place inside our stores and our renewed sense of purpose to help people save money so they can live better."

The company goes on to remind us that Wal-Mart has "freshened" its logo several times over its history, pointing to a synopsis on its website.

A 129-word press release? A freshening?

That's laughable.

A glance at the visuals from even a casual observer would immediately betray a major change in visual strategy. The previous logo's "star" was a clear, American symbol of pride and success-reinforced by a bold blue, white, and red color scheme in all promotional materials. It spoke to the traditional patriotic values of the company's core target audience. The bold font is a non-nonsense reflection of Sam Walton's vision: visible at a distance, as well as functional and compact for all forms of store signage.

The new logo employs a more "symbolic" star, offset to the right of the type, to capture the same message. But instead of a classic interpretation, the refashioned star functions more like an asterisk at the end of the type. It almost begs explanation. As if the Wal-Mart logo-or the company itself-needs some sort of clarification. Additionally, the new semi-serif font choice attempts to add a certain sophistication to the visual treatment-as does the lightening of blue and red (to more of a deep powder blue and bright orange)-but ends up weakening the overall arrangement.

Perhaps the logo change was meant to mark a change in Wal-Mart's customer base. Perhaps it was a nod to the company's entry into the grocery market. Perhaps it is a reflection of the company's growing international presence.

Perhaps.

But here is my guess. A visual change of this magnitude is a major undertaking for any company, and a colossal one for Wal-Mart. The cost of the transition will likely exceed nine figures. Given that, and the distinct visual transition, as well as the company's cautious statement, I would read a certain amount of boardroom consternation. I'll bet the whole team wasn't on board with this move. I'll bet more than a few thought it was a mistake.

To me, this is a classic case of not leaving well enough alone.

After seeing growth its growth stabilize over the last decade, and Target emerge as a tough competitor with a distinctly "stylish" approach, you can understand the pressure to keep up the torrid pace of shareholder growth.

But Wal-Mart never tried to be, nor tried to become, anyone else. That is what made it successful. That's not to say the company will never (or does not) need to evolve, but this move paints a big orange asterisk on some deep underlying issues.

To that point, let's look back. It's easy to forget that the original company at the heart of the following quip, "If you can't buy it at Wal-Mart, you don't need it," was not Wal-Mart, but Sears. Sears used to dominate. Its catalog was the staple of every home in America. They were the quintessential do-it-all.

Then they lost their way. The visuals again tell the story. When you review the visual history of the Sears brand, you'll see exactly where that happened. The company transitioned from "strong" and "stable" to "stylish" and the "softer side of Sears." It worked for a while. But in the end no one bought it. It just wasn't true. Now the company is part of Kmart-a depressing epithet to an American icon.

Put very simply, whether you like the visual treatment of the Wal-Mart logo or not, it is no longer "true." And that authenticity is the essence of any brand. And, I am afraid, the beginning of its undoing.

I am not sure Sam Walton would have approved.

Commonplace Differentiation from Wells Fargo

We sure have come a long way from the dreaded "green screen" automated teller.

Without much fanfare, Wells Fargo's reintroduced ATM user interface sports a number of visual enhancements to speed common transactions, make the process more intuitive, and personalize the experience - all without scaring off the technophobes among us.

If you aren't a Wells Fargo customer, the changes may be a bit hard to visualize, but the payoff is worth it.  Let's hit a few of the high points of the design.

Overall, the user interface features a cleaner and decidedly "less technical" look.  Key to accomplishing that objective is a reduction in contrast between the background imagery and the action buttons themselves.

At first glance, that seems a bit counter-intuitive.  Why would you want to decrease contrast?  Simple: Small screens can accomplish only one outcome at a time.  When each button is bordered by a bold gold line on a uniform black screen (as it was in the previous interface), a visually cacophony ensues, increasing the transaction time as users fumble through the array of competing options.  By reworking the contrast ratio, the interface quickly delivers only pertinent information.

But that singular focus would be in vain would it not be for predictive functionality.  And here, Wells Fargo's designers did not disappoint.

A large array of banking options is available - as you would expect - on the right two-thirds of the screen.  The left third of the screen, by contrast, features common transactions gleaned from your own transaction history.  Clearly deliberate, Western readers (of Germanic and Romantic languages primarily) begin looking for key information as they scan left to right, top to bottom.

For me as a Wells Fargo customer, that means my most common cash withdrawals and most common deposits appear visually distinct in exactly the location where I begin looking.  Bottom line: Once logged in, most of my transactions require only one touch to complete.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

[If you are interested in a more detailed visual review, visit http://physicalinterface.com/view/that-design-is-money for a screen-by-screen review of the user experience from former Pentagram designer Holger Struppek, the San Francisco firm that completed the project.]

The deeper significance comes from what the user interface means for the Wells Fargo brand position.

According to a Wells Fargo spokesperson, the bank always looks for new ways to give customers faster, easier, and more convenient service.

Wells Fargo, in a critical step farther, put its money where its mouth is.  I learned from my contact that the bank tested the interface for over a year, and found its customers really took to it.  Test groups found the ATM faster, more convenient, and more personal.  Exactly what Wells Fargo and its design team wanted.

From a positioning perspective, Wells Fargo is creating a personalized experience for its automated interactions.

And that's significant.

Many bank customers struggle with a removal of "people" from the financial process.  Anecdotally, I find myself among the few people willing to use the (near empty) ATM line at the bank while most others cram teller lines for their chance to speak with a real person.

From the bank's perspective, the financial reality is stark.  People (read: tellers) are expensive.  In fact, they are a huge expense: Recruitment, training, retention, and benefits to name just a few.  Their hours are limited, and as anyone familiar with peak demand staffing understands, having enough people at the correct time proves exceedingly difficult.

Moving to technology (read: more ATMs) makes financial sense.  A significant up-front investment to be sure, ATMs can serve more people, faster, for less money per transaction.  However, increasing your reliance on technology comes at a price.  Less personalized service means less of an emotional connection with the bank and the potential for reduced brand loyalty.

It seems to me Wells Fargo wasn't willing to risk it.  They wanted it both ways.  And they were willing to invest the money to get it.

They had good reason for optimism.

If done correctly, technology interaction can engender brand loyalty.  On the (very) small screen, think Nokia versus iPhone.  Think "like" versus "love".  In other words, to make it work, the visual interface matters.

While I am not sure the Wells Fargo ATM experience compares exactly with Apple's UI genius (nor does Wells Fargo claim that it does), it does not have to.  In the banking world, providing lightning fast, intuitive transactions is exactly what people want from their ATM.

In this case, Wells Fargo has used something as commonplace as user interface - something most banks consider an afterthought - to drive a competitive wedge.

That is what is so refreshing.  That a large, conservative bank would allow itself to invest real money in something as "squishy" as good design.

Although moves like this (even if it were replicated among the entire banking sector) will not stop the industry from hemorrhaging market capitalization, Wells Fargo gives us a clear reminder that smart design is not irrelevant, is not just for looks, and is not a poor investment.

For Wells Fargo, being pretty pays dividends.