This study aims to explore how a target audience understands, comprehends, and recognises a new logo glyph, “21”, within the context of the word “shares”. Additionally, the study will seek to gain insight into the attitudinal feedback of this audience towards the logo’s visual ambiguity, and how this impacts symbolic and conceptual understanding.
This study was initiated based on concerning feedback from stakeholders after the initial review of the logo; some stakeholders had trouble recognizing “2”, while others misinterpreted “1” for lower case letter “L” ("l") (Misidentification of alphanumeric symbols in both handwritten and computer-generated information, 2009). Several factors have been considered for this investigation, including regional differences in number handwriting between the US and Europe, recognition time (Hauk et al., 2006), repetition priming (Holcomb & Grainger, 2006), and pattern matching (Posner & Keele, 1968).
The US handwriting style of “1” is different from Europe’s, as it does not have a serif on top when handwritten, which can make it resemble “L” more easily (Misidentification of alphanumeric symbols in both handwritten and computer-generated information, 2009). To ensure accurate results, an equal number of participants from both the US and EU are needed for a recognition test. Moreover, according to research, flashing the logo for around 250 milliseconds should be sufficient for the user to recognize and comprehend it (Hauk et al., 2006).
Additionally, it has been suggested that users may be “primed” to recognize the logo because of their prior knowledge of the company, as they may have encountered its name before searching for it (Holcomb & Grainger, 2006). Finally, pattern matching may also be a factor, as people may be able to match custom glyphs with “21” correctly, especially in Europe (Posner & Keele, 1968).
People who went to school in the US and the EU will likely have different approaches to handwriting digits due to the different educational systems in each region.
To create this logo, a designer used sans serif typeface to give the logo more handwriting feel. Unlike in Europe, people who attended school in the US have been taught to handwrite digits differently, in more simplified, faster to write and easy to scan manner, therefore “1” with a serif can resemble “l” for this type of users.
Regional differences in number handwriting between the US and Europe, recognition time, repetition priming, and pattern matching will affect the rate of recognition and accuracy of the logo by users. Nevertheless, most participants are expected to be able to recognize and interpret the logo correctly due to either repetition priming or prototype matching, or both (Holcomb & Grainger, 2006; Posner & Keele, 1968). Additionally, due to its unique and modern look, the logo is likely to receive mostly favorable feedback from the participants. Moreover, research has shown that flashing the logo for around 250 milliseconds should be sufficient for users to recognize and comprehend it (Hauk et al., 2006). This hypothesis will be tested by conducting a recognition test involving an equal number of participants from the US and Europe.
To execute the study, we assembled a survey, combining demographic questions (age, country of residence and primary spoken language), an executive control task - to test the logo recognition, and attitudinal feedback - logo perception by the audience, to learn if company values such as trustworthiness and innovation are perceived as intended. For the population sample, we targeted mostly North Americans and Europeans aged 18-75, with interests in banking/finance/investments, and collected 72 responses in total (original target was at least 40 participants based on the reference from Nielsen/Norman Group).
The instructions given to the participants for the executive task were as follows: The link below will bring you to a short video. If you can, try to watch the video just one time. Please focus your attention on the white circle in the middle of the screen. After you are finished watching the video please write all of the symbols, numbers, letters, words that you were able to capture from the video.
For the attitude questions, participants were asked to rate the logo on two metrics: trustworthiness and innovation, on a five-point scale ranging from “a great deal” to “not at all”. With the results of this survey, the hypothesis will be tested to determine if participants from different regions, with different levels of experience, are able to recognize and interpret the logo correctly due to either repetition priming or prototype matching, or both.
The executive task of the survey achieved a success rate of 72%, with 51% (37) of the users fully (100%) successful in recognizing and comprehending “21Shares”, while 21% (15) made one mistake. Of those, 12 out of 15 had missed or failed to recognize the “1”. 10 out of 15 who had made mistakes were non-native English speakers. 4% (3) made 3 or more mistakes, all of which were non-native English speakers or did not reside in countries where English is widely spoken. 7% (8) were able to recognize only “2” or “21”, and the results of these outliers may be caused by environmental and/or technology-related factors.
As for the attitudinal feedback, 26% (19) of respondents described the logo as trustworthy, with 13 out of 19 being between 18 and 35 years of age. 47% (34) considered the logo moderately trustworthy, yet many of the same respondents expressed enthusiasm for the logo’s innovation. 41% of the surveyed sample viewed the logo as innovative, and 21% (15) described the logo as such, with another 20% (27) considering the logo moderately innovative. Overall, the attitudinal feedback was positive, with a major portion of the sample indicating favorable reviews.
This study allowed us to validate the hypothesis that most participants will be able to recognize and interpret the logo correctly due to either repetition priming or prototype matching, or both, with a success rate of 72%. Participants were mostly favorable towards the logo and its unique, modern look, with 73% considering it trustworthy and 41% considering it innovative. A higher number of those who expressed favor towards the logo were aged 18-35, which may be reasoned by the fact that younger generations who have grown up in the age of technology and gadgets may associate the simple, utilitarian, technological look of the logo more relatable than traditional, more quaint logos.
Hauk, O., Davis, M. H., Ford, M., Pulvermüller, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2006). The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1383–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.048
Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the Time Course of Visual Word Recognition: An Event-related Potential Investigation using Masked Repetition Priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 1631–1643.https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.10.1631
Posner, M. I., & Keele, S. W. (1968). On the genesis of abstract ideas. Journal of experimental psychology, 77(3), 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025953