#Yahoo! Answers: Answers and Comments for Which is better branding an icon like nike swoosh or a brand mascot like Geico?


Which is better branding an icon like nike swoosh or a brand mascot like Geico?


We're considering branding our new company with a mascot like Geico lizard or Redbull. Others feel an icon like Nike swoosh or Logofont like Google is better. Looking for any feedback that can help decide.
* 2 years ago


+ Block User
I believe an icon is better because it will last a lot longer. Meaning that mascots sometimes get forgotten. The Gieco lizard is beginning to lose it's grip because people got tired of it. And who was that company with the duck? Think back and see how many mascots you can remember compared to icons.


I believe an icon is better because it will last a lot longer. Meaning that mascots sometimes get forgotten. The Gieco lizard is beginning to lose it's grip because people got tired of it. And who was that company with the duck? Think back and see how many mascots you can remember compared to icons.
Union 76 changed it's revolving ball which was sort of like a mascot, to a flat icon. Many such examples can be found. I say stick to an icon.


I believe an icon is better because it will last a lot longer. Meaning that mascots sometimes get forgotten. The Gieco lizard is beginning to lose it's grip because people got tired of it. And who was that company with the duck? Think back and see how many mascots you can remember compared to icons.
Union 76 changed it's revolving ball which was sort of like a mascot, to a flat icon. Many such examples can be found. I say stick to an icon.


Union 76 changed it's revolving ball which was sort of like a mascot, to a flat icon. Many such examples can be found. I say stick to an icon.
+ 2 years ago


- Logo (the graphic representation of the name)
- Isotype (the graphic representation of an object, that's an icon. Example, McDonald's "M" or Nike's swoosh)
- Chromatism (your brand colors)