> It's nearly impossible to develop a healthy brand that doesn't have a recognizable logo. Is Proctor&Gamble a healthy brand? Is its logo recognizable, were th

> It's nearly impossible to develop a healthy brand that doesn't have a recognizable logo. Is Proctor&Gamble a healthy brand? Is its logo recognizable, were the big "P&G" not it? (As another example, I recognize the Nestlé name brand, but don't recognize its logo with the three birds and the nest.) If it isn't a healthy brand, how would you describe the Proctor&Gamble brand? Unhealthy? And how would changing that brand improve things? I ask because it seems that healthy retail brand ends up with a recognizable logo in large part simply because so many people know it, making it hard to disentangle how important the logo is vs. the slogan, the product name, its effectiveness, and other properties. And it would seem those retail brand principles apply less to, for example, multi-national conglomerates. To be clear, that doesn't mean a recognized logo won't help a programming language advocacy and support group. I'm instead pointing out that I can think of quite a few seemingly healthy brands with forgettable logos, while you suggest that's nearly impossible. (To be doubly clear, it's nearly impossible to establish a well-known brand in the first place, either with or without a recognizable logo.)