BENGALURU: What’s in a logo? A lot, say many after the design of e-commerce brand Myntra has created a stir on social media.
This, after a complaint from Naaz Patel, founder of NGO Avesta Foundation, who deemed the logo offensive to women, demanding its removal.
This has now sparked a debate about objectifying women in brand graphics.
While one group is debating this, another is wondering if the complainant has triggered an unwarranted issue out of the logo.
Harish Bijoor, a brand specialist, says, “The logo is a very intricate part of a brand and forms a critical part of the brand identity kit. When a logo needs to be changed, it is certainly pressure on the brand. It is a shake-up to the identity of the brand. However, this kind of tumult on social media has put Myntra on the backfoot. The logo has been around for five years and nobody has seen anything wrong with it. But with the controversy, the sales will boom for Myntra rather than go the other way.”
Experts in the advertising field also believe that graphic designers value art and creativity to elevate the brand image, but not to hurt the sentiments of society in any way.
Malavika Harita, former CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi, says, “Perception is everything. But people have gone a little overboard this time. When you design a logo, you look at the graphics and the visual appeal. Logos need to be looked at on these lines. You don’t nitpick and create unwarranted negative attention. I don’t think the creator of this logo had anything like this in mind. Generally, when brands receive such criticism, they back off and think through it. If Myntra feels the logo is right, they needn’t change it.”
Brinda Adige, an activist, believes that the right to critique comes with responsibility.
“There is a need for putting things across in a dignified way when something is offensive or derogatory. The complainant need not digress and stoop when he/she wants to raise an issue,” she says.
As the brand is executing a new logo, many netizens are all over the letter ‘M’, citing its resemblance to intimate parts of women. Srilatha Batliwala, women’s rights researcher and scholar says, “When seen together as one word, there is nothing inherently offensive in the logo. But seen individually, the letter ‘M’ could be viewed as offensive. It is worrying though that any artistic / design representation can be viewed as offensive by someone, somewhere, and this could promote an unhealthy kind of public censorship and curb creative expression across the board.”
According to brand designer Pallavi Nopany, shadows and colours should also be considered. “Going by this recent incident, designers have to be careful. It’s always good to send the logo to a few people to see if there is anything offensive,” she says.
(Inputs from Monika Monalisa)