Okay Dan, I will take the bait.
Dan Hull hates logos. So he told us here. That invited comment from a number of people, including me. Dan was back at it again here, pointing out a solid post from Nathan Burke, a "web designer, marketer and consultant" who writes lawfirmblogging. Nathan's point is that if you have no competition, then a logo doesn't matter. Consider this from Nathan:
Instead, logos are just another way to be recognized. Only after a prospect has learned about your firm (and others) would a logo help. It is something that sticks in the back of their mind, associating something visual with a level of service.
Though we might not want to admit it, design is important in our purchasing decisions. While we don’t buy a product or service because we really love a logo, we may surely decide not to buy if we perceive a company to be unprofessional.
I couldn't agree more.
One comment that I often make about politics is that the partisan desire to separate issues into distinct boxes ignores the fundamental reality that life is a series overlapping and intersecting circles--a 3-D mosaic instead of the one dimensional view articulated by most politicians in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst us. We need to avoid the same pitfall in discussions like this, as Nathan's post reminds us. Logos alone count for nothing. Great client service alone counts for nothing. Like so many other areas, presenting yourself to a client, the client's choice of you as its lawyer, and the many related issues are part of a 3-D mosaic. And all parts are important.