Business Networking !

One of the most important marketing tools is a logo. Your logo should be eye catching.First impressions are paramount. An appealing and professional logo will help build confidence in a company and brand.

We are often asked: What makes a good logo? It is important that several factors be considered in answering this question. What is the purpose of the logo? What mediums will this logo be published in? What is the intended audience for the logo? What sort of image does the company intend to protray?

Product Conveyance

It is recommended that logo includes product meaning. For example, if you are an estate agent, incorporating an illustration of a house with your logo would help convey your business to customers. A potential customer searching for a property who happens to be browsing the web or a catalog will make an instant association with your logo. From a commercial and marketing perspective we can’t recommend using this technique enough.

Beautiful Logo Design

Because of the high contrast and high impact nature of logo design it is essential that they are beautiful. The objective of good logo design is to wow your customers. A logo Is For Life.

A logo is the foremost important aspect of company and product branding. The association between product and logo is what companies build reputations and a following on. Hence the reason ‘a logo is for life’.

A good logo must fulfill three essential requirements: it must be appropriate, eye pleasing, and it must reflect the company’s credibility.

No, it’s not just your imagination. The pace of change really is speeding up in organizations all over the world. At least, that’s the opinion of 82% of respondents to the 2006 Agility and Resiliency Survey, a global poll of organizations commissioned by the American Management Association (AMA) and conducted by the Human Resource Institute (HRI).

It isn’t only the pace of change that’s increasing, either. Change itself is undergoing a transformation, becoming increasingly disruptive. About seven out of 10 of the 1,472 respondents said that their organizations had experienced disruptive change – that is, severe surprises or unanticipated shocks – over the previous 12 months. Although 29% said it amounted to only minor disruption and organizational impact, about 40% characterized such disruptions as affecting core operations, necessitating a major shift in strategy, challenging the overall vision and mission, or even threatening long-term viability and existence.

When asked to compare disruption in their organizations today with disruption over the previous five years, about 37% said that their organizations had experienced more shocks and surprises, compared with only 19% who said there were fewer and less-frequent shocks and surprises.

It’s not likely to get any easier, either – at least not in the short term. That’s because some companies like it this way, and they’re often the ones setting the pace in their industries. The survey asked responding companies about their market share, profitability and competitiveness. The AMA/HRI analysis found that the higher-performing companies were more likely than their lower-performing counterparts to say that they see change “as an opportunity” and that they like to “shake things up.” They’re also more likely to anticipate and plan for change before it happens or actually induce change and force others to react.

In short, a significant proportion of organizations seem to gain a competitive advantage by ratcheting up the speed and even the disruption of change. After all, what’s “disruptive” for one organization might seem perfectly manageable for another. It’s all about how agile and resilient the organization is.

It’s no surprise that the AMA/HRI survey found that higher performers tend to be both more agile and more resilient than lower performers. The survey defined agility as “the ability to move quickly, decisively, and effectively in anticipating, initiating, and taking advantage of change” and resiliency as “the ability to absorb, react to, and even reinvent who you are as a consequence of change.” By increasing agility and resiliency, companies are able to boost their ability to manage change – that is, what the change literature often calls “adaptive capacity.”

What does all of this mean in practice? For one thing, compared with their lower-performing counterparts, higher performers view themselves as having superior change abilities at the individual, team, and organizational levels. At the individual level, for example, people in higher-performing organizations are seen as being better able to cope with pressure and stress, better at making sense of ambiguous and uncertain conditions, and better able to “see the big picture,” taking a systems view of situations.

At the team level, a similar pattern emerges. Among high- performing organizations, teams tend to be more open to change, more likely to act as active learners and more effectively integrated into key decision-making processes. At the organizational level, higher performers are better than lower performers at actively and widely scanning for new information about what’s going on, quickly taking advantage of opportunities and expanding external alliances and partnerships.

Higher performers are also more likely to engage in certain practices that improve their responses to change. The most widely cited of these practices was training to improve managers’ change-management skills, followed by improved communication of organizational values/mission/vision, the establishment and development of talent pools, and training that’s geared toward improving employees’ perception and handling of change.