Types of logos: lettering, monogram, emblem, combined sign
Lettering is not a type of logo, but a technique of drawing letters
Here confusion occurs most often, and almost all articles in the top ignore it. Lettering is not a category of logos on par with a monogram or emblem, but a technique of execution. When a designer draws letters by hand, each letter becomes unique: it may not match the shape of the neighboring letter, the line thickness may vary within a single word, and proportions are adjusted to the overall brand image, not to a font grid.
The difference from calligraphy is fundamental. Calligraphy is written with one continuous hand movement, letters are connected into a stream. Lettering is drawn with separate strokes — several movements for each letter, as in an illustration. Because of this, lettering is closer to graphic design, while calligraphy is closer to writing. The Coca-Cola logo is executed in a technique close to calligraphy, whereas many crafts and food brands use real lettering with individually outlined letters.
A textual logo (wordmark) is a separate category based on a finished or slightly modified font: Google, VISA, FedEx. The letters there follow a unified font system rather than being redrawn from scratch. Therefore, lettering can be a method of executing a textual logo, but not vice versa — not every wordmark is lettering, and not every lettering becomes a company logo.
A monogram and a letter acronym: two different tools
There is no unified opinion in open sources here either, although the difference is palpable. The lettermark logo solves a simple task — it shortens a long or inconvenient-to-perceive name: IBM, NASA, MTS. The letters remain letters, are read as an abbreviation, and the goal is to simplify pronunciation and memorization, not to create a new visual image.
A monogram goes further: the letters interweave, overlay one another, or form a complete figure that ceases to be read as a simple set of symbols. A classic example is the London Symphony Orchestra logo, where the letters L, S, and O form the silhouette of a conductor with a baton. This is no longer an abbreviation but a standalone sign.
| Criterion | Lettermark | Monogram |
|---|---|---|
| Task | To shorten a long name | To create an indivisible visual symbol |
| Letter readability | Letters are read separately | Letters merge into a unified image |
| Examples | IBM, NASA, MTS, HP | LSO (London Symphony Orchestra), Chanel (CC) |
| When it works | The company name is long or difficult to pronounce | A status symbol, recognizable without words is needed |
The conclusion is simple: if the letters can be read individually — it's an abbreviation. If you have to 'decipher' them like a riddle — you're looking at a monogram.
Emblem: why a coat of arms is not a good app icon
An emblem is historically built according to heraldic principles — text and graphics are enclosed in a unified frame, shield, circle, or ribbon, like coats of arms, seals, or badges. Starbucks, Harley-Davidson, most university logos — classic emblems. The problem begins where such a sign needs to be scaled down.
Let us imagine a real situation: the brand has a detailed logo with small elements inside a circle — thin lines, text along the contour, and an ornament. It reads normally on a business card. But when transferred to a favicon 16×16 pixels or a mobile app icon, the following happens:
- thin lines merge and turn into a gray blob;
- text along the contour becomes illegible already at 32 pixels;
- internal details (stars, ornament, a small figure in the center) visually disappear;
- it becomes necessary to create a separate simplified version of the mark specifically for small formats — that is, essentially a second logo.
That is why large brands with emblems maintain two versions of their logo: the full version — for packaging, signage, and print media — and the abbreviated version (usually the central element without surrounding text) — for digital formats. Starbucks in the digital environment uses the silhouette of a mermaid without the outer ring and text — this is a forced solution to the very problem of scalability, not a redesign for the sake of fashion.
Case: how transitioning to a combined logo boosted the bank's recognizability by 23%
A good example of why the combined format even exists — a rebranding of one large bank that previously used a clean text-only logo without a graphic symbol. The bank's name was long, there was no recognizable visual anchor, and in social media, the app, and ATMs the brand looked 'like text,' without a memorable image.
After the rebranding, the bank added a graphic symbol next to the name — a classic combined scheme. Six months later, measurements showed that brand recognizability increased by 23%. The mechanism here is not magical but explainable: a combined logo works on the principle of a dual memory anchor. Graphics grabs attention and conveys emotion faster than text, while the text next to it conveys rational information — the specific name. The brain remembers a pair of 'image plus word' better than text alone, especially during brief contact — in a social media feed or on a banner.
This is confirmed by the overall statistics: more than 70% of companies from the Fortune 500 list use exactly the combined format. For comparison, only about 6% of companies use a logo without text, built purely on graphics — and this is a conscious choice by brands that are ready to invest a large advertising budget and spend years ensuring that the audience learns to associate the symbol with the name without a label.
Symbol or emblem: how to choose when both options contain graphics and text
The question is legitimate because visually they sometimes overlap: in a symbolic (combined) logo, the graphics and text exist separately and can be used independently — the Nike symbol lives on its own without the word Nike next to it. An emblem’s text and graphics are physically merged into one indivisible composition, inscribed within a common contour.
A practical criterion for selection is whether or not you ever need to use the graphic element separately from the name. If yes — choose the symbolic (combined) version, where the icon over time can 'detach' from the text, as happened with Nike, Apple, Starbucks. If brand integrity, the sense of authenticity, status, craftsmanship, or tradition matters — for example, for craft production, an educational institution, or a club — an emblem works better precisely because it is not divided into parts.
The brand journey: when a logo changes as the brand grows, and typical mistakes of newcomers
A logo does not have to remain the same type forever. A common brand growth scenario looks like this:
- At the start — a combined logo: text and symbol side by side, because the audience does not yet know the brand, and a single symbol without a label is not considered sufficient.
- As recognition accumulates, the symbol begins to be used independently in social networks, on packaging, in the app, while the full version with text remains on the website and in official documents.
- At the mature stage, a brand may transition to a purely symbolic mark without text — but this is only available to companies with a multi-year advertising budget and constant presence, so only a few, not 70% of companies using the combined format, take this path.
A typical mistake of newcomers is choosing an emblem instead of a combined mark simply because the emblem looks 'more solid' and 'more expensive.' At the start, an emblem has two drawbacks: it scales worse in the digital environment (see the favicon issue above) and it is indivisible — you cannot extract just the graphical part for an application icon without losing meaning. The second common mistake is the opposite: a young brand takes a clean graphic symbol without text, copying the logic of Nike or Apple, forgetting that these companies arrived at such a format after decades of development and with huge budgets, not from the first day.
Lettering is not a type of logo, but a technique of drawing letters
Here confusion occurs most often, and almost all articles in the top ignore it. Lettering is not a category of logos on par with a monogram or emblem, but a technique of execution. When a designer draws letters by hand, each letter becomes unique: it may not match the shape of the neighboring letter, the line thickness may vary within a single word, and proportions are adjusted to the overall brand image, not to a font grid.
The difference from calligraphy is fundamental. Calligraphy is written with one continuous hand movement, letters are connected into a stream. Lettering is drawn with separate strokes — several movements for each letter, as in an illustration. Because of this, lettering is closer to graphic design, while calligraphy is closer to writing. The Coca-Cola logo is executed in a technique close to calligraphy, whereas many crafts and food brands use real lettering with individually outlined letters.
A textual logo (wordmark) is a separate category based on a finished or slightly modified font: Google, VISA, FedEx. The letters there follow a unified font system rather than being redrawn from scratch. Therefore, lettering can be a method of executing a textual logo, but not vice versa — not every wordmark is lettering, and not every lettering becomes a company logo.
A monogram and a letter acronym: two different tools
There is no unified opinion in open sources here either, although the difference is palpable. The lettermark logo solves a simple task — it shortens a long or inconvenient-to-perceive name: IBM, NASA, MTS. The letters remain letters, are read as an abbreviation, and the goal is to simplify pronunciation and memorization, not to create a new visual image.
A monogram goes further: the letters interweave, overlay one another, or form a complete figure that ceases to be read as a simple set of symbols. A classic example is the London Symphony Orchestra logo, where the letters L, S, and O form the silhouette of a conductor with a baton. This is no longer an abbreviation but a standalone sign.
| Criterion | Lettermark | Monogram |
|---|---|---|
| Task | To shorten a long name | To create an indivisible visual symbol |
| Letter readability | Letters are read separately | Letters merge into a unified image |
| Examples | IBM, NASA, MTS, HP | LSO (London Symphony Orchestra), Chanel (CC) |
| When it works | The company name is long or difficult to pronounce | A status symbol, recognizable without words is needed |
The conclusion is simple: if the letters can be read individually — it's an abbreviation. If you have to 'decipher' them like a riddle — you're looking at a monogram.
Emblem: why a coat of arms is not a good app icon
An emblem is historically built according to heraldic principles — text and graphics are enclosed in a unified frame, shield, circle, or ribbon, like coats of arms, seals, or badges. Starbucks, Harley-Davidson, most university logos — classic emblems. The problem begins where such a sign needs to be scaled down.
Let us imagine a real situation: the brand has a detailed logo with small elements inside a circle — thin lines, text along the contour, and an ornament. It reads normally on a business card. But when transferred to a favicon 16×16 pixels or a mobile app icon, the following happens:
- thin lines merge and turn into a gray blob;
- text along the contour becomes illegible already at 32 pixels;
- internal details (stars, ornament, a small figure in the center) visually disappear;
- it becomes necessary to create a separate simplified version of the mark specifically for small formats — that is, essentially a second logo.
That is why large brands with emblems maintain two versions of their logo: the full version — for packaging, signage, and print media — and the abbreviated version (usually the central element without surrounding text) — for digital formats. Starbucks in the digital environment uses the silhouette of a mermaid without the outer ring and text — this is a forced solution to the very problem of scalability, not a redesign for the sake of fashion.
Case: how transitioning to a combined logo boosted the bank's recognizability by 23%
A good example of why the combined format even exists — a rebranding of one large bank that previously used a clean text-only logo without a graphic symbol. The bank's name was long, there was no recognizable visual anchor, and in social media, the app, and ATMs the brand looked 'like text,' without a memorable image.
After the rebranding, the bank added a graphic symbol next to the name — a classic combined scheme. Six months later, measurements showed that brand recognizability increased by 23%. The mechanism here is not magical but explainable: a combined logo works on the principle of a dual memory anchor. Graphics grabs attention and conveys emotion faster than text, while the text next to it conveys rational information — the specific name. The brain remembers a pair of 'image plus word' better than text alone, especially during brief contact — in a social media feed or on a banner.
This is confirmed by the overall statistics: more than 70% of companies from the Fortune 500 list use exactly the combined format. For comparison, only about 6% of companies use a logo without text, built purely on graphics — and this is a conscious choice by brands that are ready to invest a large advertising budget and spend years ensuring that the audience learns to associate the symbol with the name without a label.
Symbol or emblem: how to choose when both options contain graphics and text
The question is legitimate because visually they sometimes overlap: in a symbolic (combined) logo, the graphics and text exist separately and can be used independently — the Nike symbol lives on its own without the word Nike next to it. An emblem’s text and graphics are physically merged into one indivisible composition, inscribed within a common contour.
A practical criterion for selection is whether or not you ever need to use the graphic element separately from the name. If yes — choose the symbolic (combined) version, where the icon over time can 'detach' from the text, as happened with Nike, Apple, Starbucks. If brand integrity, the sense of authenticity, status, craftsmanship, or tradition matters — for example, for craft production, an educational institution, or a club — an emblem works better precisely because it is not divided into parts.
The brand journey: when a logo changes as the brand grows, and typical mistakes of newcomers
A logo does not have to remain the same type forever. A common brand growth scenario looks like this:
- At the start — a combined logo: text and symbol side by side, because the audience does not yet know the brand, and a single symbol without a label is not considered sufficient.
- As recognition accumulates, the symbol begins to be used independently in social networks, on packaging, in the app, while the full version with text remains on the website and in official documents.
- At the mature stage, a brand may transition to a purely symbolic mark without text — but this is only available to companies with a multi-year advertising budget and constant presence, so only a few, not 70% of companies using the combined format, take this path.
A typical mistake of newcomers is choosing an emblem instead of a combined mark simply because the emblem looks 'more solid' and 'more expensive.' At the start, an emblem has two drawbacks: it scales worse in the digital environment (see the favicon issue above) and it is indivisible — you cannot extract just the graphical part for an application icon without losing meaning. The second common mistake is the opposite: a young brand takes a clean graphic symbol without text, copying the logic of Nike or Apple, forgetting that these companies arrived at such a format after decades of development and with huge budgets, not from the first day.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
