Abstract
This is a semiotic analysis of the Royal Dutch Shell logo (the Pecten—scallop shell). More specifically, we looked at the evolutionary examination of the corporation’s logo from its inception in 1904 until the newest version of the graphic emblem today. This semiotic analysis has two chief purposes. First, the internal meaning of the logo as a sign is analyzed, using Peirce’s three-part model of signification (that is, representamen–object–interpretant) which justifies the relationships existing between the sign and its object. Second, an examination of the relationships between the sign and its external referents is presented. An important conclusion is that, to be effective, the Shell logo has to be recognizable, easy to perceive and understandable. It has also been streamlined over the years to portray the true values of the company. For this reason, corporate identity tends to be evolutionary in nature.
Introduction
In this article, we conducted a semiotic analysis of the Royal Dutch Shell logo (the Pecten—scallop shell). More specifically, we looked at the evolutionary examination of the corporation’s logo from its inception in 1904 until the newest version of the graphic emblem today. Put simply, we followed the historical order of the logo modifications made by Shell. The semiotic framework used is Charles Sanders Peirce’s (1958 [1931]) semiotic model. Peircean semiotics consists of a three-part paradigm of signification: the representamen (that is, the sign itself), the object (or ‘referent’—what the sign refers to) and the interpretant (that is, the effect on the viewer or the viewer’s interpretation).
This semiotic analysis has two chief purposes. First, the internal meaning of the logo as a sign is analyzed, using Peirce’s three-part model of signification which justifies the relationships existing between the sign and its object. Second, an examination of the relationships between the sign and its external referents is presented. An important conclusion is that, to be effective, the Shell logo had to be streamlined over the years so it could portray the true values of the company and be perceived more easily. For this reason, corporate identity tends to be evolutionary in nature.
This article begins with a rationale that explains why this semiotic analysis was done. Then, it proceeds to describe logos in the corporate world and their representative power. This section is followed by Peircean perspectives on semiotics. Of particular relevance are descriptions of the concepts of representamen, object and interpretant. What comes subsequently is the heart of this article: the semiotic analysis of Shell’s logo, drawing on an evolutionary examination (using Peirce’s three-part framework of signification) of the Shell logo from 1904 until today. This analysis ends with a discussion that also offers practical implications and suggestions for future research.
Rationale for Conducting this Semiotic Analysis
It would be too simplistic or ‘one-dimensional’ to restrict our analysis of logos to its daily use by a corporation. As Coombe (1998) contends, it is necessary to study ‘multiple moments’ (p. 17) in the existence of a logo. Shell is a long-established key player on the world stage. Over the last century, its logo has been modified about ten times. A 1998 study sponsored by the corporation found that the Shell Pecten, the actual scallop shell created in 1904, is the world’s favourite oil company logo (Kinni & Ries 2001). Shell’s objective to give a successful visual display to its corporate name has been achieved (after about 10 logo modifications). Now, it would be interesting to find out what semiotic strategies Shell CEOs have used to modify their logo so successfully.
Understanding the different factors that impact viewers’ perceptions of the Shell logo—those that have helped create its corporate identity—lends itself to a semiotic analysis. There are several reasons for adopting a semiotic approach. First, within the framework of this analysis, semiotics shares similarities with corporate identity theory. The theory describes what a company is through its corporate identity. It explains how ‘an audience could recognize the company and distinguish it from others’ (Abratt 1989, p. 74). Corporate identity theory is akin to semiotics because, as Van Rekom (1997) explains, it is central to the graphic and communication processes of a corporation.
Second, the logo is the most important semiotic intermediary for meaning within a corporation’s verbal and visual promotion tactics (Heilbrunn 1998a, 1998b; Lipovetsky & Roux 2003; Scott 1993; Zhang 1997). From a commercial standpoint, meaning is essential and enigmatic (Mick, Burroughs, Hetzel, & Brannen 2004). An important question is, ‘What is meaning in logo design and perception?’ Semiotics addresses why meaning takes place in logo design and perception. Semiotics does this by emphasizing sign structures and sign processes vis-à-vis objects or observable facts. Yet, in spite of its persuasive role in marketing and consumption, meaning is still one of the most convoluted phenomena to theorize and investigate (Nöth 1990; Ogden & Richards 1923; Schirato 1998).
Third, most analyses of logos concentrate on awareness, recognition or attribution (for example, Siegel 1989; Zmuda 2008). Semiotics, however, provides additional insights into understanding its functioning and its power to effectively represent that for which the graphic emblem of the corporation was intended. As such, a corporation’s logo is a unique sign because it possesses both a representative function and a pragmatic function associated to its commercial value. In this sense, it predicts a reaction from the receiver with respect to recognition, awareness, liking and so forth (Heilbrunn 1997). The logo’s status—that of a sign—is multifunctional and can be ambiguous. A semiotic approach to logos allows scholars to determine what gives logos the status of signs and to examine the laws of their relationships. Therefore, it becomes crucial to comprehend the functioning of this particular sign.
Fourth, a unique, valuable characteristic of semiotics is its considerable panoply of interrelated concepts for interpreting signs and explaining meaning in a methodical fashion. The sign is a flexible, atomic construct; it serves as the vital core of communication and meaning. The sign is germane to any physical or non-physical stimulus related to any human sense or faculty. From this vantage point, semiotics deals with the complexity of meaning at all levels of analysis through various taxonomies of signs and meaning, frameworks of sign-meaning processes and analytical methods (Mick et al. 2004). The semiotic model used in this analysis is the one articulated by Charles Sanders Peirce—not the one by Ferdinand de Saussure.
Saussure’s (1986 [1916]) model can be applied to language-based sign systems. His approach is grounded in linguistics. For Saussure, meaning is mostly about sense and semantics (primarily symbolism). Hence, the link between the sign and what it stands for is made by convention. It is arbitrary (Moriarty 2002). However, non-verbal systems such as logos are more appropriate for analysis using Peirce’s model. The reason is that, in addition to the arbitrary, Peirce’s three-part paradigm of signification (that is, representamen–object–interpretant) incorporates other systems of signifying, such as mimesis and evidence (clues and cues), which are essential to visuals. In particular, Peirce’s three-part framework emphasizes the concept of interpretation, which is the foundation for making sense of logos. Peirce (1958 [1931]) envisions meaning as both reference and sense. Meaning is a pragmatic issue; it is observable in the effect that the relation between a sign and its object has on receivers or viewers (Mick et al. 2004). The fundamental nature of Peircean semiotics, then, is a thinking process derived from inference that results in interpretation.
Description of Logos
A logo is a graphic sign or emblem used by organizations or corporations to identify themselves (Bennett 1995). The logo is one of the five elements of corporate visual identity—the other four are name, typography, colour and slogan (Silva-Rojas & Roast 2006). Logos can combine various colours, shapes, designs and pictures (McGee Lomax, & Head 1988). Corporations are immediately identified by their logo—on their buildings, signs, billboards, products, packages, boxes or advertisements (Considine & Haley 1992). Successful logos drive home their meanings in the blink of an eye. Nike’s swoosh signifies movement, McDonald’s arches shout ‘drive in’ and Ralph Lauren’s polo player symbolizes leisure class with ease (Patton 2003).
Well-designed logos speed recognition of a corporation (Peter 1989). The underlying principle is that graphics are perceived more quickly than words (Edell & Staelin 1983). Research also shows that logos can increase memory of accompanying verbal material (for example., the corporation’s name; Barrett 1985). As it is the case for other symbol systems (that is, pictures, words, numbers and language), logos are a means of transmitting and obtaining information (Alberto Fredrick, Hughes, McIntosh, & Cihak 2007). A logo, then, is a visual representation; it serves to convey the corporation’s purpose and content (Keller 1993). It can serve as a visual substitute for the personal relationship between producer and buyer.
The corporate logo is a representation; it stands for something else (for example., a corporation). A logo identifies the very corporation; it is the symbol expressing the mission and intentions of the corporation it represents (Bishop 2001). Thereby, the logo is frequently viewed as the sign of a corporation’s visual identity system (Schechter 1993). The representative power of a logo can have two different meanings: First, the logo represents, often simultaneously, entities such as corporations and brands. This representative power is associated to legitimacy. Second, the logo represents graphic aspects. This representative power is associated with analogy (Heilbrunn 1997). To understand this more in depth, we need to have a look at semiotics.
Peircean Perspectives on Semiotics
Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols, and the systems and processes of signs and symbols (Sebeok 1976). It is ‘the exchange of any messages and the system of signs that underlie them’ (Sebeok 1991, p. 60). Fiske (1990) adds the notion of meaning generation to this definition. Put another way, messages consist of signs and are transmitted through sign systems called codes. Meaning results only to the extent that the message receiver understands the code (Moriarty 2002). Semiotics functions to address the understanding of sign functions and receiver meaning processes that include motivational and affective factors (Nöth 1990). Hence, the heart of this study is on the communicative aspects of a sign—particularly the communication of a non-verbal sign.
Charles Sanders Peirce’s (1958 [1931]) semiotic framework, heavily rooted in philosophy, integrates a three-element paradigm of signification: the representamen (sign), the object (that is, the ‘referent’ or what the sign refers to) and the interpretant (the effect or interpretation of the viewer). For Peirce, semiotics is the relation of sign to object. Because he views semiotics from a cognitive-philosophical standpoint, he is keen on examining meaning interpretation and modes of cognition. Unlike Saussure (1986 [1916]), Peirce does not limit his analysis to only arbitrary codes. This is evident in his triadic ‘representamen–object–interpretant’ understanding of the sign.
Representamen
The representamen is the sign. A sign is anything that stands for something else; it stands for an object or concept (Eco 1986; Hoopes 1991). The representamen addresses a person; it creates in the mind of that person a sign that corresponds to something (Peirce 1958 [1931]). The representamen stands for an object but not in all respects. Rather, it is in reference to a type of idea (Popper, Shearmur, & Turner 2008). The representamen is that which represents the denoted object—that is, Saussure’s ‘signifier’ (Silverman 1983). A representamen is a representation, a thing that serves to represent something—as to an interpreting mind. It is a representation in the sense of something which represents (Peirce 1958 [1931]).
Peirce visualizes three types of signs: iconic, indexical and symbolic signs. Iconic signs are mimetic representations; they look like what they represent. For example, a rectangle is an icon of geometry. Indexical signs imply a physical connection or a cause and effect relationship. For example, a footprint signifies that a person has walked by and a piece of wood with a bullet hole in it means it is a gunshot. An indexical sign is evidence of something. In the symbolic sign (for example, a flag or school colours), the meaning (that is, the relation between the sign and its object) is arbitrary—as in the case of language (Peirce 1958 [1931]).
Object
The sign stands for something—its object. For Peirce (1958 [1931]), an object is anything one can think of or anything one can talk about. While Peirce’s sign corresponds to Saussure’s (1986 [1916]) signifier, his object corresponds to Saussure’s signified. The object is the concept or meaning (that is, the ‘referent’ or what the sign refers to). Let us take the example of the Soviet flag: while the signifier is the flag itself (the piece of cloth in red with a yellow hammer and sickle; that one can see and touch), the signified is what the flag represents and symbolizes (for example, communism, Leninism and Stalinism).
The representamen can only represent the object; it cannot provide acquaintance with it. Peirce distinguishes the dynamical object (the object as it is in reality) from the immediate object (the object as represented by the representamen). For example, a piece of blue paper used as a sample (= representamen) for a can of paint (= object) shows only the blue colour of the object, since it is understood that one is already acquainted with all its other characteristics (that is, covering, content, usage and so forth).
Interpretant
The interpretant is not the interpreter. Rather, the interpretant is the idea or meaning enclosed in the concept as it is decoded, or an ensuing thought that the sign creates (Hoopes 1991). The interpretant is that to which the sign represents the object. Because the interpretant is the idea or meaning that is to be decoded, the interpretant represents the effect produced by the sign in the mind of the interpreter. It is the signification or interpretation of the sign in the receiver. In other words, the representamen produces a response (that is, the interpretant) based on its relation to an object (Short 2009).
In addition, the interpretant may be placed in three different categories: (i) an immediate interpretant (that is, an interpretant as represented by the representamen), (ii) a dynamical interpretant (that is, the interpretant actually produced by the representamen) or (iii) a final interpretant (that is, the interpretant which would be produced if the representamen were correctly understood; Peirce 1958 [1931]). As we will see in this analysis, the Shell logo deals with the first two categories.
Semiotic Analysis of Royal Dutch Shell’s Logo
Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was created in 1890. It became Royal Dutch Shell in 1907 (Howarth Jonker, Sluyterman, & van Zanden 2007). By the end of the 1920s, it was already the world’s leading oil company (de Goey 2002). In 2004, the Royal Dutch Shell was present in 140 nations and had a workforce of 120,000 people (Priest 2007). Today, it remains the world’s third biggest oil company, behind Exxon-Mobil and British Petroleum. The name ‘Shell’ was used for the first time in 1891. It was the trademark for shipping kerosene to the Far East by Marcus Samuel and Company, the original founders of the Shell Corporation. At that time, each of Samuel’s tankers transporting kerosene to the Far East was named after a different shell (Henriques 1969). Both the word ‘Shell’ and the Pecten logo were created by Marcus Samuel and Company (Silver 2001).
The first Shell logo was created in 1904. Since then, it has shifted from a realistic rendering of a Pecten, or scallop shell (an actual photographic representation of it; see Figure 1), to today’s graphic representation of a bold shape with distinct red and yellow colours (Heller & Pettit 2000). Semiotics embraces logos as part of the sign system that a corporation uses for communicating with internal and external audiences (Zakia & Nadin 1987). By expressing the corporation’s identity to internal and external audiences, the Shell logo can be regarded as Royal Dutch Shell’s signature on all its materials.
The representamen of this Shell logo is the iconic logo or icotype, which is represented by a photographic image (see Figure 1). The Shell logo is an iconic sign of the mollusk character, reflecting primarily its origin in maritime areas and activities (Mick et al. 2004). There is also an iconic relation between the representamen and its pictorial object—the object ‘shell’. This representamen is an iconic sign because a topological similarity exists between a signifier and its denotatum (Heilbrunn 1997). The concept of denotatum means ‘that which is denoted’ and refers to an actual object indicated by a linguistic expression (Allan 2001). The object is also represented by a sign that is symbolic. Just like mollusks are seen in maritime areas and activities, the Shell Corporation is very active within maritime regions. This Shell logo is a visual emblem without the business name but it has a pronounced association with the activities of the corporation. The Royal Dutch Shell uses this logo as a differentiation figure to the degree that the expression plane (that is, shape, structure, typography) communicates meaning about the content plane—the corporation’s mission (O’Halloran 2005). Accordingly, the expression plane of the Shell logo, which can be seen through the description of a simple structure, is associated to a content plane that represents the mission of the corporation (Liu & O’Halloran 2009).
In addition, the object itself is represented by another type of symbolic sign: influenced by the writings of Lao-Tzu (an ancient Chinese philosopher), people in the Far East (where Shell’s founder Marcus Samuel used to ship oil) considered the shell a symbol for containing genius, like containing a unique and fine pearl (Miller, Vandome, & McBrewster 2010). The interpretant of this Shell logo is that oil (or petroleum or kerosene) is precious like the unique and fine pearl contained in the shell. Another interpretant is that, just as a shell can be found anywhere on the planet, oil can be delivered to any place on the planet. As a simple photographic representation, the Shell logo performs both a representative function, that is, it acts simultaneously as an icon and as a symbol, and a pragmatic function—the logo itself acts as a signal which generates a certain reaction on the part of the receiver. Yet, the logo is not an ‘image sign’, to the degree that it was not created to cause the viewer to be emotionally sensitive or arouse intense feelings on the part of the receiver.
Between 1915 and 1948, the Royal Dutch Shell became so successful that its activities did not only include petroleum but they also included natural gas and other petrochemicals. In regards to its logo, colours were added, with either a yellow shell with a red background or a red shell with a yellow background. The logo did not get its first red and yellow colours on the same shell until 1948. Its name was also added inside the logo (see Figure 2). For Shell, the principles of colour mixing were a key semiotic gesture. Not only did red and yellow help Shell become prominent on the world stage, but they also represented—and still represent—the colours of the Spanish flag.
The colours red and yellow first appeared during the construction of Shell’s service stations in California (Howarth et al. 2007). Owing to California’s early Spanish connections, the red and yellow colours of Spain were chosen (Howarth et al. 2007). Many early Californian settlers were born in Spain (Jackson & Castillo 1996). The symbolic connection was timely. By displaying Spanish colours, the Royal Dutch Shell anticipated that an emotional bond would take form (Knobil 2001). Peirce’s semiotics encompasses the primary category of meaning in terms of similarity between sign and object—what is called ‘iconic relations’. In this case, iconic qualities include colour (for example, redness and yellowness indicating the colours of Spain).
Before the advent of fax machines and the Internet, most logos included slight details that would end up being blurred at small sizes. As from the 1950s, the Shell logo became increasingly simplified—the goal was to increase recognition and memorability (Silver 2001). The 1971 Shell logo (see Figure 2) was crafted by French-born Raymond Loewy, who also designed logos for BP and Exxon (Wright 2006). The Shell logo is now a red and yellow shell which, again, functions as the representamen—the sign itself (Peirce 1958 [1931]). This representamen is associated with two different objects. First, it is associated to an indexical relation of contiguity to the ‘Shell’ corporation. Indeed, the Royal Dutch Shell is indexically denoted as the sender of the message in every expression and appearance of its logo, from the one seen on Shell-sponsored Formula Ones to those seen on the products sold in its multiple stores. As the Shell logo can only be seen through its application on a support medium, this logo functions as an index of both the corporation and the products and services it offers (Heilbrunn 1997). The Shell logo, then, is not autoreferential. Rather, it conveys information about the corporation it represents— and all the things associated with it. The logo sends a message in lieu of the sender, as by proxy. A logo’s role is phatic because its first purpose is to create contact between the sender which the logo represents (the corporation) and a receiver (its consumers; Jakobson 1960).
Second, the representative power of the shell logo is founded upon an indexical relation of contiguity between the representamen and its object. The strength and soundness of this representative power hinge on the interpretant of such a relation. Put another way, the question is whether choosing the Pecten to represent the company is reasonable or justifiable. From this vantage point, the indexical function of the logo is, in essence, grounded on its legitimacy. In a similar vein, the question arises as to whether the logo is able to successfully act as an identity sign of the Royal Dutch Shell (Heilbrunn 1997). The indexical function of its logo gains more legitimacy and stability if the representamen follows the corporation’s identity completely (or very closely). Identity consists of a series of identifying messages that the corporation attempts to transmit by its transfer in a figurative and symbolic manner (De Geus 1997).
When taking the recognition aspect of the Royal Dutch Shell into account, the Shell logo has proved to become a success and has been continuously employed to enhance sales promotions and build up marketing campaigns for its business. Its logo is a remarkable benefit that constitutes a progressively communicational venture made by the corporation. Indeed, its logo has been a ‘progressive venture’. Royal Dutch Shell had to adapt its logo about ten times, as times were changing. Instead of building our argument on the free play of signifiers proposed by Baudrillard (1983), we contend that Royal Dutch Shell’s logo changes are designed for effect.
Unlike the 1904 version of the Pecten (that is, Shell logo), the representamen of the new Shell logo (see Figure 2) is a representation of a shell that is more evident, using more scallop-like features defining the visual identity system of Shell. This can be seen, essentially, in the colour code—yellow as a primary identity colour and red as a secondary identity one. Such an iconic relation bases the representative act of the representamen in its figurative feature (that is, the object). This iconic relation is based on shared pictorial codes of representation and symbolization that both the sender (Royal Dutch Shell) and the receiver (the viewers and consumers) understand. That is the reason why a corporation like Coca-Cola has to modify its logo when times are changing or when selling its products in cultures with different linguistic codes (Heilbrunn 1997).
Until the 1980s, Shell’s business in the US was significantly independent. Its stock (‘Shell Oil’) was being traded on the NYSE and its running was not controlled by the Group’s central office in The Hague (in the Netherlands). An unusual corollary of this independence was that the US version of the Shell logo was a little different from the one used in the rest of the world. In the 1990s, Shell Oil’s independence began to decrease progressively as The Hague-headquartered parent company decided to control the US business directly. The logo previously used in the US is now used everywhere (Howarth et al. 2007). Today, the Shell logo and exact company colours (red and yellow) can be seen on all petrol stations all over the world (de Goey 2002). In regards to the Pecten, the red and yellow colours themselves have been streamlined over the years. More particularly, in 1995, a new vivid, fresh, and consumer-friendly type of Shell red and Shell yellow were brought to the logo in order to initiate the corporation’s new visual brand identity. It differentiated Shell pump stations from those of its rivals (Howarth et al. 2007). The logo became so familiar that, by 1999, it eventually appeared without the corporation’s name to recognize it (Wright 2006), as shown in Figure 3.
Familiarity—that is, everyone knows the Shell logo—has done tremendous good to Royal Dutch Shell because it can improve influence or affect. This testifies to the reality that logo recognition happens at two levels. First, viewers must remember having seen the logo before (recognition). Second, the logo must be associated to the correct corporation (recall). Therefore, assisting recall of the logo starts with choosing a logo that can be effortlessly recognized and that produces a feeling of familiarity (Zajonc 1968).
Until 1971, the word ‘Shell’ was inside the logo. Then, as the company became exceptionally popular and profitable, the company CEOs felt it was not necessary to make the Shell name appear inside the logo; they made it appear underneath it (see Figure 2). By the end of the 1990s, the corporation was such a household name that the ‘Shell’ name was completely dropped (see Figure 3). As Simanzhenkov and Idem (2003) noted, this semiotic move indicated a ‘silent, but strong sign of Shell’ (p. 207), that it had reached its zenith. Today, Shell remains one of the few brands around the world that does not need a name associated with it—only the Pecten. That is the power of semiotics.
The objective of the Royal Dutch Shell has always remained the same: to help the consumer identify the oil company with ease. As explained before, the multiple Shell logo changes have been created for effect. They epitomize the corporation’s efforts to convey the ideal ‘intended message’. Because the logo is meant to be unique, there is most likely no free equivalent. Any surrogate that is not an imitative work would fail to transmit the meaning intended, would taint or lie about the corporation’s image or would fall short of the very logo’s purpose of identification.
For Royal Dutch Shell, the reliability of its business mission is illustrated through a shell logo that must always be uniform. The Pecten is a flexible, atomic sign for Royal Dutch Shell. It is proof to consumers that quality is a feature that can be expected from the corporation, no matter where the store is to be found (Gregory 2002). Research in social psychology has demonstrated that consumers perceive logos as reliable signs when the latter express what the corporation wants to express about itself (Green & Loveluck 1994). Presently, the Shell logo is used by all of the corporation’s major branches: Royal Dutch Shell (the main corporation), Shell Oil Company (the US-based subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell) and Shell Canada. Because of the uniformity of the logo, there is only one Shell, whose philosophy is global (Cortada and Woods 2000). The Shell logo is very efficient because it has fulfilled its concern (or objective) of presence. It is recognizable and familiar. It elicits a shared meaning in the larger public and stimulates positive affect (Cohen 1986; Peter 1989; Robertson 1989; Vartorella 1990).
Discussion, Implications and Future Directions
What this analysis has demonstrated is that the communicative modifications of a corporation, through its logo, tend to take a long time to achieve. Royal Dutch Shell’s Pecten has become one of the greatest corporate symbols in modern days. It represents semiotic and communicational investment. Its current image may have required a century to build, but recognition and familiarity of the Pecten by all have been accomplished. An effective logo needs to be recognizable, easy to perceive and understandable. Another important conclusion is that an effective logo needs to portray the true values of the company, which is why corporate identity tends to be evolutionary in nature.
Peirce’s triadic model of signification (representamen–object–interpretant) helps us understand that the Shell logo represents a continuous figurative transcription of Royal Dutch Shell’s identity features. Since 1904, the Pecten has been the corporation’s denotative sign which analogically and iconically represents its identity features. The Shell logo shares a connection of resemblance with what it stands for, derived from an expressive function of the logo which closely represents the corporation. Denotatively, the Shell logo is legitimate and constitutes an ‘identity sign’ because both an iconic and indexical connection exists between the representamen and its object (Heilbrunn 1997).
Through an in-depth application of Peirce’s three-part model of signification to a specific logo, this semiotic investigation contributes to the development of corporate identity theory by following a process framework specifying how the meaning of corporate identity can be deconstructed. According to corporate identity theory, corporate identity is a strategic communication process that efficiently portrays the image of a corporation to various audiences (Bick, Jacobson, & Abratt 2003). A challenge was overcome in this analysis: the trend of a certain number of scholars to employ the concept of ‘semiotics’ to describe their work—maybe because it sounds unique, arcane or academic—and then omit the thorough application of tenets from any seminal semiotic approach (for example., the one from Saussure, Peirce, Morris or Eco). Accordingly, these scholars give an undeserved impression that semiotics does not really have anything new to offer in the domains of corporate identity or marketing.
Through a semiotic analysis of the Shell logo and its denotative meanings, not only can readers acknowledge the importance of the logo but they can also understand Shell’s all-time purpose. In fact, this research may be used for applications in the real world. It was mentioned earlier that, to be effective, the logo must be recognizable, easy to perceive and understandable. These features may be particularly significant for other categories of signs that must be (i) identified from a remote location or among other competing signs or (ii) recalled for a long time. These seemingly simple features might serve as groundwork for other aspects that may have to be expressed through a specific display.
Further semiotic research is needed to fill the gap of knowledge in order to supplement and develop the semiotic approach taken in this analysis. More specifically, scholars need to continue investigating the theorization and specification of meanings beneath or covered by logo signs. Academic discussions of logo signs or their effects on consumer perceptions need not be restricted to simplistic rules of thumb that have not been researched meticulously, tested empirically or incorporated to form a thorough set of guidelines. For example, would Peirce’s three-part model of signification be useful in creating a framework for examining and deconstructing competitor signals? In addition to applying a precise semiotic paradigm to the phenomenon of corporate logos, it might be interesting to build an innovative theory of representation of meaning that would have practical applications for both marketing researchers and semioticians. A considerable but useful challenge would be to tweak semiotics and turn it into a more reductionist model including cohesive, law-like generalizations, as found in basic attributes of many theories.
A plethora of opportunities continue to exist for semiotic studies of the meaning of logos in the twenty first century. We hope that this analysis will be used as a model providing practical guidelines in logo development and invaluable components that can increase logo effectiveness.