I am wondering if a animal mascot is "easier" to like for users rather than a human mascot/logo.

Thinking about it, it seems to me that websites seldom use a human mascot. I was considering using a human face as "mascot" or online identity, but it feels too invasive somehow. Does anyone know of a study that shows that people tend to prefer animal mascot?

  • 1
    +1 asking about thought in design (instead of "how do I use X feature in Photoshop") – Farray Apr 20 '11 at 20:53

A good logo is one that is easily identifiable and visually conveys meaning quickly, often through group association. Unfortunately, when applied to the human form one often winds up with a stereotype. At its best it is benign, but even benign stereotypes are easily seen as racist. (see: Land O'Lakes; Aunt Jemima; Alfred E Neuman; Notre Dame football)

Animal forms rarely carry this burden.

  • 1
    By the way: there is a site I look at occasionally which appears to be completely earnest but which I find oddly hilarious: ( suicidefood.blogspot.com ). It is an interesting take on the use of animal mascots in the context of food products. – horatio Apr 21 '11 at 16:20
  • accidentally forgot the church of subgenius from the list? :-D – Jari Keinänen Apr 21 '11 at 23:06
  • cut me some slack :) – horatio Apr 22 '11 at 14:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.