Thomson,
I believe you make a valid argument concerning the value of a logo within a brand promise. The issue you expose is one that isn't new. Unfortunately, it will continue as long as a the core issues with this dilemma aren't addressed. The logo was never meant to function in a silo of aesthetic prowess. Many from both sides of the equation have not fully understood how a logo fits in the promise of a company. Like anything else that is communicated internally or externally, a company must do its due diligence to provide communication that is true to that promise. A company's core competency usually involves efficiency in business processes. A carefully studied and chosen logo that will visually represent the organization should also get the same attention. This means, finding reputable designers who understand the fundamentals of the cognitive process. This includes form, function, color theory, legibility, psychographics, etc. The goal of the logo is to symbolize the promise so that it is memorable. Humans are visual beings. Logos that follow these aesthetic principles will help spread the loyalty of its brand promise better than the competition. This said, the fundamental issue that has plagued the design industry is that it has always been marginalized due to the difficulty in quantifying brand value. This flaw is what allows for marginalization and $100 logos. Economics shows us that the market will dictate where issues like this will go. Eventually there will be more and more $100 logos, but the market will bring it back to equilibrium because what drives company growth is differentiation. If a company chooses a marginalized $100 logo, they will in the long term get a marginalized ROI via low differentiation. The core issue is that many companies still operate with a short-term mentality, rewarding growth for growth sake. This creates an incentive program within the company that rewards strong sales/growth at the expense of future value. The evidence is in high bonus payouts and revolving doors as executives jump ship before stuff hits the fan. This has a trickle down effect to marketing and brand identity. So bottom line: a logo is very much representative of a company's brand promise. If a company is cutting costs and differentiation strategy to the point of resolving to a $100 logo, there is likely a more serious problem internally. This is not to say that a $100 can't be good. This problem is the risk. A shotgun approach to creative ideas brings high risk. Lastly, the issue of marginalization results from the duality in the creative industry as a whole. Many firms are not seen as strategic partnerships. They are marginalized as a vendor, putting creative firms in the same category as commodities. Until this issue is resolved in the industry, marginalization will continue. Bad $100 logos are a byproduct of this struggle. And unfortunately, chest thumping for chest thumping sake within the creative industry is also a byproduct to this paradigm. Great post and great talking points! Best -- jessie