There is some debate as to whether a brand mascot is more effective than a logo. Some argue that a logo represents the text of the time, while pets grow old and people get tired of them. Trash! M&M characters have been around since black and white television and are still some of the most recognized and beloved characters in pop culture today. The Pillsbury Doughboy has now appeared in over 600 commercials and if Pillsbury ever put it to pasture, its sales would plummet. McDonalds knows the same about Ronald McDonald. Why do you think Michelin brought back the Michelin Man? Without it, they would not stand out in the competitive tire market. It makes them unique and even enjoyable.

A logo cannot make you nice. It can’t look you in the eye, wink, laugh, and give you a warm fuzzy feeling. You can’t walk around, talk, and demonstrate an attribute that you want to associate with your brand. A logo is just there. It is static. Yes, there are great logos. The Nike Swoosh comes to mind, but it doesn’t entertain you. You don’t point to it and say to a friend, “Hey, check this out, it’s great!” Tiger Woods may make the commercial worth watching, but the logo itself doesn’t do the heavy lifting. A brand mascot can.

Think about how the Trix rabbit does the heavy lifting for Trix. In each commercial, he’s on an entertaining quest to get his hands on Trix. His “must-have” attitude portrays the cereal as highly desirable. Lucky Charms Leprechaun does pretty much the same thing. Each commercial is a thrilling chase scene in which the kids want to catch him for his “magically delicious” Lucky Charms. No logo could represent “delicious” as effectively as a cartoon brand mascot. Think about how Sonny goes crazy over Coco Puffs.

So if brand mascots are so effective, why aren’t more companies building brands around them? Many reasons. First, a logo is easier. That is not to say that logo development should be taken lightly. Well done, it can be an incredibly complicated process. However, developing a brand mascot is even more complex. Unfortunately, the average hacker can scribble a rough vision of what they think a good logo would make. Drawing a cartoon character requires more training and talent. I don’t want to insult my logo designer friends, but I’ve spent over 20 years designing logos and cartoon characters, and the last one is just more complicated. You have eyes, facial expressions, posture, accessories, clothing, and a litany of other issues to deal with that aren’t related to logo design.

Also, you have a personality profile to develop. A good cartoon brand mascot acts consistently. They have a sense of who they are. They approach things from a certain perspective, hopefully one that is based on an attribute that is critical to their brand positioning. Ronald McDonald is, above all, funny.

The other aspect that prevents a wider use of brand mascots is the fact that they are not suitable for all types of products or services. I doubt you’ll ever see a cartoon brand mascot tossing fine jewelry, luxury cars, legal services, or a funeral home.

So what industries make the best houses for brand pets? Brand mascots do very well in markets that are highly competitive, full of mature products or services where price pressures are high and it is difficult to differentiate one competitor from the other. That’s why you see Snoopy, the AFLAC Duck, and the Gieco Gecko fighting in the insurance industry. That’s why you see so many cartoon brand mascots on your supermarket’s cereal island and cookie shelves. That’s why the Taco Bell Chihuahua stepped into the ring with Burger King King and our old friend Ronald McDonald.

The basic rule of thumb for determining whether or not you should use a brand mascot focuses on competitive pressures, pricing pressures, and the ability to differentiate. If you are in a war zone, your enemies have basically the same weapons as you and the margins are reduced, you may want to recruit a brand mascot to lead your charge.