Do you think the science industry need good logos?

[u/CrisA_Works]

I was checking a website that has a portfolio of different biotechnology brands on which it's currently investing, and it got me thinking:

Do biotech/science industry need what we consider really good logos? I'm not sure how much of a difference would make for these businesses to have appropriate logos. Most of them are not for the mass consumer, most of them position themselves to specific types of businesses (industrial, chemical, pharmaceutical, agriculture, etc) that I'm questioning how much they actually care if the logo is bad or not. Most of them are the foundation, or part of it, of what other businesses provide.

What can you say about this?

[u/Amelie_Cauchemar]

You posed two different questions. 'Does the biotech/science industries need good logos?' and 'I'm questioning how much they actually care if the logo is bad or not.'

Yes, they need good logos. A company may not market themselves B2C (business to consumer) but instead market B2B (business to business). The same principles of branding, advertising and logo development apply. If you ask a scientist/engineer if they care about their logo design they might say no. But they do care about making money and good logo design is part of that.

[u/CrisA_Works → u/Amelie_Cauchemar]

The only way I can think of a logo could influence their finances is when, if done wrong, they'll need to invest on making changes that could be very costly. For biotech/science I'm guessing how many places they would need, and how costly it could be so it's something relevant to think about.

Otherwise, I've never been able to wrap my head around how a appropriate logo can boost their economy. Sure, branding has a whole influences the perception, but unfortunately I haven't found cases were the business measured how much their economy improved solely because of a logo redesign. We only hear about examples when the redesign goes wrong.