"Logos are dead. They are a hangover from old-school thinking about branding. There is no desire by the public for a new logo. They are simply an old-fashioned approach to differentiating products or services."
I find that statement to be more sensationalist than factual. One of the main reasons I feel this way is that logos are just words (or symbols, or the combination of the two) that denote something. Brands may use other means to bring recognition to themselves, and develop a brand experience, but all brands are called something.
Another reason is that whether you create an experience or elements that communicate your brand, other than a logo, it takes considerably more money, time, and effort to generate the kind of recognition a logo could generate within seconds.
Last, logos or brand elements share the same problem. Their power to persuade is tied to the organization's ability to keep its brand promise successfully. It doesn't matter if you have a logo or a bunch of disconnected elements. If the business model isn't working, the service is inconsistent, it reflects on your brand.
Perhaps, Manchipp meant that the overall brand is more important than logos and symbols, but that's hardly a new idea. It's always been the case. Remember, people have always been loyal to brands because of reputation, past experiences, and consistency of service and products; not because they have a cool logo.