But more to the point, for a corporate logo, Arial feels like a cheap knock off to the more polished Helvetica. You can see this yourself, by looking at corporate existing corporate logos designed in helvetica and then redesigned in Arial.
https://www.ironicsans.com/helvarialquiz/
Admittedly this is personal preference in the end, but I feel like if HR is going to give someone bad news, they're going to do it in Arial. If Apple is going to release a life changing technology, they're going to do it in Helvetica.
I guess it would fit your point a little more if I just looked for whichever I thought was more aesthetically pleasing.
Anyway, I got about 50% (accidentally closed the window, I think it may have been 51%?) so at least if I was the customer, the company would not seem to gain any advantage from licensing the superior font.
I think an example of a bad logo is Arial is this one:
https://www.designworkplan.com/wp-content/font-arial-everywh...
The A has too much space around it and it looks "uneven".
The bottom one of this one is Helvetica.
https://cdn0.tnwcdn.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2009/10...
It looks "fuller", "denser" to me. And leaves me with an impression of a "sturdy" company.
Finally, here's Neue Helvetica 75 and Arial Pro Bold pages from Linotype. I just open them up in a new tab each and switch tabs to get a better idea for things.
https://www.linotype.com/1264130/neue-helvetica-75-bold-prod...
It seems like a reasonable product decision given that most people don’t care about typeface history.