At the risk of being flamed away, I boldly ask "What makes a good......NO, a great logo?" Is it the simplicity of it? Is it the colors? Is it the funky design? what is it? I really want to know! Really I do.
Jeff
Posted by Raymond Chapman (Member # 361) on :
Antonelli will have to chime in here on this one...he has the market cornered.
Of course, he'll probably recommend that you buy his books. And that's not a bad idea, either.
[ April 26, 2006, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Chapman ]
Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
Personally I think you've asked a question that can't be answered...like asking "What is art?" Each individual is going to give you a different answer.
My view is that the logo is only as good as the company that promotes it. Take the usual "Nike only paid $35 for it's logo" discussion. If you look at the logo it's nothing spectacular. Its just a little swoosh and honestly, it was worth exactly what Nike paid for it.
Nike took that little swoosh and marketed that sucker well, implanting it in your brain and selling itself as not as a pair of shoes but as a lifestyle. The logo could have been a letter N with wings and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. The marketing changed everything.
So, that said, I think a good logo is the sketch the customer brings you with what their wife thought would be cute. A great logo is what they write you a check to produce for them instead.
Posted by Rick Beisiegel (Member # 3723) on :
Jeff, good question!
The answer is not found in some overacheiver's arrogant opinoin. A logo may only be perfect for the client who pays for it. If I like the logo, I can sell it, period! Not that I am the final autority...but in a way, we all are. We have to love it before we present it to the client. If we don't love it, neither will they....usually.
I have seen many nice logos presented here by the masses. Some may be a touch quicker or sharper at the development process, but, nobody is the "logo king" I mean who'd a thought that something as simple as the Coke or McDonalds logo would spell success like it has. Whoever created those is not a genius, just happened to be lucky enough to merge a medeocre logo with great marketing.
So, yes, simple is great! Bold can be great! Sometimes radical sells. It depends on the client. We know what we can get away with. That's why an extensive interview before begining the logo process is sooooo important.
That is never wasted time.
Posted by Mike Pipes (Member # 1573) on :
A great logo is one that is instantly recognized as belonging to one and only one company. It may even be recognizeable without having any words associated with it like a Honda, Toyota, Chevy or Infinity emblem.
Its cost may vary with the value of the company it's designed for. Let's not forget that $35 Nike swoosh was also designed for a fledgling company made up of one dude working from the back of a van at highschool track meets, not the multimillion dollar brand it is now. By the way, Nike went back and compensated that person quite nicely after the fact.
Posted by jake snow (Member # 5889) on :
Talent...
Posted by Russ McMullin (Member # 5617) on :
Saul Bass and Paul Rand were not only logo kings, they were emperors - almost gods. Their work is deceptively simple, and yet instantly recognizable. Do a google search for "saul bass logos" or "paul rand logos" and see what you come up with. Amazing.
As a rule, I think simpler is better in logos. Reducing franctions to simplest form is an analogy that comes to mind. Why leave a logo complex and bloated if it's possible to find an elegant, quick-reading solution? Unfortunately, distilling the identity down to it's bare essentials is something that only looks easy. I find it extremely difficult.
Posted by Dan Antonelli (Member # 86) on :
One that the client pays you for after one round of drafts....
While clearly there are commonalities inherent in great logos, you need to really examine core goals of a logo and how well they meet the strategic objectives for the client and their marketing. Some great logos would fail miserably for different companies - it all depends on what needs to be communicated and who the target audience.
Additionally, logos are simply one piece of the pie--- branding is really the more important issue to focus on - where as, although the logo is the foundation of any great branding, it's only just a part of it.
There's some examples of more of a comprehensive approach to branding here:
Especially note how the first example, Destination Baby's brand is carried through web, stationery, collateral and branding.
While it is a core component of our business (we do about 75 a year now) its just the foundation for all the elements we normally produce for our clients. For me personally, design 'a logo' is fun - but it's more fun (and challenging) building a brand. That takes a lot more thought and work.
Posted by Louie Pascuzzi (Member # 1373) on :
Russ, This is a little off topic but you mentioned Saul Bass and Paul Rand. One of the best was Raymond Lowry. Another great designer who I was lucky enough to have as a teacher in Boston was Joseph Selame. Check out his website for some very well designed work. BrandEquity
These men were all masters of design. Not just logos but industrial designers as well. They designed packaging, cars, trains, planes , appliances, furniture and even buildings.
Now it seems design is more specialized. But the same goals need to be met no matter what you design. I believe , in my opinion, simplicity is one of the big factors no matter what kind of logo you're designing. The logos that customers bring in that are designed by nephews or whomever are usually overdone and they try to put too many different elements into the design. I think, in logo design, say what you have to say with as few elements as possible and it has to be able to be reproduced in all sizes and mediums from tie tacs to billboards.
[ April 26, 2006, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Louie Pascuzzi ]
Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
Recognition and association.
Posted by Doug Phillips (Member # 5708) on :
Readability is very important, not necessarily simplicity. It must be somewhat timeless (no trendy gimmicks) this is sometimes very hard to achieve. Color is not that important (can't believe I said that as much as I struggle with it) but as Ray said recognition is important.
Posted by Joe Endicott (Member # 628) on :
A good logo has to be readable. It has to look great in b&w, as well as color, and readable when reproduced at the small size required for all sorts of print medium. If you can't read it, all the pretty tricks and gimmicks available today won't help.
Good designers are always experimenting with various letterstyles, stroke weights and contrast. Learn how big a letter needs to be in order to be read in the real World. Learn to "see" when you are strolling thru stores. Observe what attracts your eye, and learn what design elements are being used.
SignCraft has a wealth of information from past issues at http://www.signcraft.com/features.asp Go get em! If you don't already have a subscription, get one!
One last tip. Surround yourself with books and video on the subject of design. In my opinion, too many are learning the tricks before the trade today. Invest in yourself first. Buy the books and get around the people who are doing what you want to do.
[ April 27, 2006, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Steve Shortreed ]
Posted by Alicia B. Jennings (Member # 1272) on :
I guess a good logo is one that people recognize even after the company has folded. Like "Enron's E'.
Posted by bruce ward (Member # 1289) on :
its popularity and widespread usage. nike did it with a swoosh! it was simple and pointless but it worked. i beleive alot of it is up to the public for acceptance.
chevrolet "bowtie" wtf is that?! it worked!
campbells soup, whatever script that is was very simple and it worked.
if we all knew what was going to work, we would not have to work as much....lol
Posted by Raymond Chapman (Member # 361) on :
Bruce - I read somewhere that the Chevy "bow tie" was taken from a wallpaper design in a Paris hotel. Just one of those bits of trivia from about 50 years ago that never left my brain.
Posted by captain ken (Member # 742) on :
anybody know who this company is???
Posted by Rick Beisiegel (Member # 3723) on :
Again, it's not the "bow tie" It's the cleaver marketing behind it. H&R Block is now marketing a green square....it works when a large budget accompanies the logo.
I thing a great logo has to stand in recognition without the big bux behind it. Trouble is, we mostly recognize big business logos. The lions share of our clients can't spend that kind of money in advertising. Therefore, greatness is expected from our work....without the big budget.
If Ford or Chevy changed their logo tomorrow, it can't fail.....marketing assures that.
Posted by Kelsey Dum (Member # 6101) on :
Do you think this was worth spending millions of dollars on? This is how UPS changed their logo.
I would have to agree that less is more when it comes to logos. Try to steer from fine detail or gradients. Readability is a must...I always try to remember that a logo should be legible on something as small as an ink pen. Other than that I would have to agrre that the rest is up to the way the company markets themselves.
Posted by Janette Balogh (Member # 192) on :
Conveys a message and/or feeling in a succinct and simple way. Captures attention and is memorable.
Posted by Randy Campbell (Member # 2675) on :
Da "INK" Posted by Stephen Deveau (Member # 1305) on :
Logos Are only the small part of a company. It works on service and product, that counts the most. Logos are only first image! After the customer enters the store,It is all up to the company to fill the order of the individules' needs.
Posted by Monte Jumper (Member # 1106) on :
Instant recognition!
The "Wool" Logo is the all time best (in my humble opinion)
I saw one the other nite on T.V.that says everything you need to know about the place in one word...it is so clever it's hard to believe it hadn't been created long before now...the logo?
"C@fe"
I love these simple "dead on" logos...the "E" logo for Entertainment t.v. is so simple and yet so well thought out.
Nike (swoosh) is so quickly recognized it's ridiculous...and if you think about it...it makes no sense...but it sure is effective!
The one that makes me laugh the most is the ultra mod t.v. channel with the oldest weakest dumbest looking do nothing logo "M.t.v." yet when it is all said and done it is instantly recognizable and it keeps me from ending up on their station by mistake...lol... so I guess you could say it works.
ssome of the best logos to be found today (again in my humble opinion) are found on the "Turner Network"...but then again Ted did start out as an Outdoor Advertising Sign guy...
Nuff Said!
[ April 27, 2006, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Monte Jumper ]
Posted by Jerry VanHorn (Member # 4704) on :
an R in a circle, who woulda thunk it?
Posted by Linda Silver Eagle (Member # 274) on :
Monte and others have pegged it...instant recognition! (nice find Monte, by the way)
I was gonna be a smarty pants about it and say that back in the day a good set of rapid-o-graphs (technical pens used in paste-up/camera ready art) would do it, but the reality is i used calligraphy more often LOL.
Posted by Jeff Umsted (Member # 4592) on :
WOW! Thank you everyone for clearing this up. I have spent the last few days reading the links you all posted and soaking all this good info in. There is a bunch of great stuff to consider. So now, I guess my only other question is how do you post a picture for you all to tear apart?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Rolling On The Floor]](graemlins/rolf.gif)
![[Bash]](graemlins/bash.gif)
