ATTENTION CONTEST HOLDERS

[Raja]

(I wasn't yelling :blush:)

http://www.designnewz.com/designnewz-2-200...ogosandWhy.html (http://www.designnewz.com/designnewz-2-20030729GreatLogosandWhy.html)



Designers should find this usefull as well. Most articles become "yada yada" after a while, but this one, I found quite engaging. Thought I should pass it on.

[Raja]

Merry Christmas!

[beatz]

Thanks for the link - very informative read indeed.

There are a few points though that I don't agree with in that article though.

First, the thing about the symbol must be put above or to the left of the company name; not true - there are many succesful logos that have the symbol under or to the right or whereever of the name, even powerlogos.com themselves show some logos in their portfolio where the symbol is to the right.

Second, the statement about "The name and symbol must always be separated" and that the company name mustn't be placed within the symbol.That's basically nonsense as well - nowadays many logos have the name incorporated into the "symbol" in a way where you can't tell what is the actual symbol and what is the font which just reflects it's 2003/2004 and not 1997 anymore.

Third, I also don't agree that a good logo must *always* communicate the company's core business or niche - there is a reason for good font/text-only logos like Xerox etc.That is that especially big companies have a marketing budget that allows them to make their logo/brand known and therefore allows them to go for the "simple, but highly recognizeable" font-based logo route.The difference to many of the mom&pop businesses is that those companies *don't* need the logo to cut marketing costs or to be the No1 marketing tool - quite the contrary: The marketing budget will make sure to get the company's name out and during the process of the company becoming more known the logo gets more known as well - as a side effect so to speak.Personally I even think there are no better logos than those based on 90% type-treatment.The purpose of a logo just as said sometimes is *not* to bring across the whole message but sometimes it's main purpose is "just" recognizability.

Last not least the shown examples of (non) "credibility-based" logos are not a good selection I think.While I agree that the "Royal Guide Dogs" logo is a great idea I don't quite understand what is so great about the "Mitch’s Landscaping" logo or why it communicates "the company’s expertise" - ?! On the other hand I do think the Avaya logo is a great one - just because it's simple, unique and kind of based on it's "own" typography.As said, different kind of logos suit different kind of businesses but to say that any logo that doesn't communicate what the business does is a bad logo is nonsense - because different logos serve different purposes like to indeed bring across the company's business but also or instead bring across professionalism , being easy to remember etc etc.


Except those points the article is on the money. ;)

Just my 2 cents,

Frank