Posts from — November 2008

I’ve always contended that there are only 2 strategic ways to view color as it pertains to logo design. The first by personality, the second by differentiation.

Archetypally each color connotes a certain personality. Therefore it is wise to chose a color that best matches your corporate personality. And by personality, I’m not referring to a subjective “what do you personally like” process - it’s not about what color the CEO likes and wants to paint his/her kitchen. It’s about determining what you want to communicate about your company, leveraging what a color connotes to and affects your audience, and employing that color to tap into that meaning as you communicate to your audience. If you don’t, you run the risk of unconsciously sending mixed messages. For example, if you’re corporate personality is summed up  as “self-confident, risk taker, passionate, and impulsive” over ”down-to-earth, reliable, and empathetic,” red would be a more strategically valuable choice over blue. Blue does better at representing “down to earth” traits, and red is better at more “aggressive” traits.

Choosing a color based on it’s meaning as it relates to your personality is the ideal way to choose a color for you logo. But it’s not the only strategic consideration.

The second way to look at your color is competitively. Your competition creates a context for how communications are perceived. For example, let’s say you’re a well-establish insurance company that could confidently describe your personality as “down-to-earth, reliable, and empathetic” and easily conclude you’re a “blue” company. While that may be true, blue may not be the best choice for you. I would recommend you check your top competitors to see how they represent themselves with color. It may be the case that all (or most) of your competitors are already using blue. When everyone communicates they’re “down-to-earth, reliable, and empathetic,” then no one is (effectively).

If that’s the case, consider a more granular analysis of your personality. Look at your personality as it relates within the context of your industry in contrast to your competition. You may find yourself more aggressive or innovative than all the other “blue” guys, and may allow you another strategic option to exploit. Maybe you’re the “red” company within your “blue” industry and competitive context. If so, it would certainly help to tap into the archetypal connotations that “red” can do for you, and immediately differentiate you in a sea of blue.

Color is a very basic, easily overlooked, but important aesthetic behavior. It can help you establish an appropriate and memorable “suit” to wear as you compete for potential customers attention.

Those are the 2 ways I’ve always viewed strategic logo colors, but recently have been challenges by a couple redesign candidates that have undermined the above thinking. One of the two redesign candidates has Cherry in their name, and the other has the word Blue as part of theirs. The immediate short-cut is how do you not recommend and use cherry red or blue in their respective logo design? Strategically, it would be at odds to suggest otherwise, right?

My thinking is that the immediate color/name relationship is too convenient, immediate, and powerful to impose any other strategic recommendation. Both clients think I’m over-thinking the color issue. A strategic communication partner thinks that archetypal color that best fits needs to be explored regardless of name.

Maybe I’ve stubbled upon a worthy truism that short-cuts all other strategic considerations. Maybe it’s a convenient cop-out to avoid an uncomfortable client change to recommend. Or maybe there’s a 3rd direction to explore that involves the logo color separate from the overall corporate color palette.

I refrain from publishing inspirational or redesign examples for a couple reasons: 1. so many others do it already, and 2. I find it of higher quality to write about the hows and whys vs. a subjective opinion of the end product.

Today I feel the need to debunk one of these typical posts and the fatal flaws within. It comes from Smashingapps.com.

All of these examples below plus a couple dozen more are considered exceptional. I have an issue using words like exceptional in describing a good percentage of these logo examples because they fail very basic, “logo design 101″ tests. Some of these, compared to their predecessor, are more difficult to reproduce, some are less legible, and some create more confusion as to what they are representing. 

Some of the examples on the post are truly superlative examples. But many are just bad. I’m especially struck by Capital One’s refresh. (I double-checked, the swoosh is the new version). For 2008, that’s got to be one of the biggest gaffes I’ve seen in a long time. The swoosh was designed internally - big surprise - and Landor has been hired to roll it out. I’m shocked even they can’t convince CapitalOne to loose the swoosh. One of the least exceptional logos, it’s a bad chiché.

Shock and awe, and not the good kind. 

Thomson Reuters seems more complicated than it needs, especially compared to the previous Reuters day/night graphic they’d established.

Mindshare is visually much more interesting, but can already predict it’s failures in one color, and other difficult applications (vinyl, embroidery, faxes, etc).

Difficult to reproduce

I agree that Yellow Pages needed a refresh on some level, especially since no one uses their product vs. online search. But their logo leaves me with as many questions to their already murky business model.

Doesn’t answer we they do now

Most upgrades are adding much more depth and visual interest and even hinting at what their business is about. The new versions for Photoshelter, barclaycard, Dubai International, Woolworths, fall into that category. But I’m left with the same questions that I am with Xerox’s red ball, that I previous wrote about: How are they going to implement these in all mediums, at smaller sizes, silkscreened, embroidered, cut in vinyl, etched, faxed etc.

May be prettier, but do they perform?

A high majority of these blog entries don’t really help spark smart problem-solving as much as offer a volume of found content and dressed up as “inspiration.” Sometimes they offer very personal, subjective comments that ultimately don’t do the design effort, or their credibility much good either. I share a take with Chuck Close that ”inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up.”

If you want smart and insightful takes on new logos I’d check out  Under Consideration.com or IdentityWorks.com