Category — Design

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

This is Part 3 of series of considerations that will help you prepare and get the most out of a logo redesign process. 

I’ve broken these pre-design considerations into the following posts:

Part 1 : Basic Business Considerations
Part 2: Marketing Considerations
Part 3: What not to bring to the table
Part 4: What you should expect to pay

Stay tuned to future posts for part 4. 

As you may remember, Part 2 focused on information and intellegence to share, this post focuses on how to keep it relevant.

What not to bring to the table:

1. Don’t bring hyper-specific expectation of what you specifically must have it look like. Your a control freak, we get it. But it won’t help accomplish something that’s bigger than your own personal taste if you dictate the entire process. Referencing examples is a reasonable starting point for discussion, but overly projective and fussy specifics ultimately complicate and cloud the ability to have shared expectations. 

2. Refrain from ambiguous adjectives like “high-tech” or “simple” or “state-of-the-art.” Not only are they meaningless without context or description, but they are unnecessarily specific expectations. Take some time and evaluate what you really mean, and use examples if you need to support and communicate your point. Designers can’t read minds. Make sure you leave jargon and empty buzz words in the board room’s trash can.

3. Vet unrealistic expectations. Keep in mind that we’re familiar with the Nike Swoosh or Target’s Bullseye in part because they’ve spent millions (if not billions) making sure we’re aware of their logos. 99.34% of you can’t afford to spend what Nike has on such awareness campaign, so adjust your thinking accordingly. 

4. “I’ll know when I see it” doesn’t consititute sound strategy. Frankly, that’s just a lazy cop-out, and only represents one personal, subjective opinion. It also signals an informal, and at it’s worst disrespectful, attitude toward design and marketing initiatives. It’s one thing when it’s as simplistic as choosing which pen to give out at the tradeshow, and quite another when it’s your identity that’s aligning your customers first impressions of your company’s strategy. It’s one thing to be flippant, and another to being critical. Make sure your critiques start with most basic success factors. Click here for a simple test. And keep in mind, a logo done right, lasts a lifetime.

5. Don’t ask for work to be done speculatively. Some rationalize this sleazy practice as a way to window shop. It’s not only unethical, it undermines the process and will ultimately yield hurried, hackish work. Spec work is a one-sided and disrespectful way to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship. If you’re not convinced yet, remember that the firms willing to do spec work find a way to make you pay, many times as part of greater bait and switch scheme somewhere somehow. Ick. Think about it: someone willing to do spec work isn’t doing it out of the goodness of their heart, and by nature can’t be doing that work in your best interests, just enough to entice you as quickly as possible. You wouldn’t dare ask a doctor, lawyer, CPA, or engineer to do it would you? Why would you ask it here?

Bonus: This should be a non-issue, but please don’t ask to have a swoosh be put around, through, over, under your logotype. Seriously. If you already have one, consider omitting it next time. It’s become a bad cliché. It won’t help you look more global, only more like the thousands that already have done it. Don’t take my word, here’s one of many rants.

These several considerations are designed to help keep your input, your perspective and expectations in check. Good luck.

Now that I’ve covered process, etc, I’ll be tacking the subject of pricing and hiring. Stay tuned for Part 4: What should you expect to pay.