There has been a recent surge of fancy logo designs around the web, fully packed with Photoshop effects or dressed in gloriously shiny 3D.

From what I understand about the approach to logo design, as well as my limited experiences in the field, I find these designs to be rather impractical. Yes, it sure is eye-catching, but is it effective or useful in other ways?

Just wondering what you guys' take on this issue. And would you prefer a traditional approach of the logo design, which usually comes with flat colour(s), or this sort of flashy design with gradients or drop shadows, or metalic/silverish or gel/liquid effects?

There are no right way of designing stuff. Each designer have their own way of acheiving the same task.

Basically, final output should represent the essence behind the logo. Color / fonts / artwork / images incorporated are always reflected what the logo represent.

Corporate or commercial elements also play a crucial role why certain elements are used. Most of the time logos are serious and uses conservative color due to the corporate nature and value while for more laid back funky style are always reflected toward consumer/commercial/lifestyle.

Everybody wants to be unique. It's part of the business cycle whereby end user/partners/vendors or general public perceive a certain logo. Most of the famous logo / logotype is as simple as it can be.

Take apple ( try to find their brandmark direction ) you will see that they have a lot of colors / effects / typeface use on the same apple logo. Some are shinny and some of them are solid color. Offcourse they can do that...why? ppl already know apple and what they represent.

By the end of the day concept direction play a major role in determining the final output. Either if you are a proffesional / freelance or doing it for fun.

hahahaha...don't want to be too serious on a friday...anyway that's my 2cent

This post has been edited by oniee: Nov 11 2005, 04:49 PM

looking beyond design, a lot of them are very impractical.
why?
because logos are not meant to be viewed on high resolution computer monitors.

It's going to be printed on business cards, newspapers, vehicles, uniforms, products, brochures, boxes, company stamps (or 'chops' not postage stamps), and may even be engraved on products.

1) Cost: it is cheaper to print monotone solids than multi colored gradient and the like. And IMO, majority the 'new' design 'textures' ( gel, plastic, metallic, translucent ... maybe with the exception of solid 3D ) are playing with gradients....multi colored gradients.

2) Visibility: un-solid design are less visible compared to solid design, and are harder to change color when applied to a media which is the same color as the logo. e.g. a solid white logo can be changed to black when you want to print on a white brochure, it is harder to 'adapt' when dealing with gradient-ish logos.

3) Limitation of media: As mentioned on point 1, the logo might even be engraved on products (e.g. computer casings). It is extremely hard to accomodate the newfangled designs in such situations especially when the logo has no main outlines.

4) Cost: Just want to state again the important of cost cutting for businesses. difference between 1 color print and 2 color print means a lot of money long term.

5) Quality: Again, you are not going to view the logo on your high-res monitors. The outcome of dithering colors or solidifying it is dependent on whether the logo you make 'degrades gracefully'.


realistically speaking, design concepts take a backseat when it comes to businesses. It is hard to find a good reason to implement gradient-ish logos over solid color logos.

wantanseller says most of what I need to say.. well done, minion.

anyway, as much as fancy logos are not really accepted, they're here to stay and as printing technology improves, we might soon see the end of traditional methods of preparing for print.

they're now printing paintings on canvas.. so what's to stop them from applying latest technology so that cards with fancy effects of a logo come out as superb as our traditional Illustrator methods.

yep! different media require different approach...hahaha...

but i think that's why, logotype usage guideline are very..very...important, most of them outline different format/ color / size / location / which logo version to be use on which media...poster / billboard / printed / merchandise or web...most of them will have a specific outline for the same logo....

most big companies have these detailed out...but for most of smaller ones don't really need to be that detail suffice for logo / color / sizes and typeface used.

@etsuko
aye cap'n, thankee fer ye kind werds

3 words
money money money


btw: i quite like sony ericsson's logo


This post has been edited by wantanseller: Nov 11 2005, 05:53 PM

yes! money...money...money...that is why some agency will charge up to 50K for some logos....hehehe

This post has been edited by oniee: Nov 11 2005, 05:57 PM

Wow, appreciate the insightful inputs guys.

I realize that the apple sort of starts the gel/plastic effects on logos and stuff. But they already have their very fundemental logo shape and the designers are just playing around with effects on the same shape. And I don't think they use the same funky styles on letterheads and their business cards and boxes and you get it.

Basically wantanseller has explained what I have in mind. The fancy logos aren't at all practical in terms of cost effectiveness & usage. And a good logo should be able to stand the test of time, which in this case Nike and McD have successfully achieved this, being the most recognizable identities throughout the years.

And that is what I aim to achieve, strong solid logos instead of fancy short-lived logos.

I prefer the Nokia logo.
Somehow gradient-ish logo just doesn't click with me.


Someone in this forum (forgot his name) mentioned that Suria KLCC logo cost 2 millions...

urm.. if I'm not mistaken.. it's the member with a penang theme banner. me too can't remember the name. LOL!

well, I'm wondering if there's any company who has never redesigned their logo. even Apple redesigned theirs..

come, let's go into the history or logos and seek answers on why these people redesign.

my guess would be:
( I'm using Telekom's new logo as reference. )

a) to keep up with current perception and tastes.
e.g blue is a very corporate , professional and formal color. Introduction of orange into the color scheme reflects gone with constricting bureaucratic procedures replaced with flexible and user friendly service. Also could mean the inclusion of youths in as their target audience too

established companies may have ventured into other areas of the industry, and thus have to reflect their new corporate identity.
e.g. 'telekom' changing to 'tm', to break free of general impression that they are just a telco company. 'TM' is more memorable as well as 'cool' compared to the bland 'telekom' (rather unimaginative name). Given that majority of the services were prefixed with 'tm' (tmnet and tmtouch), the transition is quite smooth. Can't say the same for AOL Time Warner...ugh

c) to reinforce old company values and introduce new ones
the bird like shapes and curvy typeface may portray a more living breathing organic company as opposed to the squarish edgy dead company of the past. It shows they are more in touch with the general public. It also reinforces old values of a visionary, high flying company which was not incorporated into the old logo.

d) marketing strategy
to refresh and add to the publics' awareness their existence. This is normally not the main focus of the logo change.... more like a bonus.
e.g. come on, you just have to notice telekom's new logo.

e) save cost
in some rare cases, some companies actually changed logo to cut costs. Old logo might use up too much colors or be impractical (refer to my previous post on the matter). Note that the cost of implementing new logo is quite high especially if you are an established company, so most of the time it defeats the purpose intended.

most of the time it is part of a shift in corporate identity and not just for the sake of logo change itself. This means you will see a change in their approach to the market and advertisements....just FYI


ps: all the above examples are my wild speculations.

well, i feel that the speculations are close to what they might be doing actually.

coz they are venturing into things like the Internet and then doing the whole 3G thing soon. so they're not just a telco anymore.

and their logo is a very good example of ethical logo design. just by 1 look, you'll know it can work on the many platforms.