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?

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...