dumbing down design?

[captain spanky]

i've noticed a common theme that seems to be going on at the moment...
especially here in the showcase/'look at my logo' forum...
and I've noticed that people are always saying that you have to put what you do/what the company does on the logo you are creating... and i'm wondering if it is really necessary? do you not think it's perhaps dumbing down the design in some instances as a lot of the effect of the logo will be related to the context it is used in...
I mean I'm not marketeer so i don't know the mechanics of advertising and branding but not all the logos i notice in the world today specifically state what it is they do... I agree that something like a product doesn't always need it as you can plainly see what it is - a physical object, but for something offering a service, and a specialised one at that most of the time where people are looking specifically for that service, surely you don't need to be that obvious? Do you know what i mean?
I'm very conscious at the moment of everything being over-simplified (in advertising, news, media, labelling, teachings etc) and perhaps worried is the wrong word to describe my feeings but i can't help thinking that design is going the same way...

I don't mean to offend anyone here with what i've said above. I appreciate so many people offering so much help.. it's just some thoughts going round in my head and I've got no one to talk to here at work today.. :)

am i just spouting verbal fertiliser again?

[Thomas51471]

I agree that not all logos need to be linked visually to the product or service they provide. But if companies opt for a logo that is not linked then that company needs to put heavy effort into branding (Nike comes to mind).

The simple fact of the matter is that most people doing work on these boards work mostly local. It has been my experience that local companies are going to put very little effort into marketing or branding a logo, so it is best to tie it visually to the product or service.

This is not to say you must explicitly state the product or service in the logo with text, but at least give the viewer a clue as to what it is all about at first glance.

The real unfortunate problem is that, it seems, most consumers don't want to have to think about anything. They want it all and now and without thought. Design is following the trend of catering to the least intelligent (or at least the laziest) in society. It is a shame and one day (I hope) the cycle will be broken and the consumer will want more, but for not and for the most part. We have to supply what our customers want.

[twogun]

i think it down to the over poupulated maket place, as we have seen in a thread today, no longer does "IRON" mean a company that sells irons, in this instance its a communications co, so surely there is a need for more obvious explantatory design.

[Kool]

I don't know about the dumbing down part, but I don't think a logo has to show what the company does all that much. Others will disagree with me but I don't think the average person pays all that much attention to logos. Once a person has delt with a company then that company's logo becomes an iconic symbol of that company, representing either good or bad emotions depending on their experience with the company.

[PrintDriver]

I've commented on this in various threads in the Showcase myself but don't hang around there often. Too much angst.

Anyway, the usage of a literal icon when creating a logo can be good or bad depending on how it's handled. However, have a logo that 'describes' what a company is or does is really not necessary. A simple font logo can be just as effective as a logo with a bug attached. Look at Coca Cola. Does that say 'soft drink' to you? But it is damned recognizable today and hasn't been changed drastically since it's inception.

I don't need a camera in the bug to tell me John Doe Photography Studio takes pictures. Nor do I need the word Photography if John Doe Studios works better.

'Saying it' with words, fonts or pictures is all a matter of designing an effective logo, not because someone tells you the logo HAS to say something about the business. While there may be certain colors, styles, fonts, or imagery that have become attributed to certain business types doesn't mean you can't step outside the norm. As long as it's effective.

[kerrysmagicshirt]

i have in the past commented on a logo not representing what the company does with the Beaver recordings. But i did also state that it's not always needed. More often then not the logo is used in conjunction with something else - be it a letter or a web site that explaines the companies activities anyway. Some of the most recognisable logos we have today say nothing about what the company does.
What would we do if all our logo's had to incluse a pencil or a mouse just to let people know we design - i'd go insane!!!

[captain spanky]

The real unfortunate problem is that, it seems, most consumers don't want to have to think about anything. They want it all and now and without thought. Design is following the trend of catering to the least intelligent (or at least the laziest) in society. It is a shame and one day (I hope) the cycle will be broken and the consumer will want more, but for not and for the most part. We have to supply what our customers want.

yeah that was what i was worried about... i'd like to think that it's a temporary thing but once it starts going downhill it's very hard to u-turn and get going back up it...

[morea]

A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that a logo has to be a graphic showing a company's product/service placed beside text.

While we do have to supply what customers want, I think that most who hire designers realize that they are paying for a designers expertise and are open to suggestions.

I think that a lot of designers are not very experienced in logo design, and even if they are great at ads, layouts, photo manipulation and restoration it isn't something that comes easily.

Of course we as designers don't want to turn away a client who asks them for a logo, even if it is not our area of expertise, so we make an effort to provide something suitable... but logo design requires very different way of looking at things - essentially boiling down everything about the company: who they are, what they do, who they want to attract, what their core values are, etc, into one memorable mark that will then be the face of the company to the rest of the world.

Everybody starts somewhere, but I think that many make the mistake of thinking that logo design is less than it really is.

Then again, as I've often heard it said, if someone provides a really good product or service, are people going to avoid them because they don't have a great logo? Some might, but the majority of the public doesn't seem to care all that much.

And then AGAIN, a good logo can show that the company cared enough to develop a strong identity, and potential customers can pick up on that. If I need to buy something I will look at what is available - if one company looks really professional and the other looks like their 12-year old nephew cobbed something together to represent their business, that really does say something about the company's mentality. Who do you suppose I would buy from?

[defjoe]

I think a logo need to be simple. that's my personal opinion. It's needs to be easily read and get to the point so it sticks in people's minds. doesn't have to be a DIRECT look of what the company does. But even those work as well.

[morea]

I've pointed out before that a good example is a proctologist. I bet that guy doesn't want a rubber glove next to his name... or worse!

[Jeizzavelle]

I think you all have a point but sometimes I think we do have to give more information than is really needed either to please the customer or to let the consumer know what the customer does. I think it all depends on the circumstances of the job.

[Thomas51471]

"Look at Coca Cola. Does that say 'soft drink' to you?"

"Some of the most recognisable logos we have today say nothing about what the company does."

As I stated with the Nike example, all of these work so well because of more than 100 years of concentrated branding.

"I think that most who hire designers realize that they are paying for a designers expertise and are open to suggestions."

Morea, it's cute that you are so naive :-P It's been my experience when most people hire a designer it is to push buttons.

[balou]

What's a good way to sway a customer from their concept of "my logo has to tell a story" to a more simplistic view?

[Jeizzavelle]

Sometimes you can explain to them that people don'twant to read a bunch of stuff. They want to look and know what it is. Like McDonalds, Nike....

[balou]

It's been my experience when most people hire a designer it is to push buttons.

My customers want a designer with knowledge and experience and a keen marketing sense. I find they value my opinion, they may not always agree but I can't help the shortcomings.;)

[Thomas51471]

I should explain my statement. My freelance customers are awesome for the most part. They do see the value in my design talent and I really get to do some great, fun stuff that I WANT to do. My day job sucks though. They understand nothing of my value and just use me to push buttons.


Most customers, though, don't realize that having a logo is not the only step to marketing. The value of the logo really is in the branding of that logo. If they just order up a logo and not brand it then it is only going to do them so good.

Imagine if Nike was a fledgling shoe company that no one ever heard off. If you saw their logo would you think "Cool logo and effective" or "What the hell? That doesn't say anything about shoes." Nike, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Microsoft, Apple....all of these companies put major dollars into branding to make the logos work for them.

[PrintDriver]

I've ordered stuff from companies where I've never even seen their logo (some I wish I hadn't after I finally did, but I don't hold it against them. LOL!) If they actually have the product in stock or service I want and deliver when I want it, they could have a picture of GW up there and I wouldn't care. Well... maybe that's a pushin' it a little...

[carter the artist]

I think it's cute when people say they don't know anything about a certain subject, but decide to comment on it. (Don't read into that too much, I'm not a psychologist, but I took a class and I read a few articles, and I know text is hard to read without putting in a sarcastic tone).

However, in the case of logo design, I have been pretty well educated in. When it comes to logos, you want something that identifies with the consumer the branding. You need something that is identifiable and helpful. If you want to discuss dumbing down, look at logo creation software. It adds some swooshes and bevels and behold a logo. But it's NOT branding.

[defjoe]

don't forget drop shadows and gradients (especially the rainbow one)

those are the recipes of a great logo

[reuber1]

Our company has a lousy logo. We are a software developer for small business retailers. What should our logo be? A screen-shot? Installation disk? A **BARF** computer?

There's so many variables it's really hard to say one way or the other in terms of having a definite answer, but I think if the logo is too literal and too dumbed down, I don't see the company going far. I can't think of many corporations that have such a literal logo (unless you say Target, but are they selling "targets"?). Branding, though, is key to making that logo work.

[morea]

Morea, it's cute that you are so naive :-P

call it what you will. :rolleyes:

[reuber1]

Yeah, nothing like insulting sarcasm to try to support your own point in an argument.

[mac.FINN]

I have two opinions on this point I'd like to state now.

1) The Average person is (in respect to design) an idiot.
With all the flash abilities of computers today, people are subjected to awful design so often that it's become acceptable. Most people even think it's good design. It's not. Think about it, how often have you been walking down the street and seen a really outstanding company logo or design? What about bad designs, and I mean really bad - the kind of design you'd be fired for if you produced for a client. I see them (the later) everywhere. Which brings me to my second point.

2) It's the designer's and the company's responsibility to challege people with design. That's what makes design great - and yes branding is a huge part of this. A company doesn't need their logo to s-p-e-l-l out exactly what they do in their logo. So many examples have been provided already, but I want to talk about two inparticular. Nike and Apple.
The Nike logo is the most abstact logo possible - it means nothing. It has no relation to Clothes, or even Nike herself (the greek goddess of victory), but it does mean "swoosh", speed, movement all things associated with the company.
The Apple logo is one of my favourite logos even. It's clean, simple and very meaningful. Yet it has nothing to do with computers. The apple with the bite out of it is fun and quirky (like apple) and it alludes to the temptation of Eve and the Apple of Knowledge; and it's a literal representation of the company name.
However, I think a company that doesn't expect to do huge business or can't afford to market itself (say a small local shop) might benefit from a very literal logo.

Then again, going with the obvious logo is dull. If apple's logo didn't have a bit out of it, it would mean nothing. "The company's called apple... so it's logo's an apple. Deep."

Logos are supposed to be graphical representations of the company, who they are - they shouldn't have to beat you over the head screaming "DO YOU GET IT?" Subtly is always a nice touch in an identity.

[reuber1]

Logos are supposed to be graphical representations of the company, who they are - they shouldn't have to beat you over the head screaming "DO YOU GET IT?" Subtly is always a nice touch in an identity.YAY!!! Excellent answer.

[mac.FINN]

Another thought:

How many people here work for a company who's logo (if you strip away all the text except the name) directly relates to what they do? I don't. Don't think I ever have; and I worked at Giant Tiger... who's logo was.... a Giant Tiger, but what (you ask) has that got to do with retail... well there a "tail" in retail and Tigers have tails right? Right.

Infact, the only companies that I can think of who's logo is a direct representation of what they do are small locally owned mom and pop type stores who don't have a lot of money to spend on a designer. So they hire some Larry and end up with a generic swooshy beveled piece of magistery with no actual meaning or depth to it.

I'm serious, I want examples of successful companies with these blatantly obvious logos that everyone thinks we need.

[typographics]

I'm serious, I want examples of successful companies with these blatantly obvious logos that everyone thinks we need.
i see them all the time. most of the logos i make are fairly obvious. in fact, i just finished a logo for a softball team last week that incorporated...wait for it...a softball, and it came out really well.

i guess it also depends on what you consider "blatantly obvious".

if i cant make a logo communicate literally, then i will fall back on more vague and less descriptive imagery. but i always try, because i usually think its a better solution to be obvious than to be vague and non-descriptive. but as some others have already stated...it all depends on the needs of the client and the product or service they produce.

[mac.FINN]

I mean companies. Real companies that are sucessfull. I'll list a few that don't follow this rule.

IBM
Dell
Puma
Adidas
3M
GM
LG
Bell Canada
Bank of America
Audi
BMW
(pretty much any car or car manafacturer)
Warner Bros
Joe Boxer
The Rolling Stones
Nine Inch Nails
(Any Band)
and I'm just starting...

[PrintDriver]

What was the name of the softball team, Typo? The Balls?

Mac has a point. While the icon may in some way describe the 'name' of the company (like Puma in the list above) They rarely, very rarely, are a literal description of what the company does. Trademarks are all about branding. There may be a history behind why a logo is what it is (as in some of the car companies) but they all became recognizable thru branding.

[reuber1]

While the icon may in some way describe the 'name' of the company (like Puma in the list above) They rarely, very rarely, are a literal description of what the company does. Trademarks are all about branding. There may be a history behind why a logo is what it is (as in some of the car companies) but they all became recognizable thru branding.Like I said, about Target. The logo is a literal target, but the corp. is a retail giant. They only sell dart boards around the Christmas season, and they don't sell guns.

[PrintDriver]

Good thing on the guns there Reuber. Someone we know may have gone postal...
;)

[reuber1]

Good thing on the guns there Reuber. Someone we know may have gone postal...
;)Me? I'm a pacifist. I resolve conflicts like the Dhali Llama would. You must be talking about someone else. Yeah, that's it.

**twitches nervously**

[balou]

Reuber & the Dhali Llama - there's a comparison I never thought of before. :D

[typographics]

What was the name of the softball team, Typo? The Balls?
um...no.

[PrintDriver]

Oh. Well, if they are playing softball, isn't a softball in the logo redundant?

[Crimson]

Isn't branding all about reduntacy- seeing things over and over. I love watching movies but sometimes I have been conditioned by it from repeating it over and over that I don't hace a choice. I think as designers we follow our intuitions that leads to trends that lead to brands. So I hope I have a good intuitive design or I just work hard at being an average deigner pushing buttons.

IS anybody up for a game of (logo)paper, (identity) scissors, (brands)rocks

[typographics]

Oh. Well, if they are playing softball, isn't a softball in the logo redundant?
LOL!

[carter the artist]

so, wait... should I make a logo with a symbol that has nothing to do with what we sell/do? Or maybe just a cartoon that has nothing to do with what we offer and have him as a mascot and logo?
That makes no sense.
And since some of you state that we shouldn't include a "symbol" that represents what we do, that's out.
I guess all we have left is a swoosh mark.

sorry, but you guys are confusing me, here. I here talk of how "redundant" it is to use a symbol that represents what you are trying to communicate... isn't that the point of gd and logos? To Communicate?

[urstwile]

Wikipedia has (IMO) an excellent article on the history of logos. Just go to wikipedia.org, and type logo. I found it fascinating.

There's a great deal of condescension in this thread, at least in terms of how the average person views logos and design.

The average person is an idiot in respect to design? What does that even mean?

The average person (designers included) is bombarded with thousands, perhaps millions of bits of communication of all sorts, each day, and somehow, because they don't stop on the street and say to each other, whoa, look at the effective use of positive/negative space and the subtlety of the icon to convey the brand, they're idiots? I think not.

It seems that there's a not so subtle snobbery implicit in that kind of statement. Yeah, we (and I include myself in that as well, even though I largely do production work) are professionals at what we do.

Should doctors say the same thing about patients? Car mechanics about drivers of cars? Pick something that you have someone else do for you because they're better at it, and fill in the question that person might ask about you, then ask if it's legitimate to call you an idiot because you don't know more about it.

We all have our niches. Forgive me if I've misinterpreted the impetus of that statement, but it really bugged me.

And yeah, the last thing I bought wasn't based on the logo, since the 99 cent store down the block from me doesn't have one. They just had some stuff I needed and I went there and bought it. So much for brand recognition. The external hard drive I just bought for my computer at work wasn't based on a logo, it was based on a review in Macworld. And frankly, I despise wearing clothes with logos on them, for the most part, since I feel that the company should then pay me to advertise their brand, thus I should get the clothing for free.

Sorry to be gripey. :eek:

[captain spanky]

i think the goal is to find a strong 'image' (whether it's graphical or typographical) which when used in context effectively communicates what the company stands for rather than having to spell it out in big letters?

as mac.FINN said: "Logos are supposed to be graphical representations of the company, who they are - they shouldn't have to beat you over the head screaming "DO YOU GET IT?" Subtly is always a nice touch in an identity."

I dunno... i don't know much on this subject Carter, but this is why i decided to comment on it. I would like to learn and i find the best way for me to do this and to experience an example of this in a real life situation, is to offer it up for discussion on a forum such as this, rather than read about it in a one sided view (in a book for example). :)

[typographics]

I here talk of how "redundant" it is to use a symbol that represents what you are trying to communicate... isn't that the point of gd and logos? To Communicate?
nope, thats propoganda taught by colleges, professionals and design publications. communication is obsolete. you want to create logos that are as vague and non-descriptive as possible. you shouldnt be able to instantly look at a logo and understand its meaning, or be able to recognize its purpose.

use a softball in a softball logo? crazy talk. use an image of an iron in a logo with "iron" in the title? totally irrational. printer logos that use crop marks? perfectly illogical.

im not sure why people think this way, but some do. you can try to explain to them why they are mistaken, but they usually just defend their beliefs to the bitter end. nothing you can do but know their wrong and move on.

[captain spanky]

Should doctors say the same thing about patients? Car mechanics about drivers of cars?

ahhh but they do.
Last time i went to the doctor, i was having trouble breathing. I have asthma and am allergic to quite a lot of things. When i mentioned that this could be the current problem, i was told in no uncertain terms that they were the doctor and they would tell me what was wrong. I did just think 'fair enough' and carried on happy. Turned out it was my asthma at fault, so there you go.

but all of this is beside the point.

And, yes i don't do clothes with names too... sometimes i get them but take the logo off... :D

Thank you for doing 5 pages before getting personal but please can we do another 5? :)

[urstwile]

captain,

Erm, not sure what you meant by that last 5 pages statement but I swear I won't take umbrage again. :o

[captain spanky]

sorry urstwile... that was me, it came across totally wrong... usually on the other forums i go on, any sort of discussion can only make it to the second page before people start taking anything personal and start insulting each other.. i was impressed how we were on 5 pages and no-one was having a proper argument. :) no worries!

[Mitch Wood]

Mac finn, you are spot on.

Surely a logo represents the company ethos, not what they sell/do.

Something like the spirit of the company is so much more valuable than knowing what they do IMO. Yeah maybe tie in some reference to carry this message, but I don't think a logo should be a company description as 99% of the time we already know what they do, we just subliminally, (well maybe not designers, but the general public) look for security in the ethics of the company via their branding.

Edit: Also I have found that here in the UK, and even more so in Scandinavia, we tend to be more subtle with logos, and reveal less to make the viewers imagination carry the rest of the message. I guess it is just the way the world and our preconceptions work.

[morea]

so, wait... should I make a logo with a symbol that has nothing to do with what we sell/do?

So, should every softball team have a softball in their logo? (So who's playing tonight? I don't know, those guys with the softball in their logo. Which one? They ALL have a softball in their logo!)

You know, I don't know of any softball teams, but let's look at basketball. Chicago Bulls - no basketball. Memphis Grizzlies - no basketball. Detroit Pistons - no basketball. Boston Celtics - no basketball. Some of them do. Lots of them don't. Rephrase: lots of the MEMORABLE ones don't.

Should every dentist have a tooth and every eye doctor have a pair of glasses?

Should every grocery store show a bag of groceries, and every plumber show a wrench?

Do all of YOUR logos include a mouse or a pencil?

Come on people.

First of all, urstwile was right about the amount of condescending comments in this thread. I bet the majority of you wouldn't talk to your clients the same way you are talking to your peers.

im not sure why people think this way, but some do. you can try to explain to them why they are mistaken, but they usually just defend their beliefs to the bitter end. nothing you can do but know their wrong and move on.

Nobody here is the Ultimate God of Design, and everyone here is entitled to their opinions. I can't stand the arrogance of people who preach otherwise. The whole "if you don't agree with me you're dumb" mentality is something people should overcome by the time they reach their teen years.

you shouldnt be able to instantly look at a logo and understand its meaning, or be able to recognize its purpose.

Why isn't the Apple logo a computer? Isn't that odd. :rolleyes:

[PrintDriver]

I'm not arguing Morea.

I have absolutely no problem with using a softball for a league logo. Just look at the NBL or NFL league logos.
But...
I think you can count on very few fingers how many teams actually have baseballs or footballs in their team logos.

That's all.

Sometimes literal is appropriate. No argument there.
Actually I'd be hard put to illustrate the difference between a softball and a baseball. More power to ya.

[mac.FINN]

I stand by what I said. The average person in an idiot when it comes to design; and there are direct factors as to why this is:
1) People are bombarded with design - and a lot of it, isn't good design. So people accept what's out there, period.
2) Good design should make you think, it should be an experience, it should make you want to understand every level of it, and it should work on many levels. IMO people don't like to think - they want everything given to them.
3) People aren't educated in design. Hell I'm an idiot when it comes to car repairs, dental work, the rules of crickett, brain surgery, tap dancing, the culture of Katmandu, want me to go on?

Of course I'm not talking about everyone - obviously there are people who understand good design. But society has a habit of catering to the lowest common denominator so how can people become educated in design? And I'm not talking about taste - because yes there is a certain amount of personal preference in design, I'm talking more about the technical aspect, the rules of design.

I'll say this again too, (so listen up carter) A logo isn't a representation of what your company does. It's a representation of WHO your company IS! How you want people to recognize you ahd what you want to be associated with. A Puma is strong, powerful, fast, agile a great image to associate with sports wear. Do you want to be Stronger, faster, more powerful and more agile while playing sport... of course you do.

I don't want to insinuate that a logo can't have elements of what the company does in it. In some cases it makes sense, and can be use effectively. (This one's for you Typo) However, do you really want to associate yourself only with what you do? Want sounds more interesting Althetic wear by NIKE the greek goddess of Victory, or by "We Sell Skates" Inc.? Also, relying on the actual product or service is really boring and frankly uncreative. "Hey look a cellphne store with a transmitter logo... they really put alot of thought into that one."

I'm starting to feel that there's some animosity towards my IRON logo in here. And Typo, I'm really confused by your reference to it, care to explain?

[Mitch Wood]

Want sounds more interesting Althetic wear by NIKE the greek goddess of Victory, or by "We Sell Skates" Inc.?

Exactly.

mac.FINN, you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

[mac.FINN]

Sure you can... you just have to dehydrate it for a couple of days... KIDDING! :D

[morea]

A logo isn't a representation of what your company does. It's a representation of WHO your company IS! How you want people to recognize you ahd what you want to be associated with. A Puma is strong, powerful, fast, agile a great image to associate with sports wear. Do you want to be Stronger, faster, more powerful and more agile while playing sport... of course you do.

exactly. In a nutshell.

[mac.FINN]

hey Mo I think we won... :D

hey Captain Spanky I was wondering... Was my Iron logo the spark for this thread... it was mentioned a couple of times - just thought I'd ask.

[captain spanky]

no.. it was just something i've been noticing for a few days..
i don't think your iron logo entered into my consiousness at all to be honest... well not while i was typing this thread out...
Thanks for everyone's input so far BTW... it's helping me understand logo design and the way people see it a lot better and i hope it's doing the same for some others here too. :D

[mac.FINN]

okay cool. Glad to help, definately a fun thread. I had a wonderful time :D