digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at abduzeedo.com

10 trends that will define logo design in 2008

abduzeedo.com — It's important to be at the center of all design trends, because most of clients want to be at the hype. And the hype for trends right now are pretty cool. Some have been out there for some time now, and others are somewhat new. Check it out.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • orlando37, on 03/01/2008, -12/+76man I hope this article is wrong cause some of those are hideous and made my head hurt looking at them
    • Peko, on 03/01/2008, -10/+20You see, you're head hurts because you don't know jack ***** about design. Designers all know that the crap they throw on the wall is completely revolutionary and you just aren't ready for it.

      Waitasec, you think some designers are full of ***** in some communal ego jerk-off circle? Well (hopefully) they disappear quickly. Sigh.
      • DanOnTheMoon, on 03/01/2008, -1/+15I'm a designer, and I think that about 40 % of the logos posted in that article suck. We all know that the London 2012 logo is ***** horrid. I expected better from Wacom too. Some are rather nice. Welcome to the land of subjectivity.
        • TheKingInYellow, on 03/02/2008, -0/+3well, the company that designed the 2012 logo (aka "the lisa simpson blowjob logo") also designed the new wacom logo so what do you expect?
    • Buckeye17, on 03/01/2008, -2/+5Basically this page lists all the different possible types of designs. Obviously all the new logos will look like those listed, because there's nothing else they COULD look like. Awesome.
      • positron, on 03/01/2008, -2/+3I agree that the "article" certainly covers a lot of bases, but if you think the examples are the end-all be-all of possible designs then you have a very limited imagination.
    • insllvn, on 03/01/2008, -2/+11Sorry to hijack, but this story was stolen from another site (although "sourced" at the bottom). Here is the original site's digg page: http://digg.com/design/Logo_Design_Trends_2008
      • PaulOwen, on 03/02/2008, -1/+2Hey I respect and believe what you're saying but umm ... you're new to digg, right?
        • insllvn, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3Just because I can't fix whats wrong doesn't mean I am not going to show up to bitch about it. So, no, I am not new to digg.
    • GliTCH82, on 03/02/2008, -2/+2Hey, I know a lot of you jerk-offs probably have nothing better to do than pick on logos that you think are terrible or whatever but seriously, who gives a *****? If a company's logo is supposed to communicate something about the company's culture and you don't agree with that, if you REALLY care then don't support the company with your hard-earned dollars. I suppose the customer is always right but I think I'd draw the line at telling a company how their logo should look or what typeface it needs to be in, because no matter what some of you say you know there's going to be somebody out there who disagrees, so in the end, somebody will always complain. Save yourselves the trouble and worry about the things that matter, such as customer service and product quality. These are the things we really should be measuring up when it comes to corporate image, so drop the whole oh-God-I'm-going-blind-with-over-exaggeration-because-apparently-I-decided-this-logo-is-in-poor-taste-compared-to-my-ultra-high-standards schpiel.

      Seriously, your rants are cliche'. That's all I'm saying.
      • WallyAnti, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1Ironically, your counter rant is also cliche.
    • Deeh, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1I actually thought the coffee cup at the bottom of the page was by far the best logo.
  • michaelpinto, on 03/01/2008, -2/+24If your clients don't care about branding having a trendy logo that dates quickly is always a smart move because next year you'll get to redesign that dated looking logo.
  • chris9902, on 03/01/2008, -3/+153The London 2012 logo is such an embarrassment.
    • stormgren, on 03/01/2008, -2/+35I can't look at it without seeing Maggie Simpson sucking someone off. :-(
      • airmann90, on 03/01/2008, -1/+3My god, you made me notice that too... lol.
    • blorguehad, on 03/01/2008, -2/+3god i know. its sooo horrible. i saw the video of other candidates and this is at the botom of the ***** pile. hell i saw one an 8 year old subbmited that was better.
    • tgc1, on 03/01/2008, -2/+4What's an embarrassment is that somebody, somewhere, paid money for it. I think if you gave a bunch of kindergarten kids some crayons, in 2 minutes they'd come up with something vastly superior.
      • positron, on 03/01/2008, -1/+4The somebody somewhere you refer to would be the tax paying residents of London.
    • gidd, on 03/01/2008, -0/+4Have you seen the London 2012 Paralympics logo? They managed to make it even worse:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Paralympi ...
      • FXPooky, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Holy frozen fishpaste on a stick! Worst logo of all time.
    • CrushThemTorg, on 03/02/2008, -1/+1When the logo first came out, I was listening to NPR coverage and they had some correspondent describe one person's interpretation of the logo as a "toileting monkey." Ever since then, I've used "toilet" as a verb.
    • FriniK, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1Its not that the logo sucked that got on my nerves... (though it did suck ...lots...)
      Its the fact that they spent $200k creating the branding for it....
    • henryfosdike, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1All of the publics logos for 2012 are better than the official one.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6722205.stm
    • WallyAnti, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1It's like someone went out drinking, ordered all the fairy drinks, and puked up the eighties.
  • daFilms, on 03/01/2008, -1/+152Is it so wrong to link straight to the original source? where it also provides far more info:
    http://www.logoorange.com/logo-design-08.php

    Digg needs an option where we can amend the link.
    • wild, on 03/01/2008, -17/+1So both sites claim to be the originators of the content. Wonder which one is lying?
      • mattxb, on 03/01/2008, -2/+23Abruzeedo list their source as Logo Orange at the bottom of the article
    • Joshuarr, on 03/01/2008, -2/+30Seriously, what is the point here? Abduze blatantly strips the content from the LogoOrange site, reposts it and gets dugg.. That's way too close to plagiarism for me, even with the link at the bottom.
      • jawnboy, on 03/01/2008, -1/+15Yeah it's like digg using other site's content to drive all of it's traffic...oh, wait.
    • mimilena, on 03/01/2008, -0/+10Wow that link provides a lot more information. Why do people submit to blog spam?
    • pengas, on 03/01/2008, -0/+7Digg it down then.
    • bryceman111, on 03/01/2008, -0/+6Maybe a "User Suggested Alternative Link" area somewhere. Or something.
    • Audacitor, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1If users can change a link by sheer numbers, then it's open to gaming. The bury brigade could, for example, change a link to Wired to some porn or something.
  • mds40, on 03/01/2008, -2/+30half of these so called "new" trends have been trends for almost 2 years now...
    • brocklese, on 03/01/2008, -1/+8Yeah I swear every year is the year for "web 2.0 and swooshes" :/
      • equallyunequal, on 03/01/2008, -0/+8WRONG, swooshes are last year, waves are NOW
        • Light11, on 03/01/2008, -0/+3Tildes are the "wave" of the future.
    • Peko, on 03/01/2008, -0/+22 years? That's generous.
      Look out! Microfonts!
  • TannerPwnz, on 03/01/2008, -14/+2The only ones that actually look good are the Web 2.0 ones. And those have been around forever.
    • jakefloyd, on 03/01/2008, -3/+4Are you kidding? The only Web 2.0 logos there that look decent are Photoshop and Skype. Xerox, Pando, and XCelsius are crap.
  • zeroroth, on 03/01/2008, -2/+14I don't know... Some of those are horrible, especially the "photoshop" one.
    • vade79, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I wouldn't say "horrible". But a huge downgrade from the feather logo they have already.
  • wild, on 03/01/2008, -0/+19Its amazing how many of those trends appear on Logo Lounge's trends for 2007:
    http://www.logolounge.com/articles/default.asp?Art ...
    • 2Deluxe, on 03/02/2008, -1/+1I know people are going to Digg me down for this, but i JUST figured out what the Zune logo was supposed to be, hahahaha.
      /tard.
  • deadnoob, on 03/01/2008, -3/+23looks like they found 3 similar logos, put them together and called it a trend.

    leaves? seriously?
    • Joshuarr, on 03/01/2008, -0/+5Yeah, we just reworked a big nanotech lab and they wanted leaves. It used to be globes...
  • lukemandese, on 03/01/2008, -11/+3IS this really and important story?
    • Joshuarr, on 03/01/2008, -0/+6IS less important than your terrible grammar.
  • vx69, on 03/01/2008, -5/+3my comment failed.
  • LightSpeed4, on 03/01/2008, -6/+1omg gradients, reflections, and beta stickers!!!!!!!!
  • MoralCuntPiss, on 03/01/2008, -7/+2Those look terrible now and are going to looks hilariously dated in about four years. The new Intel logo (well, not so new anymore) is an example of great design, IMO.
  • Cronikeys, on 03/01/2008, -1/+9This list is to justify their logo.
  • bradcrc, on 03/01/2008, -1/+4It's the brown coffee ring of quality.
  • ravamp3, on 03/01/2008, -3/+15All of these logos are wonderfully designed I think, all clean and modern, but that ***** 2012 logo for london... I could've done that in Paint when I was 12. *****.
    • zeromancer, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1i haven't seen the logo until just now. and '*****' sums it up quite nicely. i mean. anti-aliasing at least?
  • blackdude, on 03/01/2008, -3/+7This list/article is horrible, I hope a designer isn't writing this garbage.
  • wannapiece, on 03/01/2008, -4/+2Carbon fiber, honeycomb, smooth gradients, vivid colors, steel/platinum industrial patterns. Elevate the playing field with with web 2.0 mixed in.
    but these? these logos are uninspired and bland... move along
  • mooseontheloose, on 03/01/2008, -1/+9How does the guy who designed the London and Wacom logo (both the same designer) keep getting work? Seriously, what ugly piles of crap
  • xpose, on 03/01/2008, -0/+6Too bad half of those logos were more than a year old. LOL
  • AdamMPkins, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Has anyone else noticed how bad this blogger's english is?
  • Wolfsoap, on 03/01/2008, -4/+24This is so totally copied from logorange.
    I saw a link to it on smashing a few days ago.
    ***** you, Abduzeedo in not coming back. Plagiarist.


    http://www.logolounge.com/articles/default.asp?Art ...
  • D3koy, on 03/01/2008, -3/+4I hope firefox gets an anti-web 2.0 extension soon...this stuff is awful...
  • bthug7, on 03/01/2008, -1/+4Looking for trends to create an original design is just disgusting
  • topgigmedia, on 03/01/2008, -1/+22One thing that inexperienced designers often forget while designing a logo is portability. How will this logo look printed in say 1 or 2 colors? Using gradients might mean sophisticated halftone techniques when printing collateral items or t-shirts. Designing a logo that can be easily simplified for all non-screen environments, without losing anything is imperative to maintaining brand integrity, consistency and effectiveness. When I see all of these gradients, drop-shadows, bitmap effects, etc. I can't help but think - good luck getting that to translate in the print world =P
    • Ultra99, on 03/01/2008, -2/+6Thank you for the first insightful comment in this thread so far! Aside from producing very impractical logos (wouldn't want to be the guy who tries to convert one of those "organic" logos into a t-shirt embrodery), what bugs me about this method of categorizing logo designs into trends, memes and categories is that it just makes it easier for mediocre designers to get paid by simply regurgitating "safe", generic designs and waiting for others to come up with the next "trend" to copy.

      Sure, many will argue that this is simply "what clients want" and go on doing it. Hell, buy a few decent fonts and get an istock account and anyone at all can be a designer these days. This is why, in spite having 7 years commerical design experience and a fine arts degree, I jumped ship into the marketing side of things - the huge glut of untrained, mediocre talent out there is just pricing decent design out of business. It's a hard place in between the hugely paid "celebrity" designers who actually gets to be creative and the bottom end of the market that will copy paste together an entire corporate identity for a couple hundred bucks. Sad, just sad.
    • fxu1989, on 03/02/2008, -0/+2THANK YOU THANK YOU !!!

      I've been chatting with a friend at school about this and he said it still looks better (web 2.0 *****) .. and I kept mentioning what you said above ... he said he didn't care.

      sigh ... I refrain from using gradients and drop-shadows and mention it to my customers, also 2 or 3 colors at max ... they say it's perfect.

      All this colorful ***** and glossy stuff it's overrated and it only works on the net.
    • zeromancer, on 03/02/2008, -0/+2the force is strong with this one.
  • diskit, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Where's the H&R Block green square?
    • zeromancer, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1they're obviously so far ahead that the HR block logo will define trends long after we're dead.
  • imacmike, on 03/01/2008, -2/+12When I think about the most recognizable iconic logos, none of them have transparencies, leaves, or organic 3D elements. McDonalds anyone?
    • GalacticRerun, on 03/01/2008, -0/+4A good logo but then lots of iconic logos have the money behind them to be rammed down our throats at every turn. Which is why we remember them.
    • zeromancer, on 03/02/2008, -0/+2recognizable logos are the ones that have been ingrained into your cortex over the span of your lifetime.
  • skyshock1, on 03/01/2008, -1/+5Just so long as the ***** glass-base reflection dies a horrible death.
  • katrayun, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Wow, you would think that at least one designer at Wacom would know better.
  • BaronVonZ, on 03/01/2008, -1/+8Buried for being a plagiarized POS
    • chops76, on 03/01/2008, -0/+0Dugg to see how many more people would notice that.
  • sparkmonkeyz, on 03/01/2008, -1/+4I'm into that ugly 80's look. I guess it looks like a lot of digg isn't though. I don't know, it's kind of how I dress and everything now. Guess I am just following yet another trend... damnit.
  • cap11235, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Rounded corners, reflection, and gloss.
  • defr4g, on 03/01/2008, -2/+3We should have won. The Paris 2012 logo would have been SO much more beautiful.
    :D
  • assortedg, on 03/01/2008, -0/+9This needs to get buried if not removed entirely. He's clearly copy/pasting another blogs content. Bury this and Digg the original content and don't reward plagiarists.
  • Subriot, on 03/01/2008, -1/+1It would be so much easier to use PNG transparency but Internet Explorer 6 is such a god damn hassle to work with.
  • downlinebuilder, on 03/01/2008, -7/+1How about these logo? :)

    http://www.downlinepartners.com/?danny/splash3/&st ...
    http://www.downlinepartners.com/?danny/splash4/&st ...
    http://www.downlinepartners.com/?danny/splash5/&st ...
    • Jeffler, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2I hope to god this is sarcasm.
    • artfiend77, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I hate you for posting those links. :'(
    • CATSCEO, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1A. 'these logo'?
      B. Cut off image links.

      Verdict: FAIL.
  • actorboy, on 03/01/2008, -2/+5Am I the only only person who still believes logos need to work in black and white first? Half of these don't look like they'd fly on a fax or photocopied letterhead.
  • assortedg, on 03/01/2008, -0/+7Oh, and here's the actual article's Digg submission:

    http://digg.com/design/Logo_Design_Trends_2008
  • FBMGriever, on 03/01/2008, -1/+11The new Photoshop logo is disgusting.
    • bxblox, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I agree, I much prefer the previous logo.
  • tehzombie, on 03/01/2008, -0/+8This article sucks, why is this having so many diggs?
    • zeromancer, on 03/02/2008, -0/+1the question i have is why are YOU having so many diggs?
  • Deanblackoak, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Does this original article seem tongue-in-cheek to anyone else?
    • bjs3171, on 03/01/2008, -3/+1yes. "waves. the new swoosh". what the ***** is a "swoosh" other than the nike swoosh, and who else besides Nike uses one?
      i'm a designer, btw.

      i absolutely despise "y, the new x" statements. NO IT'S NOT THE NEW ANYTHING, IT'S ITSELF. SHUT THE ***** UP BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE.
  • falafelkiosken, on 03/01/2008, -1/+2more "2.0" design? I wonder if anybody can define what it is? no? I guess not.
    2008 will hopfully be the year that buzzword dies, at least I hope people will stop talking about stupid "web 2.0 design" and start being innovative
  • Sairgem, on 03/01/2008, -1/+3I read that as "Lego", and was sorely disappointed.
  • dtfinch, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1I really like that coffee cup at the bottom.
  • zoxx, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2London...I love you...but WTF?
  • toxicityj, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1pretty much all of these designs could be categorized as "web 2.0"
  • adooga, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2Leaves are a trend? Rainbows are a trend?
    The only trend I picked up from this article was the trend of horribly dated design being touted as fresh.
  • bjs3171, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1the olympics are coming up. they better get on redesigning that horrid "doesn't follow one principle of design" logo.
  • ayushsaran, on 03/01/2008, -0/+2i wish i could change my digg to a bury, he kinda stole the entire thing from logo orange
  • korea, on 03/01/2008, -0/+3Buried for plagiarism without any original contribution. Lifting the images directly off the source and only linking to the original at the very bottom of the page when you've added nothing to the content is absolutely awful. This is a website I will never again visit. I'd rather be rick rolled.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.