What is Digg?116 Comments
- frontlines, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37I love when people with ugly websites tell me about "great" design.
- tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Ummm.... did anyone else notice this guy's own logo sucks?
- frontlines, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22mpancha -- you can't separate the two. You can't be a "great" logo designer and a crappy web designer. Design is design, and the same principles that apply to logo structure and design applies to a website.
- sastian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17this happens in my head every day!
- fohf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11that logo is in his article. i wouldn't say it's the worse, but it definitely has questionable alternate meanings. it might be more appropriate for the 'Super Adventure Club'
- phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19Yeah. I can suggest that you actually pay somebody instead of leeching off some wannabe kid using photoshop tutorials to create stuff. You're robbing the real designers this way.
- studiorats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That first bad logo design example had me rolling. Seriously, it's way too funny to describe.
- pr0t0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8
@frontlines
I'm sorry, but you really could not be more wrong. I'm a graphic designer for both the print and web industries and have been for about twelve years. They ARE different worlds. There are many mutually exclusive design considerations for print and web...number of colors used affects cost in print, available space limited by sheet size vs. screen resolution, reflectant color versus luminant color, and most importantly navigation...how you get someone to open a brochure and read the next panel is not the same as getting that person to click a particular link.
I think this article is a little fluffy, pointing out simple solid logos vs. logos that look like butts and kiddie porn. The truth is, not every logo can be great. Many clients can not pay for a great logo, they often take lots of time and many revisions. If you try to make every logo a portfolio piece you'll go broke. Sometimes despite your pleading the case of better design, a client will insist on something dumb (maybe what happened with the Threecon example). You know what you do? You do what they ask, collect your money and move on to the next one. If the client is intent on ignoring the advice of a seasoned professional that's their problem. Just keep it out of the portfolio.
Lots of great designers make bad logos. Occasionally a bad designer will make a great one. Inspiration happens everywhere. - pheonix2og, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I don't know why you're being buried...
My first thought when I visited the site was that it was crap and this guy is going to tell me how I should correctly design a logo?
And he even puts down Sun Microsystems logo, I have nothing against them or any reason to like them, but their logo is perfectly fine and suitable for their business. He also puts down the "classic" Pepsi logo, which I much prefer to the new blocky logo that is not very appealing.
Frontlines is right about this. The site is poorly designed and while some of this guy's requisites for a good logo make sense, a good logo is ultimately determined by whether or not people see the logo and think of the company. I realize I'll be buried for this comment, but this story is craptastic. - Agret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8or you could be like digg and google and just write your product name in nice lettering.
- silenceHR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8good article. i have seen too many clients demanding really awful things as their logo.... they simply dont understand what logo is.
hehe... i could link to couple sites that have prolly much worse logos then one mentioned in the article.... - fugitiveALiEN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I found that the key is to not design it in PHOTOSHOP, but you need to create it inside some VECTOR art program such as ILLUSTRATOR. Too many times have people used logos that are "photo" quality, those are a pain to print, scale, and maintain on paper products. Keep it clean but clever. ;)
- mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10The timing of this find is impeccable. I'm actually trying to think up a logo for a business I'm trying out.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6um... a logo is the most important part of the "brand". A logo and a brand are not separate entities.
- elgato65, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6“A logo needs to represent the company it serves. This means that the style must be easily identified with the industry/product/service and must give a clear picture of what is being marketed.”
An all too common misconception. It is NOT the function or purpose of the logo to convey or represent what the company does. This is an obsolete conception of a logo, one that might have been applicable many centuries ago, but has no solid basis in today’s world.
A good logo should be empty vessel, ready to be filled with all the attributes a company strategically decides to build it’s identity upon. Besides meeting all the required technical and aesthetical needs, is should be able to transcend it’s mere formal aspects and convey the values a company wishe’s to be identified with.
One of the best examples of that at hand: Apple. What is the connection between technology and apples? None! In its first conception, with al the rainbow colors, one could have guessed that it was a logo for a children’s day care facility. What “clear picture” of what’s being marketed is shown here?
All the attributes we now “see” in the Apple logo –and therefore in the Apple company- are the result of excellent and coherent corporate identity and branding strategies, and it has little to do with what the logo represents. Mercedes Benz anyone? - sosuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7link them already!
- LizardSlayer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6For some reason, I am amorously attracted by the The Bengal Fuels logo.
bottom right http://www.code-interactive.com/archive/logo/ - pype, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What about this:
An Eagle clutching a snake with some awesome lightning and two crossed guitars with a skull in there somewhere. OH! and some jaggedy writing that says "Death from Above" or something cool like that. And Flames! Tons of wicked devily Flames! Sweeeeet.
$50 Consultation fee please. - Agret, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Sounds like you need a new job.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5his logos are definately really horrible, he breaks his own rules
- PhantomTrogdor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, to me, a lot of these requirements are common sense, but it DOES explain how to acheive them...That could be helpful.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Somebody needs to teach them that lensflare usage is also a no no in logos.
Talk about "practice what you preach". - gukid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There's no coherency to the article. He says the Nike swoosh is a great logo, but when another sports company uses a similar "swoosh" then it's "trendy"? Also "Revlon" is just a specific font, but says it's great as well. These are established brands and established logos, of course they would look good. Take the "Microsoft" logo, nothing special but easily identifyable. Or the "Nintendo" logo, doesn't relate to the company exactly, but is an established brand. The article takes established brands and popular logos and tries to explain why they are good, but has a hard time defining what makes a good logo. My take? The logo is only as good as the company. Build your logo around your company instead of your company around your logo, and I think you'll have more success. These companies all have successful logos because the companies have been successful. Consider companies that have recently changed logos? Kodak, Konami, Intel... (personally I liked Konami's old logo, but it's due to the fact that I associated it with Konami.) Anyway, I guess all I'm trying to say is that logo's don't matter in regards to the success of a company or product, as much as people seem to think they do (commercial designers...)
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Forgettable article. Unforgettable example.
- m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Doesn't matter. People know Intel by now and look for "Intel Inside" rather than any old logo.
Off-Topic, I think AMD needs a new logo or some more brand-driven marketing. - dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Be unique? Wow, that's not a generic rule for EVERYTHING.
- UriMcFlurry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree. I think the best logos out there are the abstract ones. Then again, the Apple logo, IMHO, is one of the best identifiable logo out there. Apple doesn't even need to put there name anywhere, they just need to put there mark and people know who they are and what they are.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Agreed. A good logo, however, can make identifying that succesful company a lot easier.
A good company needs good products and services. A good brand needs a good logo. A good brand helps make a good company even more succesful in the market place. - bram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It looks like a red ass getting something inserted into it!
- StickyDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Neat article. The Pediatric clinic and the first logo are hilarious. A lot of the images are missing though
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3An article on good logo design on a site that sells 'good logo design' for $39.
This is like Nike having an article on how to manufacture quality shoes.
"A logo needs to represent the company it serves. This means that the style must be easily identified with the industry/product/service and must give a clear picture of what is being marketed."
That is false. Better advice would be 'a logo shouldn't represent something the company isn't'. It's fine for a logo to not literally represent the physical product or service the company provides. The logo is merely a mark/identifier for the company.
"A Great Logo Must Be Unique"
It should be unique, but certainly doesn't have to be. Often, having a logo that is NOT unique might be strategically advantageous.
Finally, their own work:
http://www.code-interactive.com/archive/logo/
Is, well, not the greatest. - spadin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you want to see good logo design, check out my neighbors website. They are actually a small team of designers that do really good work. Identity, Typography, Design, etc..,
http://www.segura-inc.com/projects.php?main=identity%20projects&sub=logos&layernum=1&imgnum=1 - m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Please do describe. I can't wait to see that in words.
- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@frontlines:
Just because you're a designer doesn't mean you know squat about HTML. Though, in this case, the horrendous lens flare at the top of the page is a good indicator that a rookie designed it. - UriMcFlurry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I disagree with your last statement. I think your logo has a lot to do with the success of your company. If you have a good, strong, identifiable logo, you're company will be widely recognized within advertising. Successful advertising brings in revenue. If I saw a company with a cheap looking logo, I would think that their company was cheap.
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I was shocked the first time I read about the subliminal arrow in the FedEx logo (between the E and x). I had never noticed it, but now it's all I see whenever I see the logo. I wonder if I ever noticed sub-consciously (I already associated FedEx with movement).
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31 & 3 are different how?
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In your head, yes, but what happens out in the business world every day?
Focus groups. A "great logo" to a majority of clients is what tests well (heck, a great *anything* to clients is something that tests well).
This article stumbles about with some vaguely-intuited design 101 that's basically thrown out the window in focus groups, relying on the "wisdom of the crowd" to guide design.
Not to sound cynical or anything. - UriMcFlurry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Apple comes up with very abstract icons for their OS, but it's very recognizable. What the hell does a gear have to do with a "SmartFolder" or a Face have to do with the "Finder"? But it works!
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That approach relies on heavy, saturation-level marketing to tie your avant-garde mark to a service or product.
It's great if your client can afford it, but if they can't, there has to be some sort of connection to bridge the gap between mark and business. - lukes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article is inconsistent. On the first page, under "A Great Logo Must Be Functional", he gives the good advice that you should avoid bitmap-type effects or images in your logo so that it scales well and allows for two- or three-colour representation. In the very next section, "A Great Logo Must Represent the Company", he gives the thumbs up to the Dasani logo which has a (horrible) gradient fill! The logo he gives the thumbs down to for being too bitmappy, Tech Consulting, would reduce to three colours a lot more effectively than the Dasani logo, not to mention would look nice from small to very big sizes.
Rather than actually providing us will great examples of innovative logos, the article is full of the old favourites, Nike, Coca Cola, Mitsubishi .. These are logos designed decades ago! What I would have liked to have seen would have been examples from now of what great logo design is. - Monkeyget, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Worth 1000 organize contests were people can create a logo for a company.
Look for the "Corporate" entries : http://www.worth1000.com/cdir.asp?page=2&display=
It's interesting to see the variety of the results given even if there are restrictive constraints. - jmickey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The IRS should adopt that first "bad logo" example.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Amen.
- nubs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okay article... but its shameful that they are selling logo designs starting at 39 dollars.
- lemurfemur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree. And anyone who uses a lens flare in the header of their site loses all credibility when it comes to critiquing design.
And c'mon now.. a thumbs up for that, uh, new and improved Auto Parts logo on the second page? Yikes. - UriMcFlurry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HAHA Yeah, well I think the more appropriate statement would be, "Don't be cliche"
- danz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Is it just me or is it funny reading an article on logo design and their logo looks like crap? Also is using a picture of a historical person considered being unique?
- danboarder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lame article - very shallow - poor examples, and written by unskilled designers. For a more in depth look at logos, branding, and design, hang around http://www.commarts.com/ and other real design sites.
- jamie3033, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Talk about making a great logo! That lens flare at the top is hideous.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is