The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
What Makes A Great Logo?
code-interactive.com — There are four principles that make for a great logo design: Follow solid basic design principles, Be functional, Represent the company, and Be unique. We will go over each of these principles in depth.
WickedOwl- 1964 diggs
- digg it
- sastian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17this happens in my head every day!
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Sounds like you need a new job.
- diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -32/+1sdfsdfsfsdf
- 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. - Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Hey Pepsi stole my logo :P
Where's the Apple Logo? Where's all the car Logo's? (Mitsubishi)? Where's the Sony Logo? - BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Where's all the car Logo's? (Mitsubishi)?"
Page 2.
http://www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a112a.html
- 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.
- _skin_, on 10/12/2007, -14/+5Don't use the bottom one on page 2... Looks like the guy is making a little kid give head! BWAHHHAAAHAHAHAHAH
- tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Ummm.... did anyone else notice this guy's own logo sucks?
- shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2same here.
anyone know a good place for logo competitions? - 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. ;)
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lots of logos are made with Photoshop and then converted to vector format.
- 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. - affnfp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5his logos are definately really horrible, he breaks his own rules
- iWorks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hmm, it's not 16 Pantone® Colors like one we had a customer make on their own? I wonder what they read when they created it.
- liberalmeat, on 10/12/2007, -27/+5i'm on the lookout for any free logo designer website or software for my blog .... ( ya, ;-) i want a free site , hey i'm just a regulat guy trying to blog!!! ) ...... can anyone suggest any ?????
- 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.
- unangst, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Gimp: http://www.gimp.org/
Acme Label Maker http://www.acme.com/labelmaker/ - rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5No but if you come to my house and do my laundry or clean my bathroom or clean my cats litterbox, we can talk. Oh yeah and buy me some beer--dinner would be even better. That way you can at least say that do didn't actually pay for it you cheap bastard.
- dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Nobody wants to read your personal blog.
- olorinpc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I highly doubt the poster is old enough to buy beer.
- 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.
- frontlines, on 10/12/2007, -6/+37I love when people with ugly websites tell me about "great" design.
- mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10They are talking about design of a logo, not design of a website. Compares apples to apples, not apples to oranges.
- 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.
- 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. - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Granted, it's more or less outsider commentary. This is a business take on graphic design, not really a critical design evaluation.
- 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. - 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. - fingiecrookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ frontlines: "You can't be a "great" logo designer and a crappy web designer."
Like hell you can! If you had any real experience in the web design industry, you would've known that.
Besides, what makes you automatically assume that the guy who wrote this article designed the website as well? As far as I can tell, he didn't. - frontlines, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Sigh.
I'm not going to try and respond to all of this, but I'll concede that there are *obviously* differences in print and web. However — maybe it's just this silly little work ethic of mine, but I create excellent pieces whether in print or web (regardless of budget). You don't turn down your skill set depending on the budget. They can either afford a little greatness or a lot, but I refuse to shill out poor design.
Some might say that's cocky and arrogant, but the arrogance is in people who are willing to hand someone sub par work when they know they could have done better without losing time or money. And part of being a designer, or at least a good one, is knowing how to sell your work. If there's reason behind your design you can almost always win over a difficult client.
In conclusion — I'm right and that site bit. Thank you.
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8or you could be like digg and google and just write your product name in nice lettering.
- mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2True, you raise a good point, but even doing simple test is itself a Logo.. like with the FedEx logo.
- 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....- sosuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7link them already!
- fnaqzna, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I think this is the third or fourth article about logo design I've seen this week. Must be a slow news cycle. Yawn.
- jeremymcanally, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2This is er...informational? Design 100 (as in, before 101) for sure. I don't really agree with a couple of them that he gave thumbs down/up to, but oh well. I guess that's how it goes.
Even more, his "critiques" of company logos are extremely subjective and fairly useless ("add a skew to this," "not dynamic enough" What does 'dynamic' even mean?). His critique of the ChemEng dept's logo was funny because I don't think he really got the entire concept of the logo.
I guess if you had never seen a logo before or really paid attention to a single logo this might be helpful, but this is really just simple design psychology that most people already understand. - studiorats, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That first bad logo design example had me rolling. Seriously, it's way too funny to describe.
- m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Please do describe. I can't wait to see that in words.
- streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Forgettable article. Unforgettable example.
- bram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It looks like a red ass getting something inserted into it!
- jlawson1, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3logo...isn't that the gay and lesibian channel????
- Anpheus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I'll give you all a hint: they're just guessing. The only reason the Coca-Cola logo or the logo is good? Because people like the product. If you don't like the product you'll associate the logo with negative feelings, and tada, you don't like the product. Some products are so damn good that even logos that miserably fail the 'criteria necessary for a good logo' that people love the logo.
Designers? They're just _guessing_ at what a good logo really is, and hoping that who they are designing for has a good product to put that logo on.- edmicman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Why is this buried? It's true.
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not true.
Logo design, as with site design, architectural design (on any scale), or even page layout all have very basic concepts driving what should really be called "Well Formed Design"; instead of 'good' or 'bad'. Well formed design will adere to design principles and will transcend time and taste. This goes for all of the above mentioned types of design. Therefore, a designer (a true one) would not be merely 'guessing' at what a good logo is. - undresedmonster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate when people critique logos, and use Coca Cola and (ALWAYS) Nike. These are huge corporations and cannot be compared to the average guy who needs a logo for his small business. And besides, Coca Cola and Nike are bad examples to use as good logo design because everyone already knows their products. If we didn't know that Nike made athletic products, would we be able to guess that from their logo? Probably not.
In a lot of cases logo design is very subjective. However, some of the points this guy makes are good, such as you have to follow good principles of design (form especially - and that is a very difficult rule to follow without training).
- JiveTurkeyPunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1New Intel logo better than old one?
- 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.
- m00nmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Doesn't matter. People know Intel by now and look for "Intel Inside" rather than any old logo.
- Kronos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5critique this one
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y201/flidders/worstlogoever.jpg- 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'
- gekkokid, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1*cough* he has read the same books i have, the books are a lot better and more indepth*cough*
anyway its all about the brand, logos are very 1996- mGee, 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.
- mGee, 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.
- 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?
- 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. - mGee, 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".- puggy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes. One good tip I learned from working with a designer is not to avoid fuzzy stuff like lens flares, blurs, and drop shadows. While they look nice, they're much harder to translate into line art.
- puggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I meant "to avoid", no "not". :)
- aquax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. As soon as I saw the lens flare, the site lost a huge chunk of credibility for me.
I'm no professional designer, hell I just _barely_ started taking design classes in college, but that's an elementary mistake.
- 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/ - HeyBob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0My favourite of all time: (CN Canadian National Railroad)
http://cn.ca/about/en_about.shtml- skube, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I really like GO Transit. http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/home.htm
- skube, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I really like GO Transit. http://www.gotransit.com/publicroot/home.htm
- 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?- mGee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Amen.
- 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. - 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.
- 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...)
- 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.
- 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. - daofma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's something called the "mere exposure effect" which applies here. The more you see, hear, feel, smell, taste, or otherwise sense something, the more you like it. A logo you've seen a thousand times will almost always look better than a logo you've never seen before.
Using real logos in his analysis I think negates his ability to compare them. Logos nobody has heard of consistanly get the red thumbs-down, and the popular ones get the thumbs up. There's correlation, but it doesn't prove causation.
- 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).
- 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
- jo42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Blue Duck.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Be unique? Wow, that's not a generic rule for EVERYTHING.
- UriMcFlurry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HAHA Yeah, well I think the more appropriate statement would be, "Don't be cliche"
- 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.- 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.
- fireandicefuel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0here's some examples
http://www.playerthree.net/img/client-logos.gif
http://www.designnewz.com/designnewz-2-20030729GreatLogosandWhy.html - catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2BZZZZT WRONG!
Why is this even newsworthy??
The priciples for a good logo are actually:
1) instantly recognizable
2) reproduceable without distortion on nearly any substrate
3) simple enough for instant association
4) neutral enough to keep the focus on the product instead of the design- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31 & 3 are different how?
- catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1they are different
1) has to do with RECOGNITION
3) has to do with ASSOCIATION - WillyMF1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The one and three not being different is a good point...While the rest of your points are interesting, I'm going to mod your comment down for being an ass.
- catmistake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1(sigh)
Recognition- The impression that an object, event or sequence has been experienced before or is familiar. Identification.
Association- the state of being connected together as in memory or imagination
I'm not sure where in clarifying the clear differences between these points that I've been "an ass," and though the difference might be considered subtle, they are, in fact, different.
- recover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Read this a loooong time agooooo.
Still a very good read. - VipeNess, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1that last one is a classic!
- 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 - MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What makes a logo great?
The company behind it and their ability to do great things.
Silicon Valley is littered with good intentions and a great logo.
A good logo can make a good first impression but it's not going to make you successful.
And one more thing, what make an icon great is your ability to recognize it.
Their 'thumbs up' 'thumbs down' icons are crap.- 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!
- WillyMF1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Their 'thumbs up' 'thumbs down' icons are crap."
Word.
- quadvods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This article is very shallow. There are also 2 main points which were rather dumb IMO.
1. Saying that your logo should work on white and black backgrounds is not a requirement. There are many logos that specify that they must have a white exclusion zone around the logo if they are used on dark backgrounds.
2. Saying you should have no gradients... also not required. There are numerous logos of world famous brands that have gradients.. this does not make them less effective. ....e.g. google!- UriMcFlurry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's not saying that there should be "no gradients" it's saying that a gradient shouldn't be required to keep the integrity of the logo. I agree with this. Your logo should work in black and white (no gray) and still keep it's integrity before you add any color. When I present a logo to a client, I don't introduce color until phase 2. A gradient, should only be used to enhanced the look and feel of the logo.
oh... and one more thing. Google's logo sucks. It was made as a joke.
- UriMcFlurry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's not saying that there should be "no gradients" it's saying that a gradient shouldn't be required to keep the integrity of the logo. I agree with this. Your logo should work in black and white (no gray) and still keep it's integrity before you add any color. When I present a logo to a client, I don't introduce color until phase 2. A gradient, should only be used to enhanced the look and feel of the logo.
- alanspach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I love it when people try to nail down and define intangibles like what makes this logo good.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They are not intangibles. Logo design follows certain design principles, as this article attempted to explain.
- jmickey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The IRS should adopt that first "bad logo" example.
- Thinkcage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Nice article. Although I think the ideas about how a logo must represent a company and its industry/product(s)/services is a little old fashioned. In my opinion it is most important that a logo be memorable and unique. Being attractive and communicating the company's primary function are secondary and seem to have little bearing on the success of a logo mark. In fact many companies choose non-representative forms in their logos to avoid being pigeon-holded into a certain group or to keep the mark relevant as they expand into other areas, evolving the business. Furthermore, what tends to happen is the logo's meaning is informed by the company and the emphemeral qualities it projects.
A classic example is Paul Rand's design for IBM where the strong horizontal stripes because of their presense in the technology giant's mark took on the meaning of high-tech and were subsequently adopted by many companies - like the AT&T example in the article, for instance. In fact, Rand actually used the stripes to solve a purely visual problem with the awkward way the three letters I-B-M work when placed together.
I think a common mistake made by amatuer logo designers and uninformed clients alike is the assertion that the logo is single-handedly responsible for establishing and communicating what the company is and does and all of the intangible things we want customers to know about it. However, it seems that the reality is a good mark is a vessel for holding these qualities no matter the form. - ChrisPelletier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1great article
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Arlington Pediatric Center on page two is CLASSIC.
I'm laughing so hard it's starting to hurt... - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does Digg have a good logo?
- jthx1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Digg has a wonderful logo! There are two parts to it, the logotype itself, which is blocky and bold. The blue and gold gradients are strongly associated with it. The second and less-seen logo is the Digg character--it shows up in the favicon in your menu bar. Take a look at it right now. A man with a shovel. He has his arms in the air, clearly he's happy. Again, blocky conveying tech and simplicity. Digg has a fantastic brand that is tight, clean, and recognizable. Kudos to Kevin and company.
- Thinkcage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good question. I think Digg's logo is a bit lacking in the memorable and unique categories. To me it looks like somebody typeset the name, but really didn't design a logo.
- wolver1ne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No digg. Crappy article. As already mentioned, it takes more than just a logo.
- SilentPurity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The GIMP makes a great logo.
- 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.
- sersun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Familiarity and trust in a company will tend to make you like the logo. Even if you belive Google's logo is inherently bad, it looks like people like it: http://www.grupthink.com/poll/298
It's interesting on that page how many new logos are using gradients (but not as integral parts of their designs ) - av4rice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What? This guy needs to follow his own advice. Who the hell puts a lens flare on a light background like that?
- liberalmeat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0hey rabiddogma ,
u sure u not a FAG ????? - jthx1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's a good article reviewing various corporate logos. http://www.gdusa.com/issue_2005/04_apr/feature/feat_01.php
- dryrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This appears to be a long-form advertisement. It ends with "look at the great deals we offer on logos and branding". Lame.
-
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 
