Phil Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 That designs 2 and 4 are winning this vote, pretty much erases most of the faith I had in this community to pick great designs.2 is nice, clean.. but plain. A little to simple and straight forward.4 is trite, overdone, and toddler-logoesque.The rest.. ANY of the rest are creative, unique, take a risk, and say something about the designers capabilities.I am disapointed in the way this vote is turning out. Agreed... but they're crowd pleasers.Just like Nickelback or Creed... not that original, by no means ground-breaking, but the people eat it up.I think the fact that 1, 3, and 5 are splitting the more abstract vote hurts their numbers as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 The rest.. ANY of the rest are creative, unique, take a risk, and say something about the designers capabilities.Dude, it's a quickie logo to brand a few contest entries - we're not looking for the next Golden Arches here! If those responsible are worried about any of the above then they're concentrating on the wrong thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Being "creative", "unique" and "taking risks" are admirable qualities and/or goals in the field of branding and graphic design. However, at the end of the day, the created logo system has to be able to quickly, cleanly and concisely communicate the identity of the client's company/product/service, as well. After all, a logo is a type of visual "short-hand". The designer is trying to project the client's identity to the audience in the "blink of an eye"... as opposed to giving the audience a "puzzle to solve". For all their creativity and unique nature, designs 1,3,5 and 6 fail the quick/clean/concise test. That's why the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of concepts 2 and 4.Bottom line? Being a creative, unique risk-taker solely for the purpose of being creative, unique and risk-taking is likely to backfire on you in the branding game. Simple is not always boring.Brian in Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 The rest.. ANY of the rest are creative, unique, take a risk, and say something about the designers capabilities.Dude, it's a quickie logo to brand a few contest entries - we're not looking for the next Golden Arches here! If those responsible are worried about any of the above then they're concentrating on the wrong thing... ...but it's our job... err... hobby to take all things logo-related too seriously. That's why we're the CCSLC, and that's why we rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paynomind Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Simple is not always boring. However, it is in this case.A logo DOESNT have to make you say the company name.. It is meant to portray a feeling that they want you to have when thinking about that company and vice versa. The logo should be one thing first - distinctive. A logo does not need to readable, easy to figure out, and concisely scream the company/teams name. It needs to be instantly be recognized amongst other logos. Logos are not supposed to sing the praises of a company, not tell you their name. That?s why directly below or beside a logo, the company name presides. That most certainly isn?t a puzzle. The logo should be visually interesting.Look at the ATT ball. Does that make you say, ATT? No.. but you recognize that image as being theirs. How about Coke's "dynamic wave device?' That is just a wave. It doesn't say or picture a coke.Two overlapping circles, one red, one yellow. That?s MasterCard, but it sure doesn't picture a card.A goofy tribal, woman in a green circle.. Can you read the word coffee? Not me, but Starbucks sure likes it as a logo.A sunburst of green and gold. That?s a gas company called BP. I didn?t see gas nor the words BP in it.I have about 15 more examples, but you get my point. A logo should be distinctive, like a signature, and difficult to replicate, copy, or simulate. I firmly believe the more complicated, more visually interesting samples put forth here are the better LOGO.. the better IDENTIFICATION for a company. I guarantee you, that for all of its ease of readability, there is another company using some letter in a box format. I'm willing to bet that despite its clean, concise lines and excellent layout, the G with the 3 exists in some form elsewhere. Likewise, I'm willing to bet there isn't anyone else using the stacked colorized versions. Thereby making them a better logo. NCFA Sunset Beach Tech - Octopi ΓΔΒ! Going to college gets you closer to the real world, kind of like climbing a tree gets you closer to the moon. "...a nice illustration of what you get when skill, talent, and precedent are deducted from 'creativity.' " - James Howard Kunstler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reppact Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 2 or 4, but I voted for 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Well, in fairness payno... most of the logos that you've referenced have been in use for more than 10-15 years. Hence, the fact that they have - OVER TIME - become instantly recognizable symbols for their respective companies... even without seemingly having a direct visual tie-in to the company's name or chief product.Which, in point of fact, isn't necessarily true. When I see AT&T's "ball", I DO instantly say, "AT&T"? As for the significance of the globe, it symbolizes the global reach of AT&T's communication products and the company's move away from being solely AMERICAN Telephone and Telegraph.Coke's "dynamic wave"? It signifies the trademark curvaceousness of the original Coca-Cola bottles, as well as the fact that Coke is the liquid (hence, the "wave") "pause that refreshes".Starbuck's "goofy tribal woman" is actually a ship's figurehead... which plays to the fact that the inspiration for the company name is Starbuck of Moby Dick fame.BP's sunburst? It represents the role that the sun has played in the development of energy sources throughout time.As for the "more complicated, more visually interesting samples" being the better logos... I'll respectfully disagree. Look at the examples you offered up in making your argument. Which of them is anywhere near as complicated as 3G's samples 1,3,5 or 6? AT&T? Coke? MasterCard? British Petroleum? All examples of logo simplicity defined. Even the Starbuck's logo is a more straight-forward image than the 3G logos I gave a "thumbs-down" to.We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. What you see as "visually interesting", I regard as "visually cluttered and confusing". IMHO, one thing is of paramount importance: whether a logo blatantly spells out the client's name/product/service or symbolizes a more amorphous aspect of its history, the best logos - your own examples included - utilize simplicity to get the client's brand across.Brian in Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 But with the examples you used, a person can easily identify what the logo is. For mastercard you can tell that it is 2 circles. ATT you can tell it's a globe. Starbucks it's a girl. With 1,3,5, or 6 it's cluttered and I can't tell what it's supposed to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paynomind Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 (isnt this type of respectfull, intelligent discource fun? I think so, too!)While i see your point, B... I think we see the exactly same thing, and disagree how we see it. Each of the logos I brought up, you were able to explain what they represented. I can explain what the 3G logos represent. The logo having a history,a nd a story are what makes them great. What is the story behind the big G with the little three? Each company I brought up has been around a long time - true. But that is my point. All are marketing powerhouses.. the LOGO doesn't market FOR you.. you have to market the logo. Wouldnt any company WANT to do what it took to try and be around for ten years?The beauty of these 3G logos IS their simplicity. They are simply letters overlapped. These actually tell MORE of the company than any of the examples I gave.What I am stuck on, is that this is a logo for a design team. Shouldn't a DESIGNERS logo involve design? Why not take risks with your own logo, with only yourself as a client? Does the signmaker who has a rusty, painted pole, holding up a faded, cracked sign advertising his business get clients or lose them? Does the chevy dealer not drive the Corvette? I think a design firm should have a clean, distinctive logo that may be one aditional step 'out there' to display their creativity. It should show every potential client that they are not afriad to take chances, be bold, try new things, and break new ground. To me, this is an easy choice. I guess to you guys, it is too, but in a different direction.Make mine a sundae waffle cone.... you guys can have the vanilla. NCFA Sunset Beach Tech - Octopi ΓΔΒ! Going to college gets you closer to the real world, kind of like climbing a tree gets you closer to the moon. "...a nice illustration of what you get when skill, talent, and precedent are deducted from 'creativity.' " - James Howard Kunstler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshawaggie Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 I gotta agree with BiB on this one... yes it is nice to be innovative, but IMHO, 1,3, and 5 are just tooo much. If you brought someone over to look at it, who didnt know anything previously, they would probably say 'what the hell is that.' Well, maybe not 1 and 5 so much, but 3 for sure. Thats just my opinion. @josh_j12 CFA- Fargo Bobcats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 To me, 3 is pretty obvious without slapping you in the face with it. I have to go with pnm's reasoning here. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian in Boston Posted July 9, 2004 Share Posted July 9, 2004 Of the 3G logos I don't like, I'll say this about concept #3... if the coloring were rearranged so that the "3" and "G" in the logo were more easily perceived, you might actually have a decent brand. However, given the concept's current palette, as well as the choice of what colors the "3" and "G" elements are primarily rendered in, I just can't vote for it.Brian in Boston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.