12 MYTH-BUSTING POINTS ABOUT LOGO DESIGN
LIST OF POINTS:
—
1 — “SIMPLE” AND “ORIGINAL” ARE OPPOSITE FORCES
2 — SOME COMPANY NAMES ARE HARDER TO DESIGN A LOGO FOR
3 — TYPEFACE CHOICE COULD BE 80% (IF NOT 100%)
4 — THE PROCESS IS OVERRATED
5 — THE PROCESS IS UNDERESTIMATED
6 — A LOGO SHOULD IDENTIFY, NOT EXPLAIN
7 — A LOGO DOESN’T HAVE TO MEAN ANYTHING, BUT MUST WORK WELL
8 — CLEVER LOGOS — YES BUT NOT ALWAYS
9 — PRESENTATION — NOT A FAN OF MONOCHROME LOGO FOLIO AND CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
10 — “RESONANCE POINT” OR FINAL TOUCH IS IMPORTANT
11 — A LOGO MAKES COMPANY SUCCESS, BUT ALSO VICE VERSA
12 — REBRANDING IS ALWAYS A SHAKY GROUND, GET USED TO IT
BONUS: FIGHT OCD
—
INTRO
Over the last few years, type design moved me away from working with clients full-time (I am about 50/50 now). Still, logo design has been the prevalent niche in my graphic design career so far.
During that time, I shaped some of my own opinions about logo design. Several of these opinions I haven’t seen anywhere else (at least not formulated the same way), and, in some cases, my point of view is different from the widely accepted postulates within the graphic design community. Likewise, some points here are well known, but I wanted to emphasize them.
This article represents my personal point of view and I’m not claiming to be 100% correct all of the time. I especially don’t aspire to build counter-dogma in those places where the article questions current dogmas. The main goal is to widen the area of creative freedom in logo design.
Many statements I made here definitely require stronger argumentation but I had to refrain from making the article too long. And pardon my English, I am trying my best :)
1 — “SIMPLE” AND “ORIGINAL” ARE OPPOSITE FORCES
—
While there might be lucky exceptions, an idea that is too basic usually means higher chances that other people used it before you, so it’s less original. If it’s too simple, the idea becomes commonplace, which is the purpose of an icon and exactly the opposite of what you want from a logo. Take a plain blue circle as an example. It’s very simple, but it’s not enough to be called a good logo. Add a checkmark to that blue circle — now it’s an icon.
So, you should move away from “too simple” toward more complicated/original. However, go too far in that direction and you might make it original, but not memorable (and to be memorable is the main goal of a good logo). Think of QR codes, for example. Each of them is absolutely original, but the code itself is complicated to the point where all of them appear to be the same. Only a computer can recognize it.
The trick is to find the sweet spot between simple and original, which is the core of the logo design process. This sweet spot should fall and work in the range of cognitive environment in which the logo appears. Imagine a shelve full of similar products by different vendors in the supermarket, a TV commercial, a web banner, or a billboard by the highway. In all of those cases, a good logo should be recognized and memorized in a second.
2 — SOME COMPANY NAMES ARE HARDER TO DESIGN A LOGO FOR
—
Clients usually come with a predefined name and that’s beyond the control of the logo designer. But the company name is crucial for successful branding. If the name is too general/common, all the originality is left to the graphic aspect of the logo and that could be troublesome.
As an example, imagine a client with a generic name (something along the lines of PEOPLE or WORLD or NEW + LOVE or BEST or QUALITY). How would one make an original logo in this case? It’s hard to place a turtle with a blue hat next to such a company name (you can, but it’s not easy to convince the client in such a weird twist — why a turtle, why a blue hat, etc.).
But, if their company name was “Blue Hat Turtle” (I don’t want to Google this) then the graphic part is more directed and straightforward. I sometimes feel that the discrepancy between the possible visual solution and the predefined company name — in terms of specificity — is simply too big. I am not saying that you can’t make a great logo for a company name that uses very abstract and overused words. But I am saying that it’s harder. In that sense, there are easier and harder logo briefs, so the price might follow.
Overused words sound (yes, that’s also a part of the logo), look and mean overused, and you can’t rely solely on them (wordmark) or to make subtle graphical moves (like, for example, excluding a horizontal bar from a capital A). In that case, you would probably need a strong graphical symbol next to a wordmark, or a much more original typography choice, layout, or something else.
Aside from originality/meaning, some letter combinations are simply visually more convenient for manipulation and have more graphical potential than others. For example, the word “IMOXOMI”. Symmetric, with shapes optimal for best spacing, has central X — something you can start with (not necessarily, though).
3 — TYPEFACE CHOICE COULD BE 80% (IF NOT 100%)
—
A typeface is already graphic design per se. So if the company name is chosen wisely, in combination with an original, appropriate, and well-designed typeface, it could mean that 80% of the job is already done; sometimes even 100% (which would be a wordmark type of logo). The fact is that type designer is rarely able to make a particular letter combination perfect, so some fine adjustments of spacing or letterforms are usually needed, especially if it’s a wordmark and the full focus is on the text.
Typefaces are divided into two main categories: TEXT and DISPLAY. The latter usually brings more personality and originality (at the expense of functionality at a smaller size and in running text) which makes it more suitable for logo design. Multicolor fonts would be an “ultra-display” category and might be a great choice for some projects. I designed a few of them (LINK) with branding usage in mind.
The wordmark type of logo (name+font only) might seem less demanding (work-wise) to the client — “I could also type some text and call it a logo.” That issue requires a smooth way to communicate.
Either way, it’s important that you (in the first place) don’t feel like a cheater in this case. You are not paid only for raw labor, but for your experience, taste, knowledge, and opinion. Not to mention that browsing through your fonts base, taking screenshots of samples on font stores, trying different case options, layouts, etc. could take even more time than designing a symbol.
4 — THE PROCESS IS OVERRATED
—
The creative process is very important, without any doubt. But there are a few traps here, especially when it comes to logo design.
First, the process implies a convergent type of thinking (at least for keeping track of where you are in the process), a sense of gradual development, and a kind of expectation that there is an algorithm to find ideas. Being in such a state of mind might be counter-effective, negatively affect inspiration and openness to great ideas at the early stage of the project. In short, it might jeopardize creative mood and relaxed divergent thinking which is crucial for “ingenious” ideas. This point requires more elaboration and probably a separate article, but for now, I just want to question “creative process dogma”.
The first idea might be the best sometimes. But not always. Hard labor might not be related to the quality of work. But it might be sometimes. The main characteristic of ingenious work is that it’s outstanding even though it is not clear where that gem comes from; you can’t see the process behind it. Urge for control might ruin the party.
On the other side, you often have to wait for that creative spark, it’s not always instant. Sometimes it actually is a hard-working visual exploration when you dig in a particular direction, looking for solutions, trying this and that before you start to “see” something. But it doesn’t have to be like that always.
Also, a solid base in terms of pre-knowledge and understanding the problem is important. For example, it’s hard for me to make a great heavy metal song because I don’t listen to heavy metal. I do not think in that direction, I do not have any internal criteria about it, nor taste.
That said, the process always exists, but it’s mostly unconscious and it’s not good to interfere too much trying to make it organized or conscious in total. Too much rationality in the process might affect intuition and keep you creatively frozen (or frightened actually). It shouldn’t feel like a process, it should feel like play.
I became aware of this when I noticed that I have better ideas when working on cheaper projects. The cheapest logo project I offer to clients is that they write a short brief, I provide three quick solutions and they pick one of them to finalize (this is fine for some situations like when they just want to test the market selling something on a placeholder website). With such projects, I am very relaxed. There are no high expectations, I am instantly in the “final” phase of the project because that’s the only phase (no process), and boom — great ideas are here.
Finally, it might be that the process dogma is overly promoted by designers as a marketing trick because it sounds professional to clients (and other designers).
5 — THE PROCESS IS UNDERESTIMATED
—
From time to time, I speak with non-designer people about logo design and they sometimes have shockingly good taste in what is a good and bad logo, which kinda surprised me. But when they tried to design a logo they produced results below their criteria. So to avoid counter dogmatic atmosphere, the creative process is very important, but more on an intuitive than rational level. It is sometimes full of hidden decisions and turns where an inexperienced traveler can get lost.
6 — A LOGO SHOULD IDENTIFY, NOT EXPLAIN
—
This is put very effectively. I saw this formulation in a few places, can’t remember where exactly, but it seems this is one of the oldest sources on the web (LINK).
Many logos are banal and unoriginal trying to visually explain what the business is about. The purpose of the logo is not to symbolize the type of business but that particular company. Again, we do not need an icon here (or an icon-based symbol) — exactly the opposite.
But to be honest, some businesses may really need an icon more than a real logo. For example, a dentist logo with teeth. While I appreciate any effort to move from the cliche in this sense, I understand it’s maybe more important for a local business (that doesn’t aspire to be a brand or chain known to millions) that the logo works more like a “Dentist Here” sign than to make a revolution in logos for dentists.
It is not inspiring for me as a designer to work on, but I get the point.
7 — A LOGO DOESN’T HAVE TO MEAN ANYTHING, BUT MUST WORK WELL
—
But what I really wanted is to push the previous point further, and deconstruct using “encrypted meaning” in the logo. Those are the elements whose meaning is not expected to be understandable to the user.
I remember one case, where a wine company had a logo that incorporated isohypses of their vineyard — but not in an obvious way — so they ended up with a messy logo which meant something but nobody knew what. The customer gets nothing, while the client has a false sense of meaning. The point of the logo is not to be a puzzle. Especially not an unsolvable one.
A logo is not a mystical symbol, it’s a corporate symbol. It should be open to the user, not closed like the coat of arms of some secret society full of secret meaning.
Avoiding “encrypted meaning” might sound easier than it is in reality. It sometimes sneaks by in different forms, through various assumptions that rely on what the designer and the client already know about the project, neglecting the fact that it has an “internal meaning” and not a “universal meaning” (generally understood). You should always try to look at the logo with the user’s eyes, and exclude everything you know about it, just look at it as if you see it the first time. It’s not an easy task — try to look at the mirror as you see yourself the first time :)
Here is the potentially controversial statement: a logo should be obvious.
It might be controversial because one might interpret “obvious” as “banal” or “commonplace”. But when I say “obvious” I mean cognitively easy to get. The emotional unconscious level is more important than the rational level when we talk about the reception of a logo. So it should be obvious to the user’s unconsciousness. And above all, it must look good.
The hidden meaning might be incorporated, but the client should not see it as a particular quality of the logo. It might serve as an easter egg, an element of brand storytelling, and later interpretation. But more important, it must work well visually, disconnected from its meaning. Take that famous white arrow in the FedEx logo as an example. It’s a great legendary logo for sure, but the effect of the subliminal message here is maybe taken for granted, and maybe a bit overrated. It’s a great logo without it as well, and that’s crucial.
But let’s go even further, even with unhidden meaning, it’s not a must.
Here is another potentially controversial statement: a logo doesn’t have to mean anything as long as it works well in the cognitive arena.
It can mean something, but it doesn’t have to. Humans have a compulsive urge to inject meaning in anything and rely on that, but that terror of “meaningization” can ruin the beauty of the phenomenon — as it is. Colors, shapes, and pleasant relations between elements are qualities that take effect before they hit our ratio. Again, the emotional level is primary in corporate visual communication.
OK, meaning could be a helpful direction, something to start with, but not a tyrant.
8 — CLEVER LOGOS — YES BUT NOT ALWAYS
—
Related to the previous point is the notion of “clever” logos which seem to be very popular, especially among non-designers. Those are the logos that have some graphically intelligent solution applied, which is connected with the meaning of the company name. For example category of “autological” logos, word FISH in the shape of fish, or word RIPPLE with ripple distorted letters. And various other examples of similar “intelligent” logo treatment. A bit of a visual puzzle that has an optimum ratio of the heaviness to solve and effect.
While this is a great direction and appropriate for some projects, it doesn’t represent the ultimate quality in logo design. Some logos simply don’t need a personality that plays such games with the user (except if it is absolutely and unbelievably good as the “SPARTAN GOLF CLUB” logo :)
9 —PRESENTATION — NOT A FAN OF MONOCHROME LOGO FOLIO AND CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS
—
One of the common practices among logo designers is to present logos in a portfolio using the B&W environment only. While it’s absolutely necessary that the logo works in a monochrome environment, and that it doesn’t rely on color only, this kind of presentation always looked a bit pretentious to me. It’s just a special case, and the portfolio should be presented with the best foot forward. The color is one of the crucial cognitive aspects of the visual, and one of the strongest weapons that branding (and graphic design) has. Why neglect it just to show us that you know the fact that the logo should work in one color only? As for the color, it’s always a good idea to find some specific iconic shade for a particular brand, move that value sliders 1–2–3 steps left and right.
Here is a short one — I have seen poor logos by worldwide respected designers and ingenious logos by unknown designers on crowdsourcing sites. It’s not always about the quality, but contacts, relations, business, marketing, promotion, bragging, etc. (like pretty much in everything else).
Another common practice is showing geometrical construction behind the logo (all those circles, grids, diagonals, and golden ratios). The thesis is that it brings quality in terms of order and precision. But type design teaches us that rarely anything purely geometrical is pleasant to the eye. Quite literally, each letter is optically corrected away from clean geometry (ok cap I is sometimes just plain I, but even lowercase i is not, that dot is not a perfect circle probably). Optical corrections deserve a separate article, but anyway there is no real quality in a rigid geometry grid, the eye is always the best judge in visual. It is just our OCD, trying to establish an easily controlled algorithm to get quality. This grid/geometry thing is actually a form of “pseudo-meaning” again.
I believe that the geometry analysis of a logo was important before computers — back when it was important to recreate the logo from the scratch on some occasions. Nowadays, everybody copy/pastes files, no one redraws the logo again to use it on flyer design i.e.
And yes, the golden ratio is overrated.
10 — “RESONANCE POINT” OR FINAL TOUCH IS IMPORTANT
—
Before the handover, it’s a good idea to fine-tune the logo design. I sometimes felt that I improved the logo 30% in this fine-tune phase.
That means fine-tuning the color shades and the smoothness of the curves, removing unnecessary points, applying various optical corrections, fixing the thickness of negative space gaps (check it in zoom in/out), checking the ratio of positive and negative space, typeface weight (variable fonts are perfect for this, you can set custom weight), the size and position of the symbol related to text, kerning and spacing of the text, alignment corrections (you know like two-line text first line starting with H second with A, moving the second line a bit left to compensate diagonal of A), etc.
Each logo design has a visual “resonance point” and this way I try to get as close to it as I can. At some point, you just feel that everything is tightened well.
11 — A LOGO MAKES COMPANY SUCCESS, BUT ALSO VICE VERSA
—
One more dogmatic point is that the quality of some popular logos is idolized because the company itself is successful. And that’s the case for the majority of most successful companies like Coca-Cola, Apple, Nike, Starbucks, FedEx, McDonald’s, etc. These are great legendary logos without arguing, but not “soooooooo” better than others. A good logo makes a company famous, but a famous company makes a logo famous as well. There are logos of the same quality which never saw the light of day because the company worked badly.
12 — REBRANDING IS ALWAYS A SHAKY GROUND, GET USED TO IT
—
One behavioral psychology experiment showed that, in general, people care more about keeping the value they already have than to get more value. Like you would do more to keep $100 in your pocket than to get new $100. The same is with rebranding. On “do you prefer old or new logo” votes, usually OLD is favored. So, basically, any rebranding faces criticism, don’t panic. :) It is easier if the company is new because you don’t have anything to lose.
BONUS: FIGHT OCD
—
Having a huge problem with OCD myself, I can say that it’s cowardice in the form of professionalism. And “creativity takes courage,” said Henri Matisse.
—
Medium writers are paid via Stripe which it’s not supported in my country. So if you feel really generous and would like to see more texts like this you can donate to my PayPal (boomtown.cowboy@gmail.com)
