The Island of Lost Logos
I was recently asked to comment on the new Google logo. It looks fine to me. I wasn't crazy in love with the previous mark, so the new one was just fine. It's less fussy and more neutral which is good for a company moving in many directions. My comments led to an uproar online of people staunchly defending the old mark or loving the new one. I just kept thinking amidst the anger, "You're wrong! The new mark sucks! I hate you!" that it was just a logo. I know that's blasphemous to designers. But, there are other issues in the world.
Then I recalled how many logos I loved that were "retired". Yes, it makes sense to evolve an identity over time. Yes, if you're caught doing something heinous like seal clubbing, you will need a new logo and name. And yes, sometimes logos are just plain out of date. But maintaining a mark over the long haul creates equity.
This is the life of a logo: the logo starts as the cool new thing, then it matures to "just fine", next its out of style and dated, and then if you wait, cool again. But most companies freak at the "out of style" part and change. If only UPS waited a few months the Rand mark would be cool and hip again.
To add to the blasphemy, I often say to clients, "logo shmogo." The logo is the foundation of a system, and it should be clear and neutral. The logo is a great Armani black suit. Let the world it inhabits be the changeable groovy stuff, like a new shirt or wacky tie.
Writer. Designer. Storyteller.
9 年Nice commentary Sean. I agree a logo itself is nothing without a unified system and editorial point of view supporting it. I will also add that I will always prefer Paul Rand's original UPS mark to Futurebrand's polished vanilla version. Thanks for the visual treat.
Owner, Waren Eakins Inc
9 年I doubt if even a brilliantly designed logo by it’s self, ever made a company a success. It can contribute for sure, the purpose of a logo is a bit like the old saying, ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’, It becomes a symbol for all that a company is – what it has done and what it stands for, for better or worse. Prime examples of this come from two of the most admired and successful companies in the world, Apple and Nike. I was never more aware of this when comping up the layout for the first Nike ad I ever did; when I put the logo in place I realized why there wasn’t any need for copy explaining product attributes or philosophy or what they stood for, that had already been successfully done many times before and I was now benefitting from the fact that all of that history was now symbolized in a single simple visual, the Swoosh. Enough said. My biggest gripe with logo design of the past 10 or 15 years is they are no longer symbolic, but have become literal illustrations, pictograms of sorts. For my money, the very best and most successful logo, among many really great ones, is the CBS ‘Eye’ designed by William Goldman in 1951. The idea was that CBS was watching the world, but when I was a kid and TV was new, television sets were referred to as, ‘The big eye in the living room.’ I always wondered if Mr. Goldman suspected that one-day television would also be watching us?
President/CEO @ Boom
9 年I love this blasphemy!
Creative Director/ Designer/ Project Leader
9 年Sean, very insightfull. Having worked with Saul Bass earlier in my career, I loved a lot of logos that were retired...