What makes a great logo great? Alas, there's no 'blood test'...

Using a few examples from The Logo Factory logo portfolio, let's take a look at effective concept and execution and how these two factors 'play out' to make a 'great brand'..

Execution:
(left) When The Logo Factory designed this radio logo, the main concern was the execution of the artwork (though the logo fonts and icon design had to be designed in such a way as to allow them to 'stand alone' as a solo logo treatment). The concept of this logo played a secondary role That still doesn’t stop it from being a nifty design. (Even though the idea of having a radio celeb holding his brand is a pretty cool concept in itself).

Concept:
(right) Two examples of TLF logo samples that are driven primarily by concept (with rendering - while still technically proficient) taking a back seat. The design for Electric Lemonade marketing consultant contains all the company elements in one simple icon - the name, what the company does - as does the logo for Wonderstore Developments. Remaining graphically simple and iconic, it could be argued that these logos are of the ‘traditional’ school of thought for a corporate logo. Typography, while still complementing the logo, is subtle and non-distracting and the icons are more than capable of standing on their own. So, now we have some form of 'blood test'. Most ‘great’ logos are based on two ’sliding’ scales - one for concept. The other for execution.

Does it work? I think so. If you'll take a look at the brands that you like, I think you'll probably find that they are unique in either concept or execution. And that's probably a good measure of what to aim for when you're looking to have your own corporate identity developed.

Bad Logos - a lack thereof.
Okay, so now we have some idea of what makes a 'great brand logo'. What about the converse? Does the lack of execution or concept make a 'bad' logo? Let's take a look. Using this formula, take a look at pretty well all the so-called logo templates sold by many online sites - you know the ones; you pick a ‘design’ from a series of pre-made logos and substitute your company name for some generic copy. Do the logos have concepts? No (most are just meaningless squiggles and shapes). How do they stack up on execution? Pretty badly. If they’re squiggles, this is a forgone conclusion. If they are illustrations or actual objects these logos are either awful, or rendered in a manner that is consistent with most clip art collections (consistent line thickness, photo-traced realism).

The Litmus Test:
Here’s a design that’s been ‘inspired’ by an actual example from a ‘logo-template’ site (No, we ain’t kidding. No, we aren’t telling). No concept. No execution. For all practical purposes this isn’t even a logo. Impractical to copyright. Probably impossible to trademark. And while you can purchase logos like this for next to nothing all over the Internet, it could be argued that a ‘logo’ like this is worse that not having any at all.

While the variables are infinite (that's a good thing - it means that every logo can be unique) there are certain benchmarks (I hesitate to call them rules) that if you follow, will pretty well insure that you'll end up with a decent and workable logo. While whether or not a logo is 'good' remains completely subjective, following these pointers will give you a logo that's usable, practical and promising a long shelf life.

1) Uniqueness
Your logo should be able to stand out as completely 'yours'. It's surprising how many times we get asked to 'copy' logos - we've even had clients request a 'version' of The Logo Factory house. Not a good idea. On top of the potential legal complications nothing screams 'unprofessional' like a logo that's looks even remotely like someone else's. Do not copy. I'll say it again. Do. Not. Copy.

2) Timeless
Every few years there's a trend, or fad, that new logos seems to embrace. A few years ago it was the 'swoosh' - made logos all hi-tech and 'internety'. Trouble is, everybody jumped on that bandwagon and the treatment rapidly became hackneyed and trite. Few years hence, and we've got lots of people stuck with out of date designs. The latest design logo trend is so-called 2.0, a technique that (like a lot of design trends) can be traced back to Apple Computers. Take your logo, add a 'gel' treatment, give it glassy reflection at the bottom and you're all set. (hey - the 3D version of our house could qualify!). Web 2.0 is still going strong, but I'll go out on a limb and say it will be yesterday's news by end of summer.

3) Gimmick Free
Special FX and filters are usually applied, by inexperienced designers, to logos that are 'missing something'. Trouble is, what the logo is generally missing is any design integrity, and adding bevels, lens flares and drop shadows is the logo design version of 'putting lipstick on a pig'. While it certainly shows how cool your latest design software is, it doesn't do much for the professionalism of your mark. Such treatments are fine for glamour shots (used as display pieces on brochures and the like) but used on the standard version of your logo, are only going to cause grief down the road, especially when it comes to application of your new logo on typical business material. Your logo should be as technically simple as possible for adaptability, which just happened to be number 4 on our list...

4) Adaptability
Over the life of your company, you'll want to plaster your logo over everything you send out. That's the point of having a logo in the first place. In order to do this, you'll need a logo that's adaptable to every occasion and while they may look 'pretty' , the design gimmicks we just talked about render your logo impractical for many of these uses. Some of these uses - checks, FAXes, embroidery, newspaper ads, invoices, letterheads, etc. Your new logo has to work on all of them. You'll also need a quality black and white version that can reproduce as a halftone grayscale, or in the cases of low-resolution BW reproduction, a linear version.

5) Scalability
When using your logo, you'll need to be able to use it small. Real small. Postage stamp size. Classic example of this - over the years, I've designed a load of sports event posters that feature logos from dozens of event sponsors. Space only permits the logos to be featured as very small images and it's always the simpler logos that stand out when viewed from a distance. The cluttered logos aren't recognizable to any great degree and the sponsors are probably wasting their money, especially if inclusion on the poster is the only benefit of their sponsorship. When it comes to scalability, the text portion of the logo is the most important, as that's the piece you want people to remember. Scrawny, sickly text doesn't read very well at half an inch high.

6) Color is Secondary
Colors are extremely important. Using consistent corporate colors will become part of your brand - that's understood. However, when it comes to the design of your logo, color must always be secondary. A logo that requires color to 'hold' the design together is fine when reproduction is optimal - websites, 4 color process printing and what have you - but even then only if the size is appropriate as well. Logos that rely too much on color tend to blend together when used small (see above) and unless the contrast between the two colors is pronounced, will be a grey mess if used in black and white. As for low-resolution reproduction (FAXES, checks, etc) you can forget about readability completely - logos that use color as a design cornerstone usually come out as black blotches on a FAX transmission and with all their money, banks still haven't figured out how to print a decent check.

7) Appropriate Aspect Ratio & Footprint
The aspect ratio of a logo is the relationship between a logo's height and it's width. Bottom line, you don't want a logo that's too tall, or too wide. Square'ish' is always best as this allows the maximum adaptability of a logo, especially when it's being used in conjunction with other artwork. The 'footprint' of a logo refers to the amount of physical space that's required to place a logo on any page. If the footprint is 'wonky' - trailing design elements 'poke' outside the footprint - it can greatly affect the size that the design can be used at, as well as the visual impact of same. See here for more on aspect ratios and how they control the use of your logo.

Like most 'rules' of design, not all of these will apply in every situation, and in many cases, we'll toss them out completely. Heck, even TLF aren't perfect when it comes to following our own pointers. Not bad, but not perfect. Let's take a look at our logo (right); it doesn't, for example, reproduce very well at small sizes (though the type still holds up decently). Earlier versions of the logo depended on color far too much for the design so any small, or black and white usage, would see the house becoming 'muddy'. It was so bad that we had to update our logo to the version you see here. Overall, the aspect ratio is pretty good - generally speaking, the logo will remain fairly large in relationship to the space available. The footprint is a little off (the house is much higher than the typography) but there's not much we can do about that (the house needs it's smokestacks). Scores pretty good on 'uniqueness' (the icon is based on a house, as opposed to an actual factory, and avoids the potential visual cliche that might occur if we used a typical factory representation). The logo can be used effectively on low-resolution material, but doesn't fare too well when reversed out on a dark background. We need to put a 'key line' around the house to make it work which sometimes represents a problem, especially if the image is small and low resolution.

All in all, we 'd score our own logo a B +.

See here for more logo design tips.

When logos go bad.
Very, very, bad.

Of course, it’s in our best interest to emphasize the value of effective logo design. After all, that’s our business. However, that doesn’t change the fact that creating a decent logotype takes an certain ‘eye’ - the ability to see symbols and visual metaphors and wrestle them into a design that expresses those metaphors to the majority of people who view the logo.

Unfortunately, these visual metaphors can get mixed up, and what you think your logo represents is quite different from what other people see. The logo above left is a classic example. I should point out that this logo made the rounds of the Internet last year (and was the subject of a lot of cheap jokes - voted by many to be the “worst logo ever”) and was subsequently removed from the center’s promotional material. I don’t know the genesis of the design, but it’s a pretty safe bet that the effort was a result of either a) an internal attempt to visually ‘metaphorize’ (is that a real word? If not, it is now) what the center did, or b) the result of a sales job by a designer who lacked the skills (and foresight) to tackle such a project. In any case, the logo did not accomplish the task and was the source of great mirth and tacky jokes before being changed to a text only version (at what I would imagine was fairly significant expense and hassle).

And they’re not alone. Another logo that made the Internet rounds was the logo for the Instituto de Estudos Orientais, the center for oriental studies at the University of Santa Catarina in Brazil (right). Supposed to be a serene image of an oriental styled house in front of a sunset (rising sun), the logo seems to suggest something else entirely. The logo was the winning entry in a typical logo contest. Once again, the visual ‘metaphor’ is obviously not what was intended (to put it mildly). And once again, after the University realized (with what I suspect was horror) what the Internet ‘communities’ were saying about their newly announced logo, it started to disappear from public view (the web page for the center is now ‘under construction’). And again, probably at great expense and hassle.

For reasons that are beyond me, dental logos seem to fall prey to these mangled visual metaphors - with their little symbolic ’stick figures’ (officially referred to as ‘pictograms’) getting caught in what appear to be compromising positions (left). Once again, the logo is likely the result of an internal branding attempt, more than likely a staff member who can’t see what I (and half the Internet) see. To them, I’d guess it looks just like what they intended - a caring dentist doting over a patient (and to prove my point even further - while I think the dentist logo looks somewhat sexual, my wife Sue thinks it looks like one guy “beating the crap out of another”).

If there’s a lesson in all this, it is as follows - just because your company owns some of the same logo software that professional designers utilize does not mean that you can crank out the same types of logos that they (we) do. That also goes for them online ‘logo creators’ (glorified clip-art generators really) and logo templates. Your nifty do It yourself logo may not suggest what you think it does.

And thus ends today’s public service announcement…