The following faux logos represent fictitious corporations and organizations from famous – and not so famous – sci-fi, horror and fantasy movies. Some are easy to identify, some not so much. How many can you figure out?
Monkeys and copyright, new logo news, unsolicited yet helpful advice for the WWE and some other stuff from Twitter.
Our humble shop is quite active on Twitter, doling out regular logo news, views, arcane blather and other pearls of rubbish (if you don’t follow us already, you should. Go now, we’ll wait.) Anyhoo, while it’s cool and all, Twitter feeds tend to be temporary and fleeting with a lot of interesting nuggets getting buried pretty quickly and unloved, rather than getting the attention they might deserve. To that end, I figured putting together a Snippets feature of the more interesting stuff we twattered or bumped into over the course of the last week might work. Could even turn into a regular feature. (Translation: it’s a summer Friday, I shot my bolt on two rather large blog posts this week and this is a low stress way to get something on the blog before the weekend.) Enjoy.
The World Trade Center has a brand new logo.
And it takes a lot of explaining:
— Co.Design (@FastCoDesign) August 16, 2014
Read the rest of this entry »
The WWE officially announced a glitzy, yet clinical re-work of their ‘scratch’ logo last weekend at Summer Slam to a generally positive reception. As is our wont, we’re going to nitpick and get graphically pedantic about the design.
You’d have to be living under a rock (or devoid of internet access) to not have heard that the wrestling guys WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment, so called because – *spoiler alert* – it ain’t real) have just released their new logo. It’s not a terribly dramatic departure, more of a clean-up of their famous scratchy version that’s been around since 1997 when the (then) WWF (World Wrestling Federation) adopted the roughly-hewn theme. FWIW, here’s the five incarnations of their logo, including the 2002 name switcheroo when the organization ran afoul of the World Wildlife Federation’s similar, prior trademark and a co-existence agreement:
The slick logo rework
Never was a big fan of the ‘scratch’ logo – while I get the ‘RAW‘ connection, it always seemed more a concept scribble that belonged in an art student’s sketch book than a mega-corp emblem – but who am I to question something that represented a massive empire, a lot of which was financed by licensed merchandise that bore this very mark? Anyhoo, after much media speculation and a whole bunch of leaks via social media starting a few months back, the new WWE logo was officially announced at Summer Slam last weekend. In a time were it seems new logos are released every fifteen seconds, this one was a pretty big deal. As proof of that, one only has to look at the pic of WWE head-honcho Vince McMahon posing with the new logo on a flag (the $9.99 refers to PPV rates) and on the side of the company’s Stamford, Connecticut building.
Generally speaking, and other than a few purists, everyone dug it. At first blush I did too – it had lost the art student vibe of the original design (I was tempted to say it’s too sterile but won’t, cause that would make me a whiny designer that’s never freaking happy with anything) and was appropriate in this era of so-called “flat” design. It was slick. Corporate. Clean. And then I saw that damned nick in the swoosh.
The Toronto Blue Jays take issue with Creighton University’s trademark application for their Blue Jays logo.
Back last September, Creighton University held a press conference in front of 3,000 students at which president Timothy Lannon and men’s basketball head coach Greg McDermott unveiled the new Creighton Blue Jays logo and court design at the CenturyLink Center Omaha.
Designed by Thornton, Colorado’s Mongoose Graphics, the new logo was part of a university-wide rebranding initiative for Creighton’s first year in the Big East Conference and a radical departure from the earlier versions of the Creighton Blue Jays’ script and angry Jay marks.
A successful launch
Don’t get me wrong – the new logo is nice. Very nice. And reaction was deservedly positive at the school and on social media, with the design eventually winning the Best Sports Logo of 2013 on Chris Creamer‘s highly respected SportsLogo.net. Got to be honest though, I missed this one – if I had’ve noticed at the time, I certainly would have predicted the legal wrangling we’re about to discuss, and have to wonder now, why it took so long for lawyers to start squawking. See, as wonderful as the new logo is, it does kinda look like the Toronto Blue Jays baseball team logo. At least one of them. You see, the Toronto Blue Jays logo has changed many times since the original 1977 design – with various tweaks, redesigns and returns to older versions – as illustrated below, and while the Creighton Blue Jays logo isn’t a carbon copy of the Toronto version, it’s reminiscent of bits and pieces from several:
Wherein we attempt to have a serious discussion about why a logo that looks like a male sex organ can represent some marketing challenges. And fail.
There are certain things that any designer worth their salt knows – basic logo design commandments if you will. One carved-in-stone rule is that a logo should never contain a swastika. That’s always bad. Also, a logo that reminds people of sexy bits – unless you’re advertising sexy bits – can have some complications down the road. In this day of social media, any new logo release gets scrutinized, mocked, lampooned and parodied with any logo that bears a resemblance to genitalia certain to draw a lot of fire. The lowercase letters d & b used in an acronym logo are decidedly treacherous waters – when the letters are placed side by each, they always look kinda penisy (if that’s not a word, it is now.) The ascenders will generally look like a phallus and the mirror circles at the bottom will look kinda like, ahm, balls. It can happen by accident (there’s been a few times we almost got caught out) and then there are instances when – despite the company’s insistence that it’s all a big misunderstanding – it almost certainly happened by design. That brings us to a fast food company in Wales – Dirty Bird Fried Chicken – and their logo. Which is giving a lot of people the vapors.
Seems some of Dirty Bird customers aren’t happy with the logos resemblance to a male member (running out of ways to describe this) and are starting to voice their concern.
“I was queueing up with my two young sons when I looked at the logo and realised what it represents. It is not the sort of thing that should be on display around children” said one concerned parent. ”
“It’s not really what you want to think about when you’re tucking into your meal” said another.
Uh-uh. That’s not what we meant.
Dirty Bird owner Neil Young (no, not the rock singer) denied trying to incorporate naughty visual metaphors into the logo, claiming that his designer simply pressed the “d” & “b” together to make a graphical rooster (remember our earlier caveat?) We won’t get into what the feathers on the ahm, things at the sides might look like (hair) and the thing on top of the rooster’s head (known as a comb) might, ahm, be interpreted as. Hey, did I tell you that the company adverts contain the phrases “Touch my thigh” and “Touch my breast?” Probably doesn’t mean anything either.
“Eye of the Beholder” and all that.
Designer Mark James, the cat who created the logo also denied the resemblance: “We were given the name Dirty Bird as the brief, and started working on ideas. We looked at the initials, DB. Then worked with the lowercase ‘db’ linking them to form the shape of a rooster. It’s graphic representation of a rooster incorporating the initials. It depends on how you look at it.. it’s in the eye of the beholder.”
Here’s the thing guys. If your logo looks like a giant dong by accident, fine – shit happens. But if it was part of a members (sorry) only in-joke, at least have the balls (can’t help myself) to fess up.
Via: Wales Online