Sure, you’ll find articles on the interwebs about the best logo. Maybe even the worst logo. But how about the most sinister logo? Only here at The Factor will you find that award, doled out to the Sherwin Williams Paint Company for their Cover the World design (left). Dripping (quite literally) with Spectre like imagery, it’s highly unlikely that such a concept would get off the ground today, let alone become the graphic representation of a major corporation. World domination isn’t exactly the type of theme that big wig companies like to be linked to (even if the plan is - bwahaha - knocked about during board meetings). That kind of stuff is best left to advertising apocalyptic sci-fi movies like War of The Worlds (right) to which the logo bears more than a passing resemblance. Designed by advertising manager George Ford in 1895, the Cover the World design replaced the original Sherman Williams idea - a paint-covered chameleon - and became the company’s trademark in 1905. You can read more about the company, and the genesis of the design at the American Heritage. And yes, the Earth in the logo has been knocked off its axis. Allows the can to pour paint directly onto Cleveland, Ohio - Sherwin Williams’ corporate HQ.

The phone calls began around Valentine’s Day. Messages left on The Logo Factory studio voice mail, complaining that we hadn’t sent flowers to girlfriends and wives in time for Cupid’s day, and if we could refund the credit cards used that “would be just great”. Pretty strange stuff - why did so many people think we sold flowers?

As anyone reading this blog should know, we aren’t a flower shop - never have been. We’re a logo design studio - one would have thought the name would have indicated as much - and despite some pretty caustic phone messages (I had no idea that one could fit the items mentioned, into the places I was directed to fit them into) we couldn’t figure out what was up.

I wasn’t unsympathetic to the callers’ plight - stiffing the Mrs. on Valentine’s Day is certainly one way to end up in the dog house. Considering that the husbands and boyfriends had made an honest effort to come through - only to get let down by some unscrupulous flower shop - I really felt bad. Truly. Unfortunately, no-one left a return number, and after a few days the calls stopped. On to other things, I let it pass.

Then, a few weeks later, the phone messages began again, with some more anatomy lessons, complaining that not only had we failed to send the original batch of flowers, but we’d dinged these poor folks’ credit cards. Again. Most of the messages hailed from California - the time zone difference explained why the messages were left after hours - and despite my sympathy for these obviously distressed consumers, I still didn’t have a clue what was going on, nor a way to help. Despite their situation, and probably due to the nastiness of the messages, nobody that contacted us thought it worthwhile to leave a return number.

Then, the FBI called. Got your interest now, huh?

Read the rest of this entry »

Shouldn’t be surprised really. A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a fairly in-depth article addressing one of my pet peeves - are logo design contest sites legal - which garnered quite a lot of attention via blog and forum links. The majority of comments on the feature agreed with my basic (though admittedly non-lawyer) premise, that some logo design contest sites may be skirting applicable contest laws when it comes to the way they conduct their ‘business’. Others took offense, and I received quite a few e-mails informing me why my opinion was woefully out-to-lunch, and into which orifice I could insert it. Somehow I had missed the market-forces angle of the phenomenon, and was being a ‘cry-baby’ (among other things), whining about a natural development of the internet, the capitalist system, and the design industry itself. Like the dope that I am, I just wasn’t ‘getting it’ and like many outdated sages before me, should ‘evolve or die’ (one memorable quote).

It was if I had taken on a sacred cow, and the very freedom of the Western World (and a good chunk of the Eastern) were at stake. Many e-mails claimed that I was missing the point - that logo contests allowed small ‘mom and pop’ enterprises to get a great logo, selected from dozens of choices, while paying far less than the going rate. Fair enough I suppose. Could it be that I’m simply shortsighted? The eyes are going a little bit - the new bifocals will attest to that. At the end of the day, are there benefits to the ‘client’ of logo contest sites, and am I simply missing the entire point of the exercise? Some folks think so -

Read the rest of this entry »

Before I begin I should probably point out that I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the tee vee. Thus, my legal advice, and whatever opinions I offer, are worth exactly what you paid for them. Nada. Having said that, I’m of the opinion that logo design contests, not the cute effort where the local church asks the kiddies to design some artwork for the Sunday picnic, but these logo design contest sites popping up everywhere on the web, are skirting very close to the law, if not breaking it altogether. At least from what I understand about contest law and my admittedly limited experience with it. The design risks of these contests has been done to death. Any designer worth their salt knows that they’re bad for business. The opinion of the design community is well documented. But what if these sites are breaking a ton of laws, in jurisdictions all over the world, as well as running afoul of state and national lottery and gaming laws? A little far-fetched? I thought so at first, but after fairly intensive research, I’m beginning to think otherwise.

Should probably start with a little history as to that research got started and why I’d pursue this seemingly absurd line of thought. Was talking with a colleague this afternoon, and we were reminiscing about design gigs from days gone by. In one of those previous incarnations, I was a magazine art director and was often tasked to come up with new and zany ways to publicize our humble publication. One such promotion was a ‘Holiday in Maui’ contest - a four month marketing blitz during which we’d give away posters, T-shirts and magazine subscriptions culminating in the grand prize, a two week cruise and vacation in Hawaii, thrown in by one of our advertisers. The sponsor hoped to get a promotional buzz going on with their logo plastered over 6-page magazine spreads that advertised the contest. We hoped to pick up a few percentage points in newsstand sales and some additions to our subscriber list.

Was a great idea - everybody would win - but we were advised by the legal beagles to tread ever-so-lightly. As the contest would technically be held in various jurisdictions (the magazine was published in several international languages) we had to be aware of some pretty nit-picky laws about what we said, didn’t say and our overall intentions when it came to allocating prizes. We had to use the legalese “void were prohibited by law” on every single bit of propaganda and ignore entries that came from various locales. We had to hold prizes in escrow (holding a contest without giving away the ‘prize’ is fraud, and breaks several gaming and contest specific laws). We had to very clearly announce that “no purchase was required.” In some regions, charging people to enter contests opens up a Pandora’s Box of regulations, rules and provisos and redefines what the contest can be called and how it can be described. All told, setting up our contest cost thousands in legal fees, and our ‘terms and conditions’ pages took up 1/3 of the advertising space, even when typeset in 8pt helvetica condensed type. Bottom line, because we were holding a ‘contest’ and giving away ‘prizes’, we needed to obey a wide-range of state and national consumer and gaming laws, all of which were set up to protect contest entrants from shady practices, unfair dispersement of awards, and to ensure that - once the contest had concluded - entrants were awarded what we had promised in the first place. Would not the same types of laws apply to companies marketing their services as ‘logo design contests’? As mentioned earlier, I’m not a lawyer, but I think they just might.

Read the rest of this entry »

Business owners turning to auction site Ebay for logo design services was always a little perplexing. Not that I have anything against Ebay itself and have been, at many times, an enthusiastic Ebay shopper. During the occasional bidding frenzy, I’ve purchased everything from model train accessories and R/C helicopters to obscure 12-inch vinyl singles and Star Wars toys - but logo design auctions seemed, at the risk of sounding snobby or elitist, a tad unseemly. Other than the opportunity of getting a so-called ‘logo’ for a low-bid price, what would be the real benefit to the ‘client’? Alas, probably none. Hell, you can’t even be sure that the ‘designer’ you’re dealing has the graphic bona fides they’re boasting.

Over the years, we’ve been involved in a constant cat-and-mouse game with so-called ‘designers’ who pinch logo samples off our site, throw them up on an Ebay auction page, and hoist a shingle offering ‘professional logo design’ services. Comes with the usual online logo design malarkey - unlimited revisions, etc, etc. Dealing with this nonsense became so time-consuming - and the steps involved to get a ‘take down’ notice issued so daunting - I threw in the towel a few years back (and never even wrote about it until now). Despite the teeth-grinding gall of it all, I had more important stuff to deal with, and at the end-of-day viewed these auctions as a massive illustration of Caveat Empor. You buy $50 logo design services off Ebay at your own peril.

Looks like things haven’t changed a bit. Went on Ebay this morning, typed in the search phrase ‘logo design’ and within two clicks had found a seller who had ‘borrowed’ logo design samples off our site, slapped them on an Ebay page and fired up an auction offering $29 design services. Somewhat cheeky granted - in a case of breathtaking irony the image was nicked from our our copyright page! - but is this really a big deal? Small picture - no. On a case-by-case basis (the example above included) it’s more of an annoyance than anything else. But it does involve some issues that might just be a ‘big deal’.

Property rights notwithstanding, a designer’s samples are a calling card of sorts, illustrating how they tackled this or that project and more importantly, showing potential clients what the designer is capable of. If you’re using someone else’s design work as examples of your own, it’s design fraud - you’re not capable of creating the work you’re claiming (or you would have already done it). And if you’re not capable of assembling a few (in this case, 9) examples of your own work for a portfolio piece, then you’re not a designer. And if you’re not a designer, then you shouldn’t be offering ‘professional design services’ on Ebay, or anywhere else for that matter. At least if ‘professional’ is meant to indicate a certain level of proficiency rather than simply ‘bought and paid for’. And not that these folks care, but this kind of amateur-hour nonsense pollutes the graphic design industry for people who do.

If a ‘client’ is buying logo design services through Ebay auctions (and business owners really should know better) then - all obvious risks aside - they should still be able to gauge a sellers talents and skills by the work presented. Not someone else’s. Which leads us to the heart of the matter - if any ‘designer’ is willing to misrepresent their background, are they really going to provide a decent design for $79? Is it going to be an original work, or something knocked-off from someone else’s trademark?

When presented with this argument, business owners may be tempted to use the ‘it’s only’ rationale. As in it’s only $50. Or it’s only $79. Ordinarily, I’d agree with sentiment. Over the years I’ve risked paltry sums for the outside chance that the deal is legit. Some of the times I’ve been pleasantly surprised with a killer bargain. More often, my gut reaction was bang-on and had to use the ‘it’s only’ defense when questioned by my ever-so-patient better half.

Unfortunately, logo design is different. When you receive your wonderful new mark, it is the beginning of it’s usefulness, not the end. The design may have only set you back $70, but your new letterhead and business card printing will add to the expense. The embroidered golf shirts will cost hundreds. The vehicle wrap thousands. The packaging design lots of thousands. And so on. As it turns out, that $79 logo runs the risk of costing you a lot more money than you paid for it. The ‘it’s only’ defense doesn’t apply.

In terms of the really big picture, these kind of antics blur the borders between decent graphic designers trying to make a living, and hacks out to make a quick buck. Due to arguably fraudulent marketing, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for ‘clients’ to tell the two apart. Am I saying that all folks offering up logo design auctions are charlatans? Of course not. But if my experience over the years counts for anything, a lot of them are. How does someone the difference?

Unfortunately, I don’t have the foggiest idea.

Or rather, Hewlett Packard comes clean. A while back, home computing giant HP bought up Utah based Logoworks, freaking out a sizable chunk of the graphic design community (I remember being pretty non-plussed, even duking it out on a few graphic design forums about how really detrimental the news really was). While I’ve never been a big fan of Logoworks and some of their allegedly shady tactics, seemed like a whole lotta good news to LW, but threatening little impact on the industry itself. My big issue with LWs has always been the same - while seemingly trashing freelance designers on their website, the majority of LW projects are farmed out through the back door via their parent company Arteis to the very same freelance designers. Something which, at least until just recently, LW hasn’t exactly been too upfront about, earning them the ire of many design forums and blogs. Well, to their credit (or HP’s credit) they’ve finally started to be a little, ahm, more ‘descriptive’ in how they actually work.

Via an arguably parsed statement in an interview with HP CMO Michael Mendenhall featured in Brandweek, when describing how Logoworks operates, Mendenhall has this to say - “In practice, Logoworks links several hundred graphics designers worldwide with small businesses seeking new logos”. The statement is a little thin on details, but does acurately describe an intregal part of the LW model - outsourcing a good chunk of their client projects to freelance designers around the world, paying as little as $25 per logo via a semi-contest format on the Arteis site - a process that critics (guilty) might argue is just another freelance bidding site with fancy lipstick.

For those paying attention, there’s even been some subtle changes to the LW site copy, indicating that not only do they use freelancers, but in typical LW fashion, they’ve now decided that this is somehow an advantage(!) to studios and independents that don’t farm projects out, even going on to state that “some design companies are limited to a small in-house design team, or do not have any freelance designers”.

Jeebus. Talk about trying to have it all ways (and here I was, trying to be all positive and stuff).

For people keeping up with the ongoing LW sagas, this is a complete 180 to their original pitch - originally trashing freelancers and small independent designers as somehow inferior to the LW machine (that page can still be found here, though only for a limited time I’d expect. The page also features a retraction to our humble shop as a result of the original ‘freelancer vs. in-house’ tussle, blocked out from search engines using a robots.txt file). While it’s still a variation of the “everyone but Logworks is crap” theme, the new copy gives a little more of a accurate peek ‘under the hood’. And oh yeah, - apparently, if you want to speak directly with a designer (what client doesn’t?), Logoworks’ new packages’ start at just over 1300 bux.

Guess the marriage with HP has had some, ahm, influence. Well done fellahs…