I was thinking this morning that while it’s nice to extol the virtues of design, and while many of our ‘competitors’ natter on about how logo design is “fun, fun, fun” (!), it’s also very important for designers (and clients) to be aware of the potential difficulties of the logo design process. Not that this should come as a big surprise. Designing a new company, service or product logo is a high-stakes affair as the logo (in theory anyway) should last a lifetime (of the owner and/or the business). To expect something of this gravity to be ‘fun’ and/or a ‘breeze’ is somewhat of an optimistic reach. At some point, even we used the words ‘hassle-free’ on our web site – I think on the home page – as part of our introductory spiel. Removed them because it’s more likely the case that designing an effective logo IS very often a hassle. From both the client, and designer points of view. It’s not very often that you see copy bragging that making a business plan is “fun, fun, fun”. Or that effective bookkeeping is a ‘snap’. It does, therefore, somewhat surprise me when logo design web sites claim that the logo design process is ‘fun’, ‘easy’, ‘ a breeze’ etc, etc, etc. Probably more used-car lingo to reel in clients who are new to the process, unaware of how critical their logo is and that the design process is not a matter of throwing together a few shapes (fun, fun, fun).
Nosiree Bob – logo design is very often a labor of love. A teeth wrenching, drawn-out process that tests the limits of everyone’s patience. I also can’t count the number of times where I have to explain to a client, concerned about the time his/her project is taking, that if this process were just a matter of throwing together some shapes that it WOULD take less time, and therefore be much more profitable for ME and my studio. (Ever wonder WHY some of those logo sites claim 72-hour turnarounds, and more importantly HOW they can do it? Think ‘throwing together shapes’ and even ‘Frankensteining’ bits, pieces and various design elements from previous, rejected, projects. Think you’re paying for ‘original’ work. Think again.) Over the years we’ve seen every variation of a theme, but there are certainly common ‘glitches’ that tend to throw wrenches into design projects. And these ‘wrenches’ happen over and over again. Here’s the most common –
Art Directing The Project.
While it’s true the client is king, it’s also true that they are NOT the art director (unless they are, in fact, an art director). When someone is working with an experienced designer, they’re working with someone who is trained in many aspects of design, graphics and technology. By the time the client is viewing preliminary designs, the designer has attempted every variation of that particular design (unless you’re working with one of the 72-hour design sites where the most attention is paid to the clock). The designer has moved the various elements right, left, up and down. Elements have been rescaled, flipped, flopped and moved about in every way imaginable. When you see the design, it’s probably true (unless the elements have simply been Frankensteined together) that this is the most graphically sound presentation of those elements. It’s highly unlikely that micro-tweaks by the client will improve the design dramatically. Moving an element 1/4” to the right will not change a logo from that you don’t like into a design that you do. It’s best to tell the designer that you’re not happy with the design, move on, and work from fresh proposals. If you do like the design, then trust your designer that they have hammered out a design that is graphically (and technically) sound. (I’ve never heard of clients giving mechanics micro-tweak direction. Nor dentists, for that matter). It’s highly unlikely that a logo that does not have the ‘Ah-ha’ factor can be pigeon holed into a design that you love simply by moving bits around. The client needs to nix a design that’s not up to snuff. Don’t worry – any designer worth their sand can take criticism. Or they should be. Whenever I hire a designer I always tell them two things – “don’t get married to any artwork” and “it’s never personal”.
.The ‘War and Peace’ logo extravaganza. .
While it’s always nice for a logo to mean something, or even to have a hidden meaning (ask me about The Logo Factory house sometime) sometimes clients and/or designers wish to write ‘War and Peace’ with their logo’s metaphors and symbolism. The most memorable logos are often the most simple (see Apple for that – even though the Apple logo has its own set of visual metaphors. For more, you can meet the designer of the Apple logo here). Nobody is going to understand that “this swoosh means that, this dot represents Uncle George, this triangle means upward growth, A myriad of shapes and swooshes – all professing to ‘mean’ something – will not mean anything to the first-time viewer. Most logos have a nano-second to grab the viewer’s attention. The less detail to be absorbed in this window of opportunity – the better.
.Design by Committee: .
A personal favorite (that’s sarcasm folks). Design by Committee often creates the most difficult set of circumstances for both the client and the designer. Very common in ‘public trust’ projects, Design by Committee involves a large number of people that are (on the surface anyway) equally responsible for selecting, approving and modifying the logo throughout various design stages. It often turns out that the loudest (and dare I say – the committee member with the largest ego) that makes their opinion heard – not the committee member with the keenest sense of design. It’s always better to select a ‘voice’ for the committee – somebody who is keenly aware of the group’s goals and aspirations. Or expect to spend months on your new logo design project, and even then, run the risk of ending up with a mediocre, sanitized logo.
.Purse Shopping (a very close relative of art-directing the job). .
Apologies to my ex-wife (who was the inspiration for the name of this category). Purse shopping is a phenomenon that’s popped up in the last few years – usually when end users are involved in the logo design process (i.e.: they’re spending their own money). This is when a client reviews their logo design and exclaims – “There it is! It’s perfect! Just what I wanted!” Then, purse-shopping kicks in. “Why don’t we try moving the globe down, and to the right”. “How’s about we turn that element upside down” (It’s been requested!). If the client and designer have managed to cobble together that ‘great’ logo, your initial reaction will probably be the same as the people you’re trying to reach. Fumbling around for a ‘better’ version of the ‘perfect’ logo will only weaken its impact (see art-direction above) or worse – lose the original appeal together. Most ‘purse-shopping’ is brought on by the client’s desire to get their ‘logo money worth’ and exhausting what they perceive is the time paid for in design charges. Often, clients fail to understand the difference between logo value and cost.
Here’s one thing to keep in mind – while it’s true you’re paying for somebody’s time (the designer), you’re generally NOT paying for X number of hours. You’re also paying for that designer to utilize their skill, talents and knowledge of design software to create a logo that will represent your company/service/product for years. Milking the project in order to spend a few more hours, after coming up with the ‘perfect’ logo will only weaken the final product. And it you have to micro-tweak the logo to death, it’s not really the design for you (see art-directing the logo for more).
.Working WITH as opposed to working FOR. .
I’m of the belief that this is where most logo design projects go horribly awry. In the early days of my career I was guilty of this more times that I care to admit. And if the posts on many graphic design forums is any indication, a lot of designers, and by extension – clients, are guilty of this no-no. It’s the concept of a designer working WITH a client, as opposed to FOR. Many designers will say the same thing – “this was a GREAT logo, until the client butchered it (combinations of ‘Art Directing the Logo, Purse-Shopping and probably a little Design by Committee thrown in for good measure). It’s probably why there are so many brutally ugly logos out there. Simply put – rather than discussing (debating, arguing?) with the client about the direction of a particular project (that’s WHY the client hired the designer in the first place) the designer sheepishly follows the client’s requests – regardless of how ludicrous those suggestions are. “Put a Globe and Swoosh in there”. No problemo. “Make that text Comic Sans – it’s hip with the teenagers”. Okey, dokey. Big mistake. And a mistake that runs the risk of ruining whatever potential the project had. The designer is NOT just a set of hands for rent. If that were the case, then why should a client spend the time selecting a designer based on the strengths of their portfolio? Better to look for a ‘yes’ man/woman who also happens to know Adobe Illustrator. The designer brings (hopefully) years of experience, talent and a keen sense of ‘what’s what’ (most designers I know are intense culture junkies) to a logo design project. As a designer you need to be able to tell your client that their idea is a no-go. And as a client, you have to understand that a designer is working WITH you (as opposed to FOR you) and not see this as the designer being ‘uppity’ or ‘uncooperative’.
At the end of the day – the client and designer have similar goals. A great logo. The client because it will represent their product/company/service for (hopefully) a lifetime. The designer because they’re looking for a showcase piece for their logo design portfolio – an example of terrific design work they can show future clients as PROOF that they can create fantastic logos. As opposed to sheepishly explaining that this “was a great logo until the client wrecked it”, IF they show the logo at all. To the client – you’re paying for the designer’s expertise and experience. Use them. To the designer – the client is probably new to the entire design process. Don’t shortchange them by committing every request to the project, especially IF you KNOW that the request is foolhardy. Take the time to explain why this is not a good idea. Remember, you’re working WITH the client and not just a set of hands attached to a pencil, mouse or keyboard.
These logo design pitfalls are but the proverbial tip-of-the-iceberg. I’m sure there are more. But hey, that’s what the comment function of Logopalooza is for. Feel free to add your particular gripe – perhaps we’ll do a follow up.
Related posts:
