For a designer, the most profitable logo design process involves the following steps; One – ask a client what they want. Two – give it to them. This type of project involves the client acting as an art director and in some aspects, the defacto designer of the logo itself. It takes the designer out of the creative side of the process and reduces them to a pair of hands, a Mac and a copy of Adobe Illustrator for rent. Pragmatically speaking, following a client’s ‘move this and add this’ instructions are the ‘path of least resistance’ – revisions and original concepts are hell on a time clock – and can ultimately lead to less time spent on any particular design project. It’s not even that such a method renders developing a decent logo impossible. If we were to put odds to the equation, I’d put chances of developing a decent logo at about fifty/fifty. But does it represent design value for the client? Probably not.
Less time spent equates into better value?
On the downside, this ‘get ‘er out the door’ methodology buys into the premise that creating a logo is simply moving pixels and vectors around a monitor, trying to create a pretty picture that a client ‘likes’, will approve and ultimately pay for. And while designing a logo quickly is often trumpeted as somehow being part of the ‘value’ equation, I’ve never really understood why potential clients are convinced that spending less time on their logo is somehow better than fully exploring various avenues of same, and devoting the extra time to do so.
The client as ‘art director’?
If a design buyer sees either as true, then they’d probably be better suited hiring a high-school student with some Adobe Illustrator skills, or in these internet-driven days, contracting their logo out via some other low cost method such as a logo design contest site. There, we’ll find all sorts of designers willing to work ‘for’ a client, and create pretty pictures without question or input. They’ll do it quickly too. Does this represent the client getting better ‘value’ for their design dollar? Probably not. Ultimately, ‘art directing’ the project is ‘value’ that the client has brought with them to the process, not ‘value’ they get. And accepting a shortened timeline – which decreases the amount of effort and preliminary concept work – is a benefit to the designer. Not the client. And why clients see speedy design as a ‘value’ is, to be charitable, quite beyond me.
Designers working with, as opposed to for.
If, on the other hand, a designer wants to work ‘with’ a client (a very large distinction), and the client is open to listening to (or viewing) a designer’s ideas and concepts – even those that are a little ‘off the reservation’ – we may be able to develop a killer logo and something out of the ordinary. This process is a little more involved and a substantial meet-and-greet is required. More research about the target customer. An overview of related branding efforts. An understanding of the people that the logo is supposed to resonate with. Bit of a hassle I know, but the extra time spent can present us with all sorts of information, ideas and direction that will aid us in creating a unique piece of visual real estate. It can be a teeth-grinding, hair-pulling back-and-forth, but at the end of the day, isn’t a client hiring us to design their logo – and with all that entails – not just produce pretty little pictures with their company name slapped on it? That’s the ‘value’ we as designers are supposed to bring to the table.
Shut up and do what you’re told?
Not that this opinion is universal. We had an earlier discussion on this topic, where it was argued that design is too important to be left to designers, where industry types opined that it was the client who knew everything, and the designer should just (paraphrasing) “shut up and do what they are told”. And while having a client ‘art direct’ the development of their logo is dandy for a designer’s bottom line, it’s a little much to expect someone who’s an expert in their field (the subject of the logo) to be well-versed in other areas. In this case, design of a logo. I’d even go as far to say that any designer that simply ‘follows instructions’ is doing their client a great disservice.
Designing an effective logo.
As arrogant as it may sound – a central aspect of any logo design project involves this blasphemious concept – the design shouldn’t only be created with the goal of getting the client to ‘like’ it. Graphic tastes are so varied that whether a client ‘likes’ a logo isn’t the only factor in evaluating how effective a logo is. Oh sure, producing a logo that the client ‘likes’ is important in getting a client to pay for said logo, but ultimately any design should work for the people the client is trying to reach. Namely, their customers. And their market. It’s up to the designer to thoughtfully understand their client’s market, produce solid concepts, present said concepts complete with the rationale behind them, and convince the client why their ideas will work in the client’s best interest. And if the client wants true value for their design buck, they should at least give their designer ‘air time’, not dismiss the ideas out of hand because they don’t ‘like’ them.
Granted, if a designer is only interested in closing the deal, getting the job ‘out the door’ and moving on to the next paying gig, then we can forgo this step and crank out cookie-cutter designs exactly as per the client’s specs. Often times what a client ‘likes’ can often dovetail into what will work for his or her market. Alas, sometimes it doesn’t. Many times a logo project is signed off because “my wife likes it”, “it’s the same as so-and-so’s company, and they’re making lots of money”, “it reminds me of my days in college” or “I think this will look nice on a business card”. Nothing terribly wrong with any of these parameters, but does it automatically translate into an effective logo? Probably not. A client is best served by their designer taking a look at the client’s market, their competition and the people likely to be swayed by graphic imagery. And the kind of vibe that the logo will create when it comes to building a brand.
A logo – ground zero for a brand.
Many people offering marketing advice will tell you that a logo is not a brand. And that’s true. A logo isn’t a brand. But here’s the rub – a logo is the cornerstone of a brand, is often ground zero for how a brand gets developed and will influence a company’s branding efforts for years to come. For example, if a logo is designed to portray fast, speedy, discount, or any other retail flavored themes, it’s highly unlikely that the branding developed around it will somehow morph into corporate, conservative and high-end.
A logo has an overwhelming influence over any company’s ‘brand’ (witness the number of logo redesigns over the past year as companies attempt to reposition themselves in these difficult economic times) and while ‘a logo isn’t a brand’ is a fairly accurate statement, “a logo ultimately drives a brand” is more so (there’s a reason we use a sparkplug as a visual metaphor throughout our site). While some might argue that the role of a logo has been devalued over the years (unfortunately, in a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, by the graphic design industry itself) it is up to the designer to illustrate to the client that a logo is an investment in their company, rather than an expense of their company. And it’s up to designers to illustrate why value in logo design is not about how little it cost, or how fast it was cranked out, but how far we pushed the process to create a unique slice of the visual world, worthy of representing the company it was created for.
Related posts:
Thanks for this insightful and timely reminder as to the many reasons why design and branding are so challenging, intriguing, exciting and… at times grimy and frustrating! As usual, keep up the SUPER work at TLF!