We take a look at the often misunderstood concept of logo footprints and aspect ratios, the advantages of each and why social media almost demands a square logo. Or at least a square version.
It never occurred to me that this was a topic worth discussing, let alone writing an entire blog post about. Until last week that is, when a frantic client called me on my cell. He was trying to upload his new logo, designed last summer, onto his Facebook fan page. “It’s so tiny” he explained, “and half the name isn’t there”. Having designed the logo myself, I knew right away what was going on. The logo was slightly horizontal in aspect ratio, had a mild footprint issue, and when uploaded to the Facebook server, the online image editor was resizing and cropping his image into a square format.
Square is where it’s at on most social networks
Using the logo on other social media platforms would get progressively worse, they being smaller than a Facebook profile ‘badge’. On Twitter, neither the icon, or the logo text, would be legible at all. Especially in a timeline feed. Even though this design, on it’s own, is a fairly simple logo. Trouble is, even if we use the absolute minimum visual ID area, carving out almost 2/3 of the overall footprint, the avatar badge would still be tiny. And would look hideous. In this instance, the fix was easy enough. I could set up a couple of square JPGs, using a bastardized version of the design, and our client would be all set. He could use the squared and simplified version of his logo in most of the social media networks, the edited version having enough of a visual relationship with its horizontal sibling to still make sense. As this particular logo wasn’t originally designed with social media in mind, it wasn’t the world’s best solution. But it would work well enough.
Do we start off square?
Afterwards, I realized that this might not be so uncommon for clients, especially with the do-it-yourself nature of social media profiles. Our client had absolutely no idea why his logo was being truncated, yet I knew right away. Perhaps, and as designers, there’s many things about design we automatically assume everyone else knows. That’s worth a discussion of its own, I guess. It also got me thinking. I think we can all agree that social media is here to stay, and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, should the use of a logo in social media networks dictate some of the design process itself, especially in the initial steps? Put simply, is social media an argument for square logos? Or at least a logo that we can shave off a square portion from, in order for clients to effectively manage their avatars and profiles on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube? I’m thinking yes. To illustrate the thinking behind this, I grabbed some logos out of our portfolio and tried to make them into social media avatars. So that I wouldn’t be ‘cherry picking’ examples (for best results) I grabbed the first set that came up in our logo design examples slide show. As you’ll see below, I had mixed results.
From left to right, the first two, I was able to use pretty well ‘as is’. Type at the size of social media icons is never going to be terribly legible in the first place, so I just carved out the icon portion of the design. The third, My Car Guy, wasn’t bad, considering its relative complexity and illustrative nature, but that’s probably the result of a Rorschach Test effect (we know what the logo is supposed to look like, having seen the original, and our brain fills in the details). Will first time viewers be able to read the tiny type or recognize the car? Who knows. Funny thing, even though the car logo looks like it has a square aspect ratio, it doesn’t really and any serious social media use of this logo would probably need a rework. Below, I’ve setup a few examples using our own logo (’cause it happens to be square) to further illustrate this notion. Will also serve as a handy-dandy sizing guide when it comes to developing logos and avatars for the most popular social media networks.
Facebook is the most ‘generous’ of the major social media platforms, allowing you to upload a relatively large profile image. That image is reduced to typical avatar site along side comments, status updates and feed. The Facebook upload mechanism is a bit wonky, and best leave a few pixels around your icon, especially if it doesn’t bleed on all four sides. Your profile pic sits on white and blue backgrounds so best give it a thin border in which to breathe.
Twitter uses a couple of sizes throughout their network. Your profile avatar shows up on a profile page, as well as on a timeline ‘feed’ accompanying your tweets. Twitter allows you to upload square, horizontal and vertical images, of almost any size, but you have to use the online tool to crop them into a square.
You Tube
YouTube follows almost the same format as Twitter, with a few pixels difference between the two. Avatars show up in two places, your profile (channel) pages and on the videos you upload. The size on video pages is a positively miserly 46 pixels square. If YouTube’s your thing, better dial back on the detail significantly.
Gravatar
If you’re a frequent blog reader, or commenter, you’ll be familiar with Gravatar. If not, Gravatar is the web-based platform that allows you to set up a consistent avatar, linked to your e-mail address, for use on blogs (that happen, as most are, to be running the Gravatar plugin). The sizes of Gravatars are all over the place, dependent on the blog designers layout. Some are quite large. Others, like ours, are very small. They’re all square.
Logo use on blogs and websites
Before everyone starts squeezing their logo pegs into square holes, there are some very important caveats to the ‘square is better’ mentality. Websites and blogs are also part of this newfangled social media too. And when used on websites and blogs, logos are better served if they have an aspect ratio that leans towards horizontal. Not that this is carved in stone, but square logos can can lost in the top left corner of a typical web page header (yeah, I know. Our own web header logo is both square and on the right hand side. We try to swim upstream once in a while). Their vertical cousins can practically disappear. Let’s take a look at some logo design aspect ratios.
Now let’s plunk those logos into some basic website header layouts to see what’s what. Granted, we’ve exaggerated things a little to make a point, but I think you’ll get the idea. And I don’t think there’s a graphic designer alive, at least those with a few years under their belt, who hasn’t run into a variation of this scenario, and then having to explain to a client why their logo is so small. In any case, a horizontal format is definitely nicer for website use than a square one. For all intents and purposes, extremely vertical logos are out.
Quick fix: removable icons and fluid logos
It’s getting a bit complicated, huh? So bottom line, which are better: square or horizontal logos? Alas, both have their applications, and neither performs a coup de grâce on the other. The real answer, at the risk of breaking more logo design commandments, is that anyone that’s serious about social media, and promoting their logo, probably needs a little bit of both. It’s always been advisable, if you’re incorporating any type of pictorial imagery into a logo, that it should be able to used solo, on it’s own and disconnected from the typography (that advice has been part of our main site logo design tips for years now). That’s not always possible (like the My Car Guy logo above, typography can be intertwined with graphics), so designers need to be a little more fluid in adapting logos to different uses. Clients need to be a bit more fluid in allowing designers to do so. I’m of the impression that as social media evolves, and the avenues where logo can show up increases, we need to ditch a little bit of the bunker mentality. The ‘you can’t change that’ mantra. ‘Cause I think we do need to change things once in a while.
At the very least, you’re going to need a square version of any logo.
Related Posts
All this demonstrates is that to most designers, a logo is often little more than a pretty design, something that they feel is ‘visually attractive’ and will have ‘visual appeal’ to their clients. So many designers still only think about the traditional outlets of paper, signage or home page and are simply unaware of how the use of a visual identity has changed over the last few years. Sites like Twitter and Facebook have thrown up two huge design challenges: how to fit an identity within a square format and how to create legibility and impact in a very small space. Designers, like others in the marketing industry, would be wise to adopt the ‘always look a customer ahead’ mantra so they are pre-empting change, rather than trying to adapt to it.
Mr.Douglas, I want to thank you for the sound and timely advice: I myself, having some new clients interested in having a web presence, have faltered a bit in thinking ahead like this, as Gary Marlowe noted in his comment. I’ve bookmarked this page so that I’ve got some guidelines to follow.
All the best and yes, the site looks and functions really well!
Great job with QTI… if it was an original, it would be great! Unfortunately, whan I saw the logo, I thought I was at the wrong website. The QTI logo is mimicking the old Greek Railway Organisation (OSE) logo here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....go-old.png
Did anyone say anything about originality?
No wonder you thought you were on the wrong website. I can hardly tell them apart.
Oh, come on Steve… You have been crying for someone else being “inspired” from your work for less obvious stuff. But you see, I know that you cannot always design original (or quite original) logos in less than 2 hours…
@ Panagiotis, just a couple of things. Writing about something is not ‘crying’ about it. Nor is it ‘whining’ or any other descriptor you’d like to insert. And yes, as a matter of fact, we get our work knocked-off on a fairly regular basis. We’re not talking about work that’s been ‘inspired’ by ours. Completely, and utterly, knocked off. See here. Here. Here. Here. Here. There are lots of other examples, but those should suffice for the time being. The reason I started writing about this crap years ago was because I grew weary of writing polite e-mails and C & Ds that people tend to ignore. They do tend to move a little quicker when it’s published on a blog. Funny thing too. I only write about the occasional incident, as even I get tired of writing about knock-offs, just as I suspect people get tired of reading about them.
BTW, if as you claim, I knocked off your railroad logo, do you think for a second I’d approve your comment (even fixing the link which you’d pooched when pasting it into the comment field)? Hardly. I let it stand because your example is, to be charitable, a stretch.
Secondly, not sure where you got the idea that the logo upstairs took two hours. You’re making faulty assumptions based on information you don’t have. So let me fill in some of that information. The logo above is actually the result of a fairly difficult project, with loads of initial concepts and about as many micro-tweaks throughout. Funny thing is, the final design featured isn’t even close to the original ideas, presented by the first designer at the shop. I only jumped in because the project was going off the rails (pun very much intended).
However, none of this is really germane to this discussion because most importantly, the length of time spent on something has nothing to do with whether it’s original or not. Original ideas can hatch in minutes. Carefully repurposed knock-offs can take hours. That’s a pretty basic premise I’m surprised you haven’t grasped yet.
Having said all of this, I’m going to ask you to dial back on your loutish behavior, because so far you’ve questioned my work, my integrity, etc, and I’ve still let your comments stand. I’ll probably not be so inclined if you continue to act like a dick.
First, I didn’t design the old OSE logo (I think it was designed years before I was born, back to the 1950′s), so I was not really offended by your “inspiration”. What I wanted was to make two points:
1. Occasionally (more or less), us designers do get inspired by things we have seen more or less recently, without intention of stealing or “borrowing” anyone’s work. Of course there are “designers” that DO steal other peoples’ work and present it as theirs, but how far do you think they can go? No matter how much anyone can defend originality, you should admit that what we call “archaic forms” will always be there, and pretty much most (if not all) logo designs are based on them. The gears on The Logo Factory logo is a good example of use of archaic forms.
2. When your rates are $395 for a logo with full copyright transfer (ok, that’s your lowerst rate, but the client still gets a vector logo with full copyright) and given that your hourly rate is at $75, then 2 hours is the time you have intended to dedicate in designing the logo, since the rest should be your minimum copyright transfer fee (have a look at http://calkulator.com/?lng=gb ). Even if it was supposed that you give away for free your author’s rights, a logo is not intended to take up more than 5 billable hours (+$20 for order handling and admin fees). Don’t get me wrong… I am not dictating your pricing policy (it’s your shop anyway). I am just justifying my “2 hours per logo” point.
Point taken on the railway logo. FWIW, clicking on your link was the first time I’ve ever seen it (I assume, being the Greek Railway Organisation, that it’s closer to your sphere than mine) so while it’s true there are cases of ‘inspiration’, this isn’t one of them. If you’d have asked, rather than sarcastically accusing me of lifting someone’s work, we could have a more pleasant discussion about that. I didn’t believe you designed the railroad logo. When I used the word ‘your’ it was a turn of a phrase.
In terms of The Logo Factory ‘cog’, there are loads of cogs in logos, and nowhere did I ever claim that this is the first logo cog in history. Our first logo was far more original (for a myriad of reasons) but we changed it last summer starting here and finishing here. Not only is the cog in our logo not particularly unique, I even wrote up a little tutorial on how I created it and how others could too. The new logo relies on the trademark of The Logo Factory name itself, as opposed to the house artwork of our original mark. By the way, that house is a registered trademark, a legally provable standard of originality, and has been for over ten years.
I agree with you on this though. All sorts of logos employ all sorts of similar items. Globes. Swooshes. Triangles. And yes, cogs. The instances of ‘knock-offs’ I linked above do not deal with that. The logos are obvious copies, sometimes of highly illustrative and complex work, that there’s simply no debate about. I think we all know what’s a knock-off, and what isn’t. And yes, there are logos that use similar elements without ripping on another. Ironically, the train logo that started this, is a classic example and yet oddly, you accused me of ‘mimicking’ that design.
In terms of our pricing, you’re once again making assumptions based on information that you don’t have. You’re assuming that every project bills at $395.00. They don’t. More importantly, you’re assuming that every job at The Logo Factory is profitable. Sadly, they aren’t. There’s lots of times projects go far over budget and long on time. Lots and lots of them as we try to be as flexible with our clients as possible. The logo upstairs is one such example. Others don’t. We employ a rather rudimentary principle called “it all works out in the wash” and we have done so fairly successfully since 1996. We have pretty decent ways of scheduling projects and are ruthlessly efficient at how we spend our studio time. While we’re not as profitable as we could be – for instance we could charge the same and outsource our work to South East Asia for pennies on the dollar – I’ve always been a complete and utter control freak about work generated by our shop. Accordingly, it’s all done in-house. You should also know that as the captain of this merry little band, my time isn’t treated the same as salaried designers. It is, for all intents and purposes, ‘off the clock’. Sometimes that works in my favor. Sometimes it doesn’t. It is, however, one of the joys of running a small business.
In terms of copyright and author’s rights, how you conduct your business is up to you. Just as it is up to me how I assign the rights to work produced at The Logo Factory. Whether a logo is transferred in vector format is utterly irrelevant. Anyone with access to Illustrator can convert a bitmap to an .EPS file in a matter of hours. If not minutes.
At the end of the day, we’ve managed to keep our studio (and it’s a small one BTW) afloat for 15 years, through two recessions, paying our designers a reasonable and steady wage while producing what I think is consistently decent work. No offense, but I don’t feel that I have to defend that to you. Or anyone else for that matter (though I think I just did). As designers running businesses we have to be pretty creative in how we market services, while still trying to produce solid work. A web-based ‘fee calculator’ is not a particularly effective way to run any business. I’ve found that we need to be more creative than that. Much more creative.
On the other hand, if you’ve a better alternative, with a proven track record, then I am all ears.
You did get me wrong, but it’s ok… As I said, I do not (and never did) intend to dictate your pricing (or marketing, or any) policy.
As for the web-based fee calculator, it is a collective work of many European design associations (project was assigned originally by the French Design Association to MoneyDesign), so it’s not just a ‘web-based calculator’ as you call it.
If I “got you wrong”, apologies. Fair enough on the fee calculator. But here’s the thing. It’s not about having some website calculator spit out some figures. It’s about getting clients to pay the figure that’s spit out. That’s becoming increasingly difficult I would imagine. The market has changed, not for the better in terms of billable fees. With a glut of self-proclaimed designers, the advent of spec work and design contests, there’s a downward pressure on pricing and an upward pressure on deliverables. Right across the board in the graphic design industry. Ironically, we raised the pricing on our entry level service a few years ago and often hear from potential clients that we’re “too expensive.” And truth to tell, there’s ton of cheaper alternatives to us, though we can’t lower our rates without resorting to procedures that don’t fit with my original mandate. Marketing on price alone is a self-defeating notion. There’ll always be someone who’s willing to do what you do cheaper. In any case, thanks for the interesting discussion and apologies for any earlier snark.
I know how the market goes – and trust me there is no difference among US and Greece from billing point of view. Clients always want more stuff for less money (and one of my favourite quotes is that “if we go on line this, we are heading to the point that we will be paying the client to design him his logo/ad/brochure/whatever”). But it’s up to us (and our Design Associations)to educate our clients (and the market at a larger scale) about the value of original and professional design against DIY and cookie-cut “design”. Otherwise, selling logos for $15 will always beat selling logos for $99 and selling logos for $1 will always beat selling logos for $15…
[...] do you get around this issue? There are a few ways to do so, and this post from The Logo Factory does a great job of explaining them and offering examples of some logos that do it right and some [...]