Designers often talk, a great lengths, why a logo design has to be simple, some going as far to say it’s a “carved in stone” kinda rule. While I agree in principle with that basic premise, it’s a rule that we’ve been guilty of breaking, on numerous occasions (in our defense, we always make sure if an illustrative logo treatment is appropriate, according to future plans for the design). Was out for an early motorcycle ride this morning and stumbled across a classic example of why this ‘simple is better’ is the rule, rather than the exception (pardon the photograph quality, but it was overcast and the pics were taken with my handy-dandy iPhone).
Different applications. Different results.
Take a look at the sign above. It’s a big one (actually, identical billboards have been placed in about four locations, to grab eyeballs from every traffic direction). The logo in the middle is for the real estate development featured. Uses either a photograph or a photo-realistic representation of a magnolia as the central theme, accented with torn photo edges and drop shadow. Nothing terribly wrong with the logo itself. It’s nicely designed, probably looks smashing on glossy business cards, textured letterheads and highly-varnished presentation folders given out to prospective home buyers. Has a nice vibe, presents a decent upscale image (needed with the price of houses these days) and is an example that most designers wouldn’t mind having in their portfolio. So what’s the issue? Well, that logo was ONLY designed with print (or web) use in mind. When it comes to other applications, the logo presents some very real problems.
At every entrance, the real estate development features huge granite structures (speaking of “carved in stone”) that are emblazoned with the same magnolia logo. Or a not-so-reasonable facsimile thereof. This time, the design doesn’t look so good. In fact, it has reproduced horribly and looks like an bad clip art, pinched from the library of some shopping mall ‘custom’ embroidery hat store. To be honest, the photo doesn’t do justice to how bad it actually looks. The stone version of the logo has lost the upscale vibe of the original entirely, even though I’m sure these granite monoliths cost an absolute fortune to produce. I’m also sure the manufacturers did what they could with the original logo as presented.
Neither the designer, or the people carving the logo into the granite were incompetent, and both are probably very skilled at their individual craft. It’s all speculation, but I imagine the designer probably wasn’t aware that the logo was going to show up on multiple granite slabs, almost 20 feet high, on every road that entered the estate. And the monument manufacturer simply wasn’t able to covert the complex photo-detail of the original into his/her medium. Trouble is, the difference between the two applications is profound (enough that I’d blog about it anyway).
Plan for future use. Avoid using photographs.
If we can take something out of this, it would be to avoid using photographs (or other extremely realistic) depictions in any logo design project. Another would be that it’s critical to know beforehand how a logo is planned to be used. We try to extract that information before starting ANY project at the shop, lest we corner a design’s use somewhere down the road. Trouble is, many businesses in start-up have absolutely NO idea how their logo usage will pan out in future days.
If that’s the case, it’s best to keep it simple.
Related Posts
The granite monolith is an extreme example of something I’ve LONG told my clients. Bringing it more down to earth/everyday, simple applications, like embroidered polo shirts for the staff, really bring out the difficutly of using overly complex/detailed/photographic logos.
My standard for any logo designed is if it doesn’t work in black and white, then it won’t work in color (think yellow page ads and other one-color applications).
Too bad most designers aren’t taught these basic production requirements while they’re still in school. Of course, no designer in school ever imagines that they’ll be working on anything less high-profile than a CD cover, a Fortune 500 annual report, or a series of high-end, conceptual posters for Madison Ave.
Good point. Most logo design projects that a designer will face (unless they’re in-house for a large agency) will be of the lower profile variety. Logos for this kind of project need to be more utilitarian in scope.
I am a commercial embroiderer and I don’t know why embroidery isn’t just included on the list along with business cards and letterhead. If a company is not including embroidered garments, hats, gifts, etc. in their marketing plan for now or the future, they are forgetting a valuable part of the marketing plan. Maybe designers don’t understand what makes a good design for embroidery…Think I should write an article on it?
Absolutely. An article on embroidery for logos would be fantastic!
Point taken. Using realistic images for logos brings a lot of complications in the long run so it pays to be simple both design and in colors in creating logos.
I think using photo-realistic images for logo’s are “okay” under certain circumstances. But as pinkraygunguy says, make sure it works in black and white first!
The apple logo is one of my favorite examples of this. The logo itself works strong as a solid black image, and when the designers feel like sprucing it up, they add a titanium, aqua, or reflective look to it. This also goes for motor companies such as ford and chevrolet.
Same thing with the iTunes logo. When they want it in one color, they add the music symbol and the outline of disc. We still recognize it as the iTunes logo.