I agree that logopond has tons of people just submitting images with reflections and bevels and think it's a logo. I think this comes from people who have no real design background, just Photoshop "skills." When it comes down to it, it just makes me more marketable and profitable because I know what it really takes to get the job done.

Furthermore, most logos don't have a concept behind them. But when the concept is executed well that's what makes a great logo.

But we are all learning and should never stop doing so.

Regarding the part of being literal. I would add only one thing. Don't show what you say. People are not stupid. If the company name says Red Fox it's unnecessary to show a red for. Use the logo symbol to communicate brand values that are not in the words or tagline yet.

I believe, in some cases, just using the initials, or a name, combined with a typographic treatment can give you great results. With a name you get instant brand recognition. With good typography you achieve timeless quality. I have some typographic corporate IDs that are still being used 20 years later - that's not too shabby.

And that's not to say that I'm against graphic treatments - most of my logos are graphical. I'm just saying that I find it better to be flexible and that are no hard and fast rules to logo design... except NO SWOOSHES!

By your rationale the apple logo should be thrown out the window? Other rule breakers that come to mind include legends like IBM (initials), Westinghouse, Penguin Books, McDonalds, this is just looking around my office.... Let's not forget Creative Bits (see the CB there?).

Why in the world would you specifically develop the logo separate from the mark? Quite often they are one and the same? Do they not need to hang together. Not everyone can be Nike or Apple and use the logo independently.

I have to strongly disagree about favicon sizes... If your logo works as a favicon, good. Personally I would not steer my clients in this direction. To limit your self to a fraction of an inch of screen space is laughable.

I may have come off rude... I apologize.

There are times to follow rules, and there are times you break them (and hopefully the wisdom to know when).

To your point about brands... Yes they are brands, but what influenced the the brand was hiring a great identity designers early on.

Nike and McDonalds invested lots of money and time into creating the behemoths. Personally I think the Nike logo is overrated, if nothing else we owe hundreds of awful logos to people trying to make a swoosh logo of their own. I brought them up because they are two of the most recognizable marks, and often stand without accompanying logotype.

IBM is an acronym and a good logo. Westing house uses an initial and a good logo. Both initials, both still work 50 years later, in print and onscreen. (Both the product of the legendary Paul Rand). Westinghouse does indeed use it's logo as a favicon, while IBM opts for a simple blue box with the IBM letters.

Or how about UPS who used an acronym (and until very recently) also incorprated a package into its logo.

I may have misinterpreted your original post. My comment about apple was it's a literal representation (though one with a devious pun!) of the name. Totally agree that having a computer icon would be redundant.

International Business Machines on the other hand... just think of how awful that could have been. There are indeed times when acronyms are just!

And finally with all that said. YES there is an awful lot of repetitive inane things happening in the world of logo design.

I think one of the major "rules" about logo design should be that there are actually few rules to be strictly followed in logo design.

Initials as an icon are often appropriate - and what the client sometimes requests as a desire or need.

Incredibly unique, memorable and successful logo designs can be created by intertwining a logotype and an icon. Most often it's just not done well at all.

Again, literal logos may also be very appropriate to a specific client, their needs and the business/product being identified. However, giving that literal image a fresh interpretation is what often makes a great logo.

I do agree that designers need to do their research when creating identities for any client - and, unfortunately, I think most designers feel that "research" is just flipping through logo design annuals and checking out logo resources online. Few spend the time to thoroughly research an industry, a specific business, the history of that business, the competition of a clients and other aspects that do need to be considered in designing an identity that will successfully represent a client for an extended period of time.

Occasionally, I feel some designers need to be reminded that when they are creating a logo they are designing specifically for the needs and requirements of the client - not for themselves or other designers.

The personal computer and the accompanying software programs have been incredibly detrimental to identity design over the past two decades. Anyone with a computer, Photoshop, Comic Sans and Papyrus, a clip art book, and someone willing to pay for work, now calls themselves a "professional logo designer." The primary things missing are often talent, true design skills and an understanding of basic design principles.

Jeff Fisher
Engineer of Creative Identity
Jeff Fisher LogoMotives
Author of "Identity Crisis!"

I know it's hard to convey an emotion through a forum. So I'm sure some will take this the wrong way. Que Sera.

Why would you invest so much time pissing and moaning about logos and design that you don't like? Why not invest that time to someone that has a good design and help them take it over the top and make it a great design?

Every single design rule out there has been sucessfully broken. It's the ppl that break the rules that lead the pack. Not the ones complaing that others didn't follow them. Yes, there are some golden rules that should be followed. How do you think these rules were created? By someone a long time ago not following following the rules and finding sucess.

I'm a new designer, but to read something like this really turns me off. I'm not likely to listen to someones comments after I just read a thread they posted talking about how much everyones work sucks unless it falls into certain guidlines that they approve of.

Just my .02

Don't confuse exasperation for being overly critical. There have been quite few threads on this site regarding logo design, and yet the message isn't getting across. I took it upon myself to highlight the situation. I'm sorry you feel the truth shouldn't be spoken?

Actually a lot of design rules were created by nature. Look up the 1:3:9 rule to see what I mean. The 'Golden Mean' as it were, and also the Rule of Thirds.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

It's not that I feel the truth shouldn't be spoken. I'm a huge advocate of the truth being told. What your speaking is not the truth, it's an opinion. Just like mine.

I'm aware of the golden ratio of beauty. It's the fundamental foundation for the vitruvian man. So your not basing your satement on nature, your basing your statement on one man's opinion. Albiet one brilliant man, but still a man. da Vinci had many theory's; most of them were humongous bellyflops.

I'm also intimate w/ the rule of thirds due to being a professional photographer for over 10 years. Look up any famous photographer that changed the landscape of the photography profession in the last 40-50 years. You'll see that almost every single one of them have mentioned the rule of thirds has it's place, but is not the only way to extract beauty from a subject (obvious paraphrase).

I do think you have many valid points in your initial post and following comments in this thread. I don't deny the fact that you know what your talking about.

I guess it boils down to personality differences. While I don't think every person in here is a design superstar. I do believe almost every person in here has a true desire to create a good design. Some just have a better eye and design intuition. Making a blanket statement that a majority of the design in here is 'lazy mishmash' & 'Boring. Yuk!' is less productive than all of the bad designs put together.

No, I'm not trying to instigate you or get you to see it my way. I'm just giving my opinion about the content of this thread. Sometimes I walk past threads like this and don't mention a word. I was inclined to give my opinion on this one since it seemed (and perception is reality) that there were excessive unfair judgements being made against rookie designers collectively.

Regards,
-Jon

"Exasperation is the mind's way of spinning its wheels until patience restores traction."
George L. Griggs

Everyone's opinion is the truth for them, so I disagree with you there, just as you are free to disagree with me.

We're all free to express our opinions here. That's what makes this site so great! At least some discussion was created as a result, but I will endeavor to be more positive in my posts in the future. It's funny how tone and manner can influence how an opinion is received.

There were no 'unfair judgements' levied against anyone in particlular. Any and all judgements made were the result of seeing the same design being repeated over and over again. I felt rather than respond to each one that I would put one message out there.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

I've been lurking here for a while (thanks for that "Make My Logo Bigger Cream" link, by the way - everyone in the office was rolling). I felt compelled to respond, though, after reading this post and reading some of the many critiques here.

Haven't we all learned by now as creative people that beauty (and good design) is all in the eye of the beholder? Holding an art degree does not an expert make.

Art is visualized opinion and the reflection of one person's opinion from their mind to the paper - or computer screen in this case.

I definitely agree with SloYerRoll on this.

I notice sometimes when I get together with a buch of other graphic artsis that we all become so wrapped up in our perceived design superiority that we forget what it was like to be a kid picking up a crayon and doodling just for the joy of doodling.

Good grief - throw out the Rule of Thirds and just have some fun every now and then. When you experiment with new things, you might be surprised what you discover. This includes designing a new logo.

Thanks - and thank you, too, for allowing open discussion on your opinions.

Part of that debate depends on the client's budget. If small-time Joe Plumber wants a logo for his business, he probably doesn't have the cash to advertise all over the place to create brand awareness, so something literal is most often appropriate. Someone with deeper pockets can afford something more abstract or provocative [hey, not that way ;-) ].

--------------------
I saw this wino, he was eating grapes. I was like, "Dude, you have to wait."
–Mitch Hedberg