Logo crit
Out of context: Reply #21
- Started
- Last post
- 33 Responses
- Nairn0
Sorry, baskerville - that was my second post of the day, I'm still in "sod everything and be a cock" mode.
I don't wholly agree with you, though.
For me, a logo ONLY needs to have personality - to be impactful. It must be unique and ring true, which means it must be relevant or 'clever' - or the form suggestive of the company's intentions / self image. But that's about it - I certainly don't think that just because there are a handful of other companies with 'BP' as their principle initials that never-more shall the initials 'BP' be used in a logo - by way of comparison, there are 6½ billion people on this planet, but somehow we all maintain something of our uniqueness? We don't all go around shouting "I'm a geek!" - "I'm a designer!" - "I'm a whore!" - "I'm a miner!", yet often our style and manner betrays us - it's all that's required. You say that 'the intials BP tell the viewer nothing about the company and aren't memorable' - but that's only because they're not relevant to you - you have no need to make any connections, so don't.
One could argue that it could be quite damaging for companies like publishers to define themselves too much by their logo - what if they do digital media? what if they do educational books on the one hand and Mills & Boon on the other? There's also the minor point of tradition within publishing - monograms and letterform branding are as old as letterpresses themselves!
I agree with what you say about smaller companies requiring memorable logos - but I feel it is more a mistake, a lack of faith on the part of owners or their designers, to spell out their intentions obviously.
My ½ penny's worth.