What aspects create a successful logo?
There are hundreds of factors that need to be considered when asking the question, ‘what creates a successful logo?‘ These factors are not just random, a successful logo is monitored and altered very specifically by the designer to create a unique and popular reaction from a brands intended audience. Less successful logos can be over complicated, boring, un imaginative and in many cases quite forgettable. This is not what is wanted from a logo, to make a logo successful it should be instantly recognised to it’s brand, the logo powers the identity of the brand and therefore has the power to change the entire image of that brand, in turn this could either complement or disrupt the brands success.
The intention of this essay is to try to differentiate the elements that both do and don’t work when working to create a successful logo. What is a logo and what does it do? The job of a logo is often more complex than many people think. is the logo just an image that is used to visualise the name of a brand? Or does it create the overlying personality of an organisation or individual which will ultimately create either positive or negative reaction from the viewer?
Are there certain key elements that need to be considered when designing a logo or are they always changing depending on the intended use of the logo? The author Gareth Hardy, specifically his book ‘Smashing logo design’, highlights key elements he believes a designer should focus on when designing a logo, Hardy’s quotes will form the basic structure of the argument ‘What Creates a Successful Logo?’.
Finally from the information derived from this argument, a series of points that are key to follow during the initial design process should be the outcome . Then a comparison of both a ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful’ example of logos in the industry to ensure the result is correct.
The world of branding and identity is a confusing one, there are so many different elements to consider when designing a logo that it would be impossible to derive an actual recipe for the perfect logo. You must take into consideration, the imagery used, shape, colour, type, placement, scale, relevance and these are just a few and all very specific depending on what and who the logo is intended for.
Initially it is important to understand what a logo is and its importance to a brand as well as its intended job. ‘Think of Microsoft, Apple, Ford and Target. Chances are good that without even showing you the logos, you’d have a fairly good picture of how they look.’ (Airey, 2012, p10) . David Airey states the main job of a logo, it should result in forcing itself to be the face of a brand, if a logo is successful it would immediately be the first thing you think about when a brands name is mentioned, the logo should really be stuck in the sub conscious of the audience.
‘A logo is a graphic identifier that is used to visually communicate anything that requires to be identified. it helps the brand set itself apart from the competition.’ - (Hardy , 2011, p.3). Gareth Hardy highlights the fact that a logo is a tool of identity, without some form of symbol, signature, shape, word or phrase then visually no one would have an idea what visual message a brand was trying to give out. This would also not allow a group to differentiate themselves from who ever their competitors may be. Hardy goes onto say ‘logos are not limited to commercial endeavor - charitable organizations, campaigns, even individuals can use logos to identify themselves.’ - (Hardy , 2011, p.3). He argues that a logo is itself the face of an identity, it is a way of taking an idea, message or personality and visually communicating it so it can be used to identify a certain business, organisation or individual. However a logo on its own is fairly useless, it must come with the brand or message behind it to allow itself to be the face. It would be impossible for a designer to just create a logo without having a brand to work with, without a brand a logo is nothing.
‘By itself, a logo is just a mark, but it acquires meaning through a lifetime of stories and experiences. A logo can change over time, but it should always keep its connection to the insight and meanings in customers’ minds.’ - (Healey, 2008, p.90.)
This means that a logo has the power to change the way a brand is perceived, a longstanding company could one day decide they want to change their visual identity so that they can appeal to a different / larger audience, a logo can be altered or changed entirely but as long as it keeps the message and integrity of the brand then it will still be a successful logo. This point is reenforced here ‘Essentially, a logo is a picture that represents the collection of experiences that forms the perception in the mind of those who encounter an organization.’ (Budelmann, Kim and Wozniak, 2012, p.7). This proves that the ‘collection of experiences’ of a brand should be represented in its logo, as was mentioned before the message, personality, experiences and ethos of a company should create it’s own choices of logo and identity. In which case there should only be a limited amount of design choices that a designer should have when accurately creating a logo, these choices are formed through the sector that specific organisation/ group falls under, there will be appropriate responses and non appropriate responses these can only be distinguished through research into the company and what they are ultimately trying to achieve when creating an identity for their company.
There are limitless methods that can be undertaken when designing a logo, but having read numerous designers books on successful logo design it seems if the correct steps are kept in mind during the design process then a standard structure of the logo design process can be developed.
Gareth Hardy and his book ‘Smashing logo design’ seems to have the most standard and basic explanation of the elements that form a successful logo. therefore references from Hardy will be used throughout this section to form the starting structure, while arguing or proving his theories through comparison with other authors opinions.
‘Simplicity is probably the attribute that goes the furthest to improving the success of a logo. Simple ideas and imagery make effective logos’ - (Hardy, 2011, p.26). Initially it is the complexity of a logo that comes into question. most times a logo is only seen by the viewer at a glance, therefore the least amount of information contained within the logo would seem to make the most sense. as highlighted by Adams and Morioka. ‘the logo however, must remain a clear expression of the client. Because the logo will only be seen for a moment the use of forms that are easily recognizable is important’ - (Adams and Morioka, 2004, p.28). Both authors agree that not over complicating a logo can only be a positive, the more complex a logo, it seems the less connection it would receive from the viewer. I imagine it would also cause problems when scaling is brought into consideration, surely having a busy over complicated logo would just become more confused when reduced in size.
‘What it gives up in originality, a logo can gain in relevance.’ (Healey, 2008, p90). However originality is not the same as simplicity, and there is no reason to think that you can’t be both simple and original. however relevance to the clients brand is paramount when creating a logo. The more relevant a logo to its brand the more understanding of the clients profession or message the viewer will take away.
There is another way of grabbing the audiences attention with a logo, Hardy says that surprise factor is an important element to remember when creating a logo. This surely must depend on the clients brand and the direction the brand wishes it’s visual identity to follow. ‘A logo that surprises the viewer, catches him off guard, will have great impact and in turn be memorable.’ - Hardy, 2011, p.27). Perhaps he is focusing more on the memorability of a logo rather than just the shock factor, if a logo is structured around a clever visual message then this will attract more attention from the intended audience and if that audience has to stop and think about a logos message in order to understand it then the more likely the viewer will be to remember the brand and possibly form an emotional bond with the brand itself, forcing it to stand out from its competitors.
‘The more literal an illustrative logo is, the less work a potential customer needs to do to interpret it’ -(Budelmann, Kim andWozniak, 2010 p8.). However making a logo literal is not necessarily the best option, it just turns the logo into a piece of signage that is used to mainly inform the viewer of the profession of the brand. This doesn’t mean however that the viewer will create more of a relationship with the brand just because he understands what they do. there must involve a bit of originality in order to differentiate itself from it’s competition.
Simplicity of design again plays a part in the next area Hardy mentions ‘the most successful logos are those that can be applied to every medium - screen or print, large or small. There is no point in having a logo unless you can use it to it’s full potential.’ - (Hardy, 2011, p.30). A logo throughout its life time should nowadays be versatile enough to be scaled to any size and placed on any product while still remaining legible. All the most successful logos can still be recognised whether they are reduced to a tiny scale and placed on a business card or blown up to cover the side of a high rise building. This has not always been the case but the amount of media that a brand can take advantage of has increased greatly over the past 50 years as Adams and Morioka explain.
‘Until the 1950s most logos needed to work technically in only one medium, print. the expansion of digital, broadcast and interactive media over the last fifty years has changed this.’- Adams and Morioka, 2004, p.38)
Adams, Morioka and Hardy all raise this point that a logo must be versatile and flexible enough to be placed on any media, therefore again simplicity as was mentioned before is a key, the more complex imagery used within a logo, the more difficulty wit will cause the viewer when trying to recognise the brand the logo represents. At a small scale a complex logo would blend into itself making it illegible.
Originality is the next factor talked about by Hardy,, ‘If a logo you design looks like somebody else’s logo or like a knock off of logos that have come before, it won’t succeed.’ - (Hardy, 2011, p.28). This means that just because a logo has become successful in a certain area doesn’t mean that other brands that also fall under that sector would have the same success with a similar or copied logo idea. By copying an original idea you would not only make that brand seem less unique but you would also make the brand seem un original and dull itself.
‘Many new logos are bound to remind viewers of others they have seen. Still, a logo should aim to distinct from others in its category, to avoid cliches, and above all to avoid infringing someone else’s trademark’ - (Healey, 2008, p90).
Healey reenforces this fact by stating that even though a logo can look similar and remind someone of another, it should still remain unique to its own brand, this could be done by ensuring you know what makes the brand unique from all its competitors and focusing on those elements to structure the design.
However Wally Olins, another leading author in the field of branding and identity argues the point, ‘All organizations are unique even if the products/services they make/sell are more or less the same as those of their competitors’ - (Olins, 2008, p28). He states that an organisation will always have unique factors, even if it is going into heavy competition, there will always be an individual speciality that can be utilised and focused on to visually promote the brand. therefore there should never be logos that are copied or stolen.
Designers can also fall into the trap of following trends or using personal taste to influence their logo design according to Adams and Morioka this is indeed a negative method of logo design.
‘Style and trends may be enticing, but they rarely have lasting emotional resonance’ - (Adams and Morioka, 2004, p.34). Following a trend set by another organisation or following your personal taste will only hinder the success of a logo, it may be in fashion at the time of production, but once fashions and trends change over time, the brand will find itself having to renew its identity and start again. The one way of ensuring a logo is timeless is to incorporate a very individual and powerful message into the design which highlights what the brand is intending to do for their audience. ‘A powerful message that is portrayed visual in a logo design can go a long way toward achieving a recognizable understanding of what the brand stands for.’ - (Hardy, 2011, p.31)
The message behind the brand is ultimately what forms their identity. A logo is just a visual tool for the audience to recognise the message being sent as well as who is sending it. Some of the best, most successful examples of logos have a obscure design in relation to their message or area of expertise which may not get picked up by the audience at first but still creates a solid visual identity which is clearly linked to a specific brand for example,
‘Apple doesn’t sell apples, but you wouldn’t know that from it’s logo - a stylized image of an apple with a bite taken out of it. The company’s original logo, with it’s direct reference to Isaac Newton and the apple tree, was replaced in 1976’ - (Budelmann, Kim and Wozniak, 2010, p.8)
This shows that an initial thought process was put behind the identity of Apple when it was first designed over 30 years ago but through years of development of both the businesses message and their identity the logo visually has no link to that of Isaac Newton but the way the logo has been designed allows it to reenforce the message while keeping in tune with the digital, modern and futuristic qualities of Apple.
Involving a brands message in its logo identity does not mean it has to be complicated or too clever, in many cases quite the opposite is true. ‘Many logos fail from their own cleverness or overproduction. Let something be what it is’ - (Adams and Morioka, 2004, p.28)
Overall, It seems that the main points that are highlighted by all the authors referenced so far, are these five key elements, simplicity, surprise factor, versatility, originality and message.
Having derived what these main elements are they will be used to compare a successful logo and a logo which has not been created with these elements in mind.
For the example of a successful logo, the McDonald’s (fig.1) has been chosen. Created by Jim Schindler in 1962, this is one of the most popular and well known logos around the globe. obviously years of business and huge amounts of income has helped them develop their popularity in both a visual and ethical way, but this non the less does not take away from the fact it is a hugely successful logo design.
If these logos are judged with the criteria derived from the research in this essay then the McDonald’s logo (fig.1) is extremely simple, its visual elements are very minimal, with the two iconic gold arches creating the ‘m’ and that is it. This means that the logo is incredibly versatile, it can be placed on the side of a cup one centimeter by one centimeter or plastered over the side of a stadium and it will still remain recognisable and legible even without the ‘McDonald’s’ text along side it. As the logo itself was initially designed back in the sixties, it is difficult to say whether it has a surprise factor, personally I would say that it doesn't have one, it was initially designed to imitate the arches on the outside of the first restaurant so in this instance it doesn’t seem the shock factor was thought about when first designing it. However the message that is portrayed is quite powerful and one that you may not expect with a fast food restaurant, it has an almost heavenly appearance with the incorporation of the golden arches which in turn gives the audience an expectation of the quality of their products while also making the brand seem much more high class than it is.
On the other hand there is the logo for the Conservation Department Missouri (fig.2). The designer is unknown but the same grading criteria will be used to distinguish whether this is a successful or not successful logo. This logo is not simple in any way, it has over complicated imagery, shape, colour and text. The logo does have a surprise factor but not a good way, the surprise is overridden by confusion. The design itself is not that versatile as the business and colours used would cause limited legibility when it is scaled to fit different media. The triangular shape is often related to many national parks or conservations, so in that sense it is also not original and unless the message of the imagery is that fish ride around on raccoons in Missouri.
So in this case again it seems that the requirements have not been thought about what so ever when designing the logo which in turn causes a great amount of confusion over a brand, its over complicated, ugly and random.
In conclusion I think the elements that I have found through writing and researching this essay are actually fairly accurate, A logo will have much more chance if the following is considered at the initial design stages.
Keep it simple, simple imagery, colour and type must be implemented, the more elements a logo consists of the less versatile and logical it will be to be the face of a brand.
Versatility, allowing the logo enough room to placed anywhere and on anything. The more ways a logo can be used while still remaining recognisable the better.
Make your design original, don’t copy from other brands specialising in similar areas, they may produce / sell the same products but it is important to find strong visual elements that link purely to the message or skills of the brand you are designing for. It is also important to make sure you do not follow trends or fashions at the time as they will ultimately go out of fashion.
Finally, the message that the logo portrays will effect the reaction and response towards a brand, if there is a strong message that is needed to be put across, make sure that it is incorporated as this will both highlight the benefits of a brand as well as make it stand out from its competition.
fig.1
fig.2
Bibliography
Books
Adams. S and Morioka. N (2004) Logo Design Workbook, Gloucester, Massachusetts: Rockport Publishers inc.
Hardy, G. (2011) Smashing Logo Design: The art of creating visual identities, Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Olins, W. (1989) Corporate identity: Making business strategy visible through design , London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Olins, W. (2008) The Brand Handbook, London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Budelmann, W, Kim. Y and Vozniak. C. (2010) Brand Identity Essentials: 100 principles for Designing logos and Building Brands , Massachusetts, USA: Rockport Publishers inc.
Healey, M. (2008) What is Branding?, Switzerland: RotoVision.
Airey, D. (2010) Logo design Love : A Guide to Creating Iconic Brand Identities, CA, USA: New Riders
Murphy, J & Rowe, M. (1988) How to Design Trademarks and Logos, Oxford: Phaidon Press Ltd.
Norman, D. A, (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things, USA: Basic Books.
.
Websites
Airey. D, (02/04/2007) What makes a good logo?, http://www.davidairey.com/what-makes-a-good-logo/, 26/01/2013
Cass. J, (09/01/2008) 5 useful logo design tips, http://www.davidairey.com/5-useful-logo-design-tips//, 25/01/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment