Deciding on a logo design can be a difficult process. A logo is not always a sales pitch. In other words, a logo isn’t always used to sell something. A lot of times a logo is used as an identifier. You know how sometimes you can’t remember a name but you can remember a face. Once you see somebody’s face you automatically identify them and all sorts of information comes to mind. You know like; that guy is the dentist I met at Ralph’s party. So, you see the face and you instantly find the common ground. That’s what a logo is used for a lot of times. To be the “face” that identifies a product and triggers other information that you have in your mind about that product.
The logo isn’t expected to do it all. One person may see the “Golden Arches” and think, yum Filet-O-Fish, while somebody else will think about that documentary where that guy ate nothing but McDonalds food for a month and got fat and sick. The logo recalls your own perception of the product and puts it front and center in your mind. Hopefully the product will have enough going for it that when you see the logo there is a positive response.
Theoretically, a logo could be ugly but represent a great product. If it catches your eye and sends you into instant recognition, the logo has done it’s job.
Here is the logo Laura Stillson designed for my band.
I decided to name the band “Pribek” for several reasons. It is my name. No other band was using the name. I know that most people probably think that “Pribek” sounds and even looks funny but I don’t find that a negative. If something is funny to you, on first impression, you may just remember it. Also, aside from sounding funny, the name “Pribek” probably doesn’t give you any pre-conceived notions, unless you are Bohemian. So, hopefully when people see the name “Pribek”, they will think of the music. Down the line if they see the logo on a poster or shirt, they will, again hopefully, think of the music or be curious and want to know more. That’s expecting a lot out of a logo but, that’s the thought process.
When Laura sent me the logo, she also sent several other ideas that she had come up with. Here’s one of those.
Even though that one is easier to read, I didn’t like it as much. I thought that the first one was more memorable. I showed the different designs to my band mates and both of them preferred the second approach. I really just wanted them to feel like they had some input. I had already made my decision. I told them my point of view and they were fine with my logic. The point is that it is a lot more difficult to come to these types of conclusions when there is a committee involved. It is exponentially more difficult and usually you end up with a weaker choice as a result of compromise.
Now, I have been looking at the logos for the Olympic Games for years and have often been baffled. The logo for the 2012 games in London has just been released and here is what the mayor of London said about it in the Daily Mail.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone proclaimed that the firm behind the graffiti-like logo “should not be paid a penny”.
The £400,000 graffiti-like logo has become a laughing stock from Scandinavia to the United States.
The logo has been described as “the work of a child” and has been mocked for being largely unrecognisable as spelling out 2012.
That’s a lot to spend on a logo. Before we look at the 2012 logo let’s see how these have evolved over time. Here is the earliest one I found, from Paris, 1924.
This one is from Los Angeles in 1932.
Both of those are pretty straightforward and, I think, dignified. They are informational. They tell you what, where and when.
Compare those to this one from Munich in 1972.
Notice that it says nothing at all about the Olympic Games. In 1972, you would have heard about the games being in Munich before you ever saw the logo. The role of the logo has changed slightly. It’s still fairly straightforward but instead of being informational it is being used to conjure up a mental image that you already have and enhance that.
Here is one from Barcelona in 1992.
A little more flashy and moderne. A splash of color, it doesn’t say anything about he games but it does have the familiar Olympic rings. The color and the rings are in all of the logos from ‘92 until the present including this one for Beijing in 2008.
If you took out the rings, it would be a bit esoteric but at least it looks like some type of being engaged in a somewhat athletic activity. It seems that it had been decided that you can push the envelope a bit but keep the rings to conjure up the mental image of the Olympics overall.
That brings us to the London, 2012 edition that the mayor commented on earlier.
Well, the rings are there but I didn’t notice that right off. Maybe it’s because the familiar color scheme of the rings is not there. I swear I did not know that it spells out 2012 until I read the mayor’s quote. The company that designed this thing is called Locog; here is what they said.
By today more than 35,000 people had signed an online petition demanding the logo be changed. But Locog insisted it would not scrap the design, which it said was a “bold image for a bold Gamesâ€.
It’s presumptuos that they would assume that these will be “bold” games. What if they don’t turn out to be “bold”. It seems that Locog is trying to direct the personality of the games rather than leave room for the product to speak for itself. Do we even want “bold” games? I think we want competitive games. “Bold games”; Man, that is some screwed up thinking. That is exactly the kind of crap a committee comes up with. It is over-thinking. Add to that the fact that these guys released a logo promotional video that sent people into epileptic seizures and it really looks stupid.
I guess it works on one level because, without the negatives, we wouldn’t be talking about these games for a few years at least.
Related posts
Tags: 2012 London Olympic Games, Locog, Logo
Stephanie Vann wrote,
As I live in the UK, I’ve been hearing a lot about that logo recently. We had big articles splashed over many major newspapers. According to reports, not only does it not look like 2012 (and I have to admit I didn’t get that straight off myself) but some claim it looks like a swastika and others that it sent people into epileptic fits. I’ve no idea whether the latter or not is actually true, but if it is, it doesn’t seem like a good thing.
Personally, I don’t like it. I think it just looks like a mess. But if you take the perspective that all publicity is good publicity then maybe it’s doing it’s job after all.
Link | June 7th, 2007 at 3:57 am
Jayne d'Arcy wrote,
I like both your logos, Jack. The first is smooth, and I like the shape of it. It has more of a lasting look to it than the second one does. The second one looks like spray paint graffiti, which might make for a good, one time use, on a different album.
That 2012 Olympic logo is really bad. It really does not look like any effort whatsoever was put into the design. It appears amateurish and I’d really hate to see that splashed everywhere for the next games.
Link | June 7th, 2007 at 2:15 pm