.
Something we've been working on lately: how to make a good logo. Not the brand name itself, but rather the visual design. I have come to the opinion that there are two key elements.
1. Clear.
- It must be easy to read. That means a simple font.
- It must be well suited for human eyes. That means it is shaped as a Landscape layouut.
- It needs to be easy to "parse" into syllables cognitively. This is especially important if it's a made up word (as it should be). This can be achieved by using contrasting colors, capitalization, or boxes or vertical alignment.
2. Meaningful.
- It should convey (a) what you are, and (b) what is special about you.
- Many logos capture a brand essence but don't inform about what the thing is. It's very hard, particularly when keeping your logo clear.
- A frequent and acceptible solution is to build a tagline into the logo. But the tagline has to be really short in order to fit, so it's tough for even words to convey a lot of meaning.
Some Examples from the Web, Graded
- MySpace: B. Obeys the main rules, but in a way that is so generic it's tough to remember. The little people convey meaning. The font is simple. The tagline is reasonable. But no one can remember this logo.
- Facebook: D. The font is simple and that's good. But it's tough on the eyes because the site actually breaks the logo up into two logos. Assuming the dude is part of the logo, and frankly without the dude we have nothing. With the dude we don't have much more. Who is this dude? Is this Dudebook? Really a bad logo; fortunately they have a great name (not to mention other virtues)!
- Google: A-, upgraded from a B+. Great on the visual clarity. Great on the brand essence: exuberant awesomeness. But not very informative about what the company is. Given that, and given the rainbow-like colors, this so-called "Google" company could be anything.
However, Google has turned this logo weakness partly into a strength through the use of its Google Doodles on holidays and birthdays. These convey that Google can mean anything and that has become part of its meaning. - YouTube: A-. This is a good logo. The box around Tube parses the word and is reminiscent of TV screen, conveying some meaning. Excellent use of tagline. Short on brand essence though. In a way it's like an opposite to the Google logo. (This is reflected in the name, too).
- LinkedIn: C+. It sure is clear to the eye, which is good. In an instructive contrast with YouTube, it uses a box to parse the slightly tricky name, but unlike the case of YouTube, the box doesn't add any meaning here. Use of blue is errant for a social network that is so different from the blue market leader, MySpace. (I didn't really cover that rule). Tagline might be helpful.
.
