Though it wouldn't appear possible from my previous post, if anything logos excite me even more than fonts. They have the same ability to imbue added meaning to the thing or concept they depict, and to convey feeling. But - self evidently - they have more to offer in the way of artistry. Every picture, after all, paints a thousand words.
This freedom, though, comes at a price. And that price is the higher potential for disaster. It doesn't take long for a logo to become deeply linked with a company's image, so if it's a bad one, the damage can be great - and hard to reverse. This leads to the huge, and well-publicised, fees that companies pay for their logos to be designed. Perhaps the most notorious of these, in recent times, was the 2012 Olympic Logo, which cost £400,000 pounds - a huge amount. I'll be talking more about it shortly.
So what makes a logo good? Having given the matter lots of thought (because that's the laugh-riot that is my mind), I think it comes down to a few things. First, it has to be eye-catching, and instantly recognisable - for obvious reasons. It has to be simple, too. And perhaps that's why they come in for such criticism. People often look at logos and say "a child could have done it". But as far as I can see, that's sort of the point. A good logo should appeal to us on a very primitive level. It shouldn't be hard to access, or to relate to. So if it looks like a child could have done it, it's probably good.
The last thing a logo should have is a clever twist, a knowing smile. On the face of it that would seem to contradict what I've just said, but there needs to be some reward for looking closer. It should be instantly accessible, of course, but if it also has a sense of "the more you look, the more you see", a bit of surprise and delight, then it won't just be a good logo, but a great one.
So how do my arbitrary "rules" apply in the real world? Which logos do well? Well, as with fonts, there are good ones and bad ones. So what follows is a quick look at the ones that succeed, and the ones that fail.
First, then, the good:
Let me be clear: this is nothing to do with my political persuasion - it's just a bloody good logo. It came into being around the time of Cameron's becoming Tory leader - part of the party's rebranding. Out with the symbolic (and, frankly, hard to relate to in the era of electricity!) torch, and in with this. Much like the 2012 Olympic logo, it was criticised over its cost, and the apprarently infantile result. But I think it does eveything they wanted it to. The casual brush-stroke nature of the tree suggests a less stuffy, less old-fashioned outlook, and yet, what is it a painting of? An English Oak Tree - as sturdy, enduring, and reliable as they come. It's all things to all men, and that's without mentioning the "green"-ness of it. The truth about the party may be (very) far from this, but that's not the logo's fault. It's doing its job, and doing it brilliantly.
Here it is: the 2012 Olympic Logo. Much has already been written about it, so there's probably not much original to add. For me, though, it's a logo that I didn't orginally warm to, but have come to hugely respect. A bit like Sir Alex Ferguson. It would be hard for me to say I dislike it, because it meets all of the criteria I've laid out up to this point. It's eye-catching and memorable, for a start. I'm not sure anyone could deny that. Many more prosaic, unimaginative logos were mooted before this one was chosen, and I doubt any would have stuck in the memory like this does. It's simple, too, and does, in many ways, look like a child's scribblings (but as I've discussed, that's no bad thing).
But where I think this logo really wins is the "surprise and delight" factor. There are many things to see. Taken as a whole, it looks like a crouching athlete (either someone about to start an 800m race, or hurl a discus). And - although I've not found this confirmed anywhere on the internet, I'm convinced that the numbers are also meant to be rough drawings of the four countries that make up the UK: England top left, Northern Ireland top right, Wales bottom left and Scotland bottom right (with an Isle of Man thrown in for good measure?). Perhaps it's just me seeing these things - but the hidden depths to apparent simplicity make this a great logo.
Now for some bad ones:
Ofcom is the body that regulates and sets the standards, and codes of conduct, for the broadcast media. Which is nice. And above is their logo - which isn't nice.
Not that it's offensive, in any way. I just don't get it. Specifically, I don't get what's going on with that weird f. It looks like it's deliberately in the same form as the c - almost as if it's meant to say cc. But why? Carbon Copy? What does it mean in that context? And if it's not a c, what's that f meant to look like? A pylon? Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but assuming I'm not, the logo just creates questions and ambiguity - which isn't good news for a standards setting organisation.
Kudos where it's due, though: I do like the bar across the bottom. It's symbolic, I assume, of the electromagnetic spectrum, over which TV and Radio (and all types of electronic communication) are broadcast. So well done for that!
And now to the logo most offensive to my eyes. Normally, as with the Conservative Party, I can put aside my personal feelings to appreciate a good logo. But when the noble art of logo creation is used to deceive and mislead, then any artistic merit is overshadowed. It so happens, in this case, that there isn't much artistry to begin with. As a logo it's just a bit boring. But it's layered in cynicism, like a sea bird caked in crude oil (that's the closest you'll get to satire from me).
BP is an oil company. From that fact there is no escape. The old logo (above), while not trumpeting this, didn't try and hide it either. But the change in logo to a pretty, wholesome flower (as well as the horrible accompanying mission statement "Beyond Petroleum") is a blatant attempt by this oil company to distance itself from its main activity. That isn't to say that I expect BP, or any oil company, to immediately stop spending money on extracting oil. That wouldn't, and couldn't happen. And given I drive when I have to, it would make me a hypocrite if I did expect that. Rather, I think it should put its money where its logo is, and spend less on finding more oil, and more on finding sustainable alternatives. Even in recent years, since the logo change, this hasn't been happening.
Notwithstanding the recent spill (which actually could have happened to any oil company I suspect, and doesn't make BP "super evil"), they haven't been living up to their attempted image change, which has led to logo disaster - a number of parodied representations of it:
And this is just a small sample. Google image search "BP Logo", and more parodies come up that genuine copies. Which, it has to be said, is poetic justice for a cynical marketing ploy, and a boring logo.
Well, all of this logo talk may have got you sleeping, but it's got me thinking. Could I produce a logo for my blog? Can I put into practice all my rules, learn from the mistakes of others and come up with something good?
Well, with MS Paint as my only tool, here's my attempt:
I wanted some way of portraying an intelligent octopus; I plumped for this, an marine take on Rodin's sculpture "The Thinker" (see below).
And as my octopus is intelligent - a thinker - it needs a thought bubble. Or is it? Herein lies my attempt at surprise and delight: it's also a characteristic octopus ink spurt.
And as for the overall feel, I wanted to reflect the blog, and its position in a sad, isolated, lonely corner of the internet.
Time to go and cry...
No comments:
Post a Comment