Per usual practice in every business, having a business name and some sort of graphic identification is the primary endeavor to introduce the business to the public. Picking a business name is part of branding efforts, and designing a logo for the business is the next step after the business name. Although, there are some businesses that barely have a logo.
A logo might not be so essential for the business, and it is less critical than the business name, which can transform into a trademark, while the logo, from time to time, needs to evolve. Some designers may disagree with this premise; however, the business name is the identity, and the logo is the face. As the business name does not change, the logo evolves every certain period.
Almost never does a business change its name without affecting its commercial existence. When a business changes its name because of a merger, a change of ownership, or any other reason, it is considered a new entity. Changing the logo or rejuvenating it into a better form is a different case. Refer to the case of many — Shell, for one famous example.
Every few years, Shell evolves its logo but keeps the name/trademark — like a person who keeps their name, but whose face changes over time. a person who is keeping the name but the person’s face changes over time.
Although a logo is not a real must, having one is not a bad idea. Just think of it as an analogy — talking with someone over the phone for many years, knowing the person’s name but not knowing the person’s face. Creating a logo for the business is like giving that person a face.
There are several types of logos — some say seven types, others say nine, and some say ten types of logos. There are monogram logos (lettermarks), wordmark logos (logotypes), pictorial marks, abstract logos, mascot logos, combination marks, emblems, logo symbols, etc. Regardless of the claims about how many types there are, what they are called might not be that important and is relative in nature — it’s just semantics. What’s important is how we design the logo from scratch and how we implement it in practice.
Designing a logo is not the same as painting a picture. The process of good logo design takes time and study. Some designers create logos in a mediocre or shallow way. A logo might look artistic and impressive to the casual eye at first glance, but it needs to survive much longer than its first day of existence. A logo becomes problematic for accurate reproduction when the original components are misplaced or no longer available.
Creating a good logo requires research and study — research into what category the business is in, whether there are corporate colors already in place, what competitors are using for their logos, etc. And study into what the logo should convey — the company culture, the messages it needs to communicate, and so on.
A logo can be extremely expensive or cost just as much as a burger. What makes a logo expensive is not the sketch but the process behind it. If you go to a website like Fiverr to get a $5 logo, you are very likely to end up with a mundane design. Although, on very rare occasions, a client might receive a great logo for paying peanuts. Refer to the case of Nike, where the logo was paid for at $35 in 1971 — which, in today’s conversion, is less than $300.
It is not always the case that expensive logos are good logos. Refer to the case of Symantec, with a rumor that the logo cost over $1 billion — but that was later debunked. The whole $1 billion budget was spent not only on the logo process but also on branding efforts and logo implementation. The VeriSign logo was embedded into the Symantec logotype, causing too many pixel components that made reproduction and scalability problematic. It happens again and again — expensive spending does not guarantee great logos. Consequently, cheap spending almost always results in mediocre outcomes.
If we are talking about what to avoid in designing a logo, there could be too many to mention before we can come up with an idea of what a good logo is. Rather than confusing ourselves with the don’ts, let’s focus on the dos. Here, I list ten helpful guidelines for designing a good logo that can be standardized over a stretch of applications.
Simplicity. A good logo should carry simplicity instead of complex graphic elements and itty-bitty details. Imagine when a logo has too many detailed components and is complex but needs to be scaled down — every detail in the logo will merge and create clutter; the logo becomes messy. A good logo can be scaled down to less than one inch while still keeping its integrity.
Philosophy. A good logo carries a meaningful idea and messages of the entity. Although there are occurrences when designers just make things up once they finish designing a logo, only to justify what they’ve designed. Yet, it is better to keep in mind what ideas and messages we need to convey to anyone who gets a glimpse of the logo. When we start from that point, it becomes much clearer than when we go to the drawing board and start doodling without clear direction.
Solid color or contrast colors. No gradient colors, and no closely similar colors standing next to each other. Colors in a logo are eye-catching; however, there are numerous examples where beautiful logos are not necessarily good examples of standardizable logos. It is advisable that when designing a logo, we start with a black-and-white approach. The reason is that there are implementations that are “color-blind,” where colors might not be applicable. The perfect example of this argument is a black-and-white facsimile — yes, today we have color printers (laser or inkjet) with fax features, but still. One bad example of a logo is when a designer decides to use gradient colors, which creates problems for certain applications — embroidery, for example. Gradient colors and similar colors standing next to each other pose similar problems in application. Solid contrast colors are better; even in grayscale applications, the difference between colors remains conspicuous.
Versatility. Think about implementations when designing a logo. A good logo should be easy to adapt to any application and medium, whether the logo is applied on paper, fabric, metal, wood, plastic, etc. A complex logo with too many details or gradient colors will cause troublesome situations.
Memorable. As the second identity after the business name or trademark, a logo should be recognizable and stand out. Too many details and too much complexity make it hard to achieve this objective.
Long-lasting. Uniqueness is key — avoid following trends. A good logo should stand on its own and stand out from the crowd. Average designers tend to follow trends, causing the logo to have a very short lifespan. Avoid using commonly available fonts in the market when possible. Copyright claims are one issue.
Standardization. Consistency is a must across logo implementations. A logo may come in a few alternative forms — such as a full form and a stackable form — for certain applications where the full form would be too long for the medium. It is a luxury for a company to have a Graphic Standard Manual (GSM), or as other designers might call it, a Logo Application Manual. In principle, a graphic standard manual helps and guides how the logo should be applied. All information such as standard colors (complete with CMYK/RGB/HEX color instructions), scalable sizes, fonts, measurements, and the do’s and don’ts should be included. Why is a graphic standard manual considered a luxury? Because creating such a guideline requires a long process and study — in some cases, it costs more than the logo work itself.
Vector-based. Photoshop was not created for this type of design work, yet there are people creating logos using Photoshop — which is a no-no. Photoshop is not a vector-based application. If you are using Adobe CC, Illustrator is the perfect solution for logo design. There are a few other vector-based software options for this purpose, such as CorelDRAW, Vectr, Sketch, etc. There are also free vector-based design software available. Good logos are saved in vector-based file formats without losing their integrity.
Balance is not symmetry. Balance is optical — when we see a logo and feel that it’s tilting to one side, like the Pisa Tower. I don’t mean that a logo should always be straight up; what I mean by balance is that a logo should feel perceptibly balanced. This is a subjective matter and not always agreeable. For me, it’s painful to see a logo with too many elements on one side and a small, barely perceivable element on the other side, especially when scaled down.
Space. Creating a logo in a “canvas” does not mean we must fill all areas in the canvas. The sentiment that “more is merrier” does not work harmoniously with balance and simplicity. Especially when it comes to smaller logo sizes, as previously mentioned in point one — the logo can easily become cluttered and messy.
I have seen bad logos designed by designers who graduated from expensive and prestigious design colleges. Some of these designers just followed what the clients wanted without objection, while others simply do not understand the concept of designing a logo. Hopefully, this article is helpful in creating better logos.