Theory says that a good logotype must be simple, clean, economical, versatile, etc, etc. This is a very pertinent principle but, is it still valid?
In my opinion, it is partially obsolete. The advance of impression techniques, the evolution of the consumers overburdened with publicity and the evolution of the mass media (Internet, Television, mobile phones, videogames industry…), have released the designers from many restrictions.
Don´t decorate, comunicate
The principle "don´t decorate, communicate" means that we must put the message itself before its aesthetic aspects, although we mustn´t leave them aside. I think this would be a more loyal version to its spirit: "Communicate first, then decorate", which is what it really means.
Applying this principle to corporative design we would have two opposite sides (using my own terminology):
- The ones who follow the principle of simplicity: text logos (Paypal), initials based logos (IBM), logos with graphic elements, iconic logos…
- The ones who don´t follow it: illustrative logos, the ones I like to design.
The art of decorating
If you know my work in SOSFactory, surely you already know I take this stream to the end. My logotypes have gradients, many colors, illustrative elements, sometimes even complex characters. I usually design for a web, so I have much more freedom to create. On the other side, my logotypes are not so versatile, although as we´ll see later, this problem can be solved adapting the logo to the other media.
Pros of illustrative logos
- They cause more visual impact in big sizes.
- More differentiation, they are more difficult to imitate or to mistake with other brands.
- More effective for a certain type of consumer (children, for example), industry (videogames, clothing) or media (internet)
- The "absorption" of the logo by the consumer is slower but more durable.
- It´s easier to sell merchandising with our logo.
- It creates a dependence relationship between the designer and the brand (this is "good" for the designer).
Cons of illustrative logos
- They are less effective in small sizes or at far distances.
- More cost of production (though printing is more and more cheap).
- More time needed to identify the brand.
- More difficult to copyright as a brand.
- Redesigning is more expensive
- It creates a dependence relationship between the designer and the brand (bad for the brand).
- They are hard to identify on small promotional items, such as pens.
A "simple" logo is very easy to imitate, wether it be intentionally or by mere coincidence. Ed´s Electric vs City Direct
The adaptation to the media
We can solve most of these negative aspects by adapting the illustrative logo to the different media and sizes. Obviously, this requires more time, which means a bigger inversion
This way, on one side we have an illustrative version to use it on the screen, where the size of the application is usually bigger (web, tv, mobile phones) and on the other we have a simpler adaptation for possible printed applications, or for the use in smaller sizes.
A good corporative kit would include:
- Bitmap versions in JPG, PNG, GIF, TIFF, PSD formats, and vectorial files AI, EPS.
- Versions of the logotype in high and low resolution.
- Versions of the logotype in RBG and CMYK.
- Adaptations of the logotype with and without illustrative elements.
- Adaptation of the logo, to 1, 2 and 3 colors, full color and grey scale.
- Adaptation of the logo on dark background and light background.
Different adaptations of the same logotype: full color, 1 color, 3 colors and grey scale.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Pros and cons of Illustrative Logo Design | SOSFactory Blog -- Topsy.com