logo design
When creating a new logo, we think of the challenges of combining the pragmatics and use requirements of a primary mark, with aesthetics and the larger context of a brand’s future development.
Direct and useful guidance can be found in the words of the late modernist master Paul Rand:
A logo is a flag, a signature, an escutcheon.
A logo doesn’t sell (directly), it identifies.
A logo is rarely a description of a business.
A logo derives its meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.
A logo is less important than the product it signifies; what it means is more important than what it looks like.
Should a logo be self-explanatory?
It’s only by association with a product, service, business, or corporation that a logo takes on any real meaning. It derives its meaning and usefulness from the quality of what it symbolizes. If a company is second rate, the logo will eventually be perceived as second rate. It’s reckless to believe that a logo will do its job right off, before an audience has been properly conditioned. Only after it becomes familiar does a logo function as intended; and only when the product or service has been judged effective or ineffective, suitable or unsuitable, does it become truly representative.
The role of a logo is to identify, and simplicity is its means.
A design that is complex, fussy, or obscure can lead to self-destruction. No amount of literal illustration will do what most people imagine it will do. This only makes identification more difficult and the “message” more obscure. A logo says who, not what. The effectiveness of a logo depends on:
distinctiveness
visibility
usability
memorability
universality
durability
timelessness
These guidelines can help reduce some of the aspects of logo development that can become overly subjective and a matter of taste. Leaning on these practical considerations helps us to define the characteristics that lead to enduring and strong logo designs.
Check out some more of our work
