Exactly, so if Nike had of spent 10 seconds and decided that a pink and black dot was to be their logo and still marketed themselves the same way etc. and had the same products etc. they would still be where they are today.
Designing a Company Logo
- Thread starter censuspro
- Start date
Exactly, so if Nike had of spent 10 seconds and decided that a pink and black dot was to be their logo and still marketed themselves the same way etc. and had the same products etc. they would still be where they are today.
So what if it is a myth the are still selling like mad, and it was not because of their break the mold colour schemes, it was their marketing campaign about being bagless and more efficient.
Yep but they couldn't have used a pink and black dot for their logo. Look at their logo on any product - it's a brilliant shape that can go as small and large as needed, and still be recognisable as Nike.
It can be a white swoosh on a dark background, or a black swoosh on a light background and you can still see it clearly. It can be embroidered, work on a tv ad, or any medium they need it on. Thats why its a brilliant logo.
If the owner of Nike had come to any designer to say they had an idea for a pink and black dot, the designer would probably say that was a bad idea because
• 2 dots look stationary and don't represent speed, the nike logo currently gives an impression of movement and momentum
• its not recognisable at a distance
• when it goes down to a small size then people won't see it properly
• if you have it on a patterned sports shirt you won't see it
• a lot of other logos have dots and circles so it wont stand out
• a lot of technology companies use dots and circle so people might mistake it for that industry
• other companies have two dots (eg Mastercard)
• if its two-colour it will cost you more to use it on products (eg you'll need two colours for printing, two threads for embroidering it on runners)
• if its appearing in a grey-scale ad in a newspaper page, then the logo will just look like a black and grey dot, and won't look as strong or recognisable
• the swoosh logo can be put in any colour and still works. if you have a red football shirt and put a pink dot on it it will clash.
Off the top of my head, that's just a handful of reasons why two colour dots wouldn't work. designers are paid to sit down and go through all these problems that most clients aren't aware of fully.
The Nike logo was done along with a few other ideas by a graphic design student (Carolyn Davidson. for $35 or $2 per hour, which is 17.5 hours or just over two working days. This was in 1971. Thats about $190 in todays money. I find it interesting that Phil Knight who commissioned it, said at the time "I don't love it, but it will grow on me." So he could see that it worked as a logo, even though he didn't like it. This rarely happens with client getting logos done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoosh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoosh
Exactly.. it's like how Paula Scher was at a meeting to design the Citibank logo, and she sketched it out in a few seconds on a napkin. and the bank commented on how it is done in a second.
and she said 'But it is done in a second. it’s done in a second and in 34 years, and every experience and every movie and every thing of my life that’s in my head.'
and she said 'But it is done in a second. it’s done in a second and in 34 years, and every experience and every movie and every thing of my life that’s in my head.'
sinbadsailor
Registered User
- Messages
- 240
So a fixed fee would be logical for that then yeah. A logo costs €150 instead of charging time for scratching whatever
If you are not artistic or into that side of things then you probably won't appreciate it. At the end of the day you are paying for experience and expertise as Albacore & Paddi say.
A certain problem with e.g. electrics/plumbing that you assume to be a nightmare could be relatively easily sorted. But only by someone who knows what they're doing and recognises the signs/symptoms. Therefore it seems like you are paying a lot for very little.
Again, is every company that spends 1000s on logos off their heads?
I doubt it. They do it because generally, there is a big difference between these and a logo for €50 or whatever.
A certain problem with e.g. electrics/plumbing that you assume to be a nightmare could be relatively easily sorted. But only by someone who knows what they're doing and recognises the signs/symptoms. Therefore it seems like you are paying a lot for very little.
Again, is every company that spends 1000s on logos off their heads?
I doubt it. They do it because generally, there is a big difference between these and a logo for €50 or whatever.
So a fixed fee would be logical for that then yeah. A logo costs €150 instead of charging time for scratching whatever
That would be fine if the client accepted one of the logos as is. Like Nike. But what usually happens is they keep changing it, not because of any technical problem but because they want one they like. But they don't know what that is, until they see it. But as you can see from Nike, liking it is irrelevent if it works. Works for the target market that is. Quite often the person commissioning it has no skillset or experience to make such a judgement either.
The way to avoid that is to charge an initial fee per hour, or per iteration/modification. Which usually forces people to do their homework before going to the designer. otherwise people seem to be happy to waste time of a designer, if they are getting it for free.
Time is money for everyone.
Personally I think is a fun thing to do unless you are working at it. From a profitability point of view logo design is a lot of hassle for not much money.
Sometimes it works out. I remember two of us struggling with a design that just wasn't quite right. Until I decided to redraw it using a crayon on rough paper, and instantly we knew it was right. That used to make me laugh when I saw it afterwards on cars and TV.
Yeah I agree with that. While I enjoying doing logos they are the least profitable part of our business. I usually find that I end up spending weekends and nights thinking about ideas or what a good solution would be, and of course I can't charge the client for that.
I sourced an Irish graphic designer through Creative Ireland too. When I saw the portfolios of some of the graphic designers there I was very impressed.
I'm very happy with the logo designed and with the process and having been through the process I would highly recommend putting a thread up on CI to find some one Irish ( or living in Ireland).
I'm very happy with the logo designed and with the process and having been through the process I would highly recommend putting a thread up on CI to find some one Irish ( or living in Ireland).
My point is that these companies did not become successfull because of their logo's.
Also, saying that they need to cost the earth, just eye catching, simple and meet the needs of the customer affordable to the client.
If you are setting up as a plumber you are not going to have a budget to spend thousands nor will you benefit from spending such money on a logo!
And if your business grows etc. then you could do a fancy rebrand.
Look at 3G mobile, its first few adverts on the tv were something like their logo and coming soon. Great looking logo but the company still folded, not saying the logo had anything to do with the failure of the company but it did not make it a success either.
And you have done nothing to prove that a logo alone is worth spending a lot of money on either. Also, from comments like logo design being the least profitable work and examples of how much successfuk companoes have paid for the logos i am not alone.
Common sense would suggest its not 40 million or ALL of a startup budget. Thats just nonsense.
But that wasn't your question that I replied to. You asked about proving the worth of a logo. Of course its unlikely you'd only change a logo, usually you'd be changing more than that. But assuming you'd actually just change the logo on its own and nothing else. You'd have to see what the difference in business was before and after the change of the logo. Would you hire a graphic designer to put metrics on charting sales figures? or analyse them, I don't think so.
Hence its not a question about graphics.
But that wasn't your question that I replied to. You asked about proving the worth of a logo. Of course its unlikely you'd only change a logo, usually you'd be changing more than that. But assuming you'd actually just change the logo on its own and nothing else. You'd have to see what the difference in business was before and after the change of the logo. Would you hire a graphic designer to put metrics on charting sales figures? or analyse them, I don't think so.
Hence its not a question about graphics.