41–50 of 54 posts
Every time I see this product referenced or talked about, I consider spending 3 days creating something better, with a better website, and undercutting their price.
I think I actually "chose" this logo (in that it was one of 5 logos I suggested to Patrick when we started this bet). My hypothesis was that any professionally-designed logo, generic or otherwise, would outdo Patrick's bespoke logo, which positively screams "April 19th, 2002!". ... and I was wrong. Teach For America an acceptable charity, Patrick? Someone in this thread suggested that this shows-t'-go-ya that geeks s…
No pro designer would come up with what Patrick has now, and yet it works.
It's really important to realize that design doesn't mean "nice looking" and it doesn't mean "professional". Those are the means to an end, not the end itself. Design is about purpose, and the reason the original logo is so much better than the new one is because the old logo makes clear exactly what BCC is and what it's for and the 99designs logo doesn't.
It's also really important to realize that you're designing for an audience, and Patrick's audience is teachers. They aren't generally going to care if the logo (or the rest of the site, even) screams 2002. If you're trying to sell to artists and designers you're going to have to put more work into making your logo look nice, but here it's really not what's most important.
Design is a lot deeper than aesthetics, and there are a ton of different things that have to go into a logo design. The takeaway from this shouldn't be that engineering trumps design: the 99designs logo is hardly designed at all, and you're not going to find many genuinely good designers at a place like 99designs.
The 99Designs logo is a serious downgrade. It's washed out and the type choice is boring and immediately forgettable. Not having the little bingo card in the logomark is also a mistake IMO.
I think I actually "chose" this logo (in that it was one of 5 logos I suggested to Patrick when we started this bet). My hypothesis was that any professionally-designed logo, generic or otherwise, would outdo Patrick's bespoke logo, which positively screams "April 19th, 2002!". ... and I was wrong. Teach For America an acceptable charity, Patrick? Someone in this thread suggested that this shows-t'-go-ya that geeks s…
* http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/12556 * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/12531 * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/3090 * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/1116 * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/602 * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/12572
It seems pretty obvious to me that many logos would perform better than the one you selected (a dangerous assumption, perhaps), although I wouldn't be surprise if Patrick's current logo out performs them all. I actually think his current logo is pretty good.
That could give you a scale of how much a logo can possibly affect your conversion rates. Maybe the difference can be as much as 20-30% with a bad logo, but you wouldn't know by A/B testing two random designs.
Regarding the logos' aesthetics, a lot of people want to chime in and they probably have something to their point, however since they are not designers they do not have the experience of knowing what people in general find aesthetically pleasing. Because when you design things for people you learn that you can't find anything that everybody likes, you can only find something that a greater percentage of people will find more beautiful than the next thing. You almost learn that designing based on your own opinion will always yield poor results, so you design based on what you've learned that the biggest percentage of people will like.
Commented on blog with some personal logo design tips. I think the bigger problem here is that the rest of his site looks straight out of 1998. The half-decent logo may be the only thing lending it any credibility. :P
If you too would like a reason to donate some money to Teach For America, you could suggest a series of design changes and bet that they'd A/B test significantly better with his audience than his current design. I'm guessing that Patrick wins either way on bets like this, and so do we (since the writeups are great). So... what's the next thing you'd change?
As someone mentioned before, he'd be better off tweaking bits and pieces and iterating. Making the oval in the logo a bit smaller and making the size of the bingo card the same as the text next to it.
But what I'm really wondering (and it's far less work): would changing the favicon to a bingo card or perhaps a green or blue square with a white B on it make a difference? Don't laugh, I'm willing to put some money on it ;)
I think I actually "chose" this logo (in that it was one of 5 logos I suggested to Patrick when we started this bet). My hypothesis was that any professionally-designed logo, generic or otherwise, would outdo Patrick's bespoke logo, which positively screams "April 19th, 2002!". ... and I was wrong. Teach For America an acceptable charity, Patrick? Someone in this thread suggested that this shows-t'-go-ya that geeks s…
No pro designer would come up with what Patrick has now, and yet it works. No pro designer would have come up with the new one, either. Any designer worth anything could have told you that the old logo was way better than the new one. The old logo has its problems, but it communicates exactly what it needs to. (And I think it's actually the strongest point of the entire page.) The 99designs logo is such a step back I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No pro designer would come up with what Patrick has now, and yet it works. No pro designer would have come up with the new one, either. Any designer worth anything could have told you that the old logo was way better than the new one. The old logo has its problems, but it communicates exactly what it needs to. (And I think it's actually the strongest point of the entire page.) The 99designs logo is such a step back I…
In other words, a lot of time is spent attacking straw men that don't resemble what professional working designers actually do. The attitudes and beliefs attributed to designers sounds more like it comes from people who pass themselves off as designers because they have a pirated copy of Photoshop, so the only lesson here is that people who are clueless about design hire clueless designers.
I think I actually "chose" this logo (in that it was one of 5 logos I suggested to Patrick when we started this bet). My hypothesis was that any professionally-designed logo, generic or otherwise, would outdo Patrick's bespoke logo, which positively screams "April 19th, 2002!". ... and I was wrong. Teach For America an acceptable charity, Patrick? Someone in this thread suggested that this shows-t'-go-ya that geeks s…
Thomas, were you intentionally choosing a bland/generic logo in an effort to prove your point? Just from glancing at the 99 Designs logo store, here's a few logos that, while still generic (in the sense that they have nothing to do with bingo) seem to have a little more personality: * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/12556 * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/12531 * http://99designs.com/logo-design/store/3…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words, a lot of time is spent attacking straw men that don't resemble what professional working designers actually do. The attitudes and beliefs attributed to designers sounds more like it comes from people who pass themselves off as designers because they have a pirated copy of Photoshop, so the only lesson here is that people who are clueless about design hire clueless designers.
We hire pro designers for everything, and while I don't love the 'B' logo Patrick chose, I can easily make a case that it is more professional than his current logo. I think your comment crosses way over the line into hyperbole.