21–30 of 66 posts
Site is down for me, however this works: https://web.archive.org/web/20140625100152/http://www.gtgrap...
As the article admits - 'Although, generally, the quality of work is high...' the general quality of these designs is interesting to me. Historically, low-quality art and design was a good (though certainly not conclusive) indicator of a low quality product. These days, every fly by night business can have a slick logo, every shovelware game can gleam in stills thanks to the underlying engine and every inane YouTuber…
For example, I want an equivalent of "TV channels" with varied programming for, say, Netflix, and while YouTube does have channels, it's not easy for myself to discover them (it takes a lot of time and there's no easy branding to ease the discovery process).
Edit: I agree that most of those logos do look pretty good. And things like Bootstrap have lowered the barrier needed for a website to look professional. Both are good things, but make using old heuristics for filtering ineffective :)
People generally misinterpret the role of a logo. It's purpose is not to be unique but to be rememberable. That's all that really matters (and of course not offending people)
I would add that the point of a logo is to convey what the company does. These logos may not be unique, but I do instantly know "Oh this is a law firm" or "Ah, they sell houses". These are local businesses with no intention of global recognition, and using a basic template helps convey what they do at just a glance.
People generally misinterpret the role of a logo. It's purpose is not to be unique but to be rememberable. That's all that really matters (and of course not offending people)
I would add that the point of a logo is to convey what the company does. These logos may not be unique, but I do instantly know "Oh this is a law firm" or "Ah, they sell houses". These are local businesses with no intention of global recognition, and using a basic template helps convey what they do at just a glance.
Just to name a few, the logos for Apple, IBM, Coca-Cola, UPS, Nike, BMW, Shell, McDonalds, and GE give no clues as to what the company does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would add that the point of a logo is to convey what the company does. These logos may not be unique, but I do instantly know "Oh this is a law firm" or "Ah, they sell houses". These are local businesses with no intention of global recognition, and using a basic template helps convey what they do at just a glance.
If the point of a logo is to convey what the company does, then just about every classic logo fails. Just to name a few, the logos for Apple, IBM, Coca-Cola, UPS, Nike, BMW, Shell, McDonalds, and GE give no clues as to what the company does.
You're talking about the exceptions -- global billion dollar brands. These aren't that.