One of the most powerful tools a company can have to market their product is not their billion dollar budget or their CEO who attended Princeton for business, but the design of the logo that they try so hard to make timeless. Some of the best logos have been the most simple, yet effective in their purpose of trying to sell or associate with a product. Logos are not only the “poster child” for the product they’re representing, but it provides us the consumers will a visual aid that people can associate a product with. How important are logos? Will a company thrive even if it doesn’t have a timeless logo that people can identify so easily? I highly doubt Nike would be the company they are today if their wildly popular swoosh was a unicorn instead. Companies nowadays realize how big of a role visual aids and entertainment play in the marketing of a product because we as humans like to look at pictures or anything visually stimulating  rather than stare at plain black and white text. Companies need a simple way to market a product without having to type out a paragraph about what the product is or what it’s about, and they also need something that can be adaptable to all types of media, not just billboards or commercials. 

 

Here is a website that breaks down rules for designing a good logo: http://www.1stwebdesigner.com/design/awesome-rules-designing-perfect-logo/ 

 

Here is a website that breaks down common mistakes people make when designing a logo: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/06/25/10-common-mistakes-in-logo-design/ 

 

The common theme in both these links is simplicity; Nothing causes more headaches than a logo designer trying to create a logo for a client and have the ending product be some ridiculous logo that not only confuses the consumers, but also isn’t as adaptable to different types of media outlets (cards, shoes, etc.) like the Nike swoosh would be able to.

http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/the_water_cooler/2010/12/13/45870/new_big_ten_logo_rivals_gap_worst_logo_change_e

Recently, the Big Ten, a college football conference, redesigned their logo into a simple logo that just reads “Big Ten” with the words on top of each other and different colors (Big is in Blue and Ten is in white). This horrendous choice for a logo not only left football fans scratching their heads, but it left a lot of sportswriters to think how much effort was really put into “revamping” the Big Ten logo. With all the money the Big Ten conference makes with jersey and ticket sales, you would think Corporate America would shell out a few extra bucks to make a logo that doesn’t bring back memories of our old days back in high school art class where many of us found ourselves drawing some crappy vase 20 minutes before class and handing it in as if it were an acceptable piece of art. How is the logo working out so far for the Big Ten? So far, they’re getting a lot of flack for such a “sucky” logo; critics have been urging the Big Ten to change the logo into something more visually appealing (or at least accurate seeing as how the conference now holds 12 teams instead of the original 10). The suits behind this logo change better do something about the new logo or else they will lose some consumers or at least turn off some Big Ten fans.

 

 

 

Advertisements