I work as an Interaction Designer for Signal, a Chicago-based provider of mobile marketing technology.

You can also find me blogging at smallforgood.com.


Apr 26, 2010

Thoughts on Logos by Paul Rand

Should a logo be self-explanatory? It is only by association with a product, a service, a business, or a corporation that a logo takes on any real meaning. It derives its meaning and usefulness from the quality of that which it symbolizes.

[...]

The role of the logo is to point, to designate-in as simple a manner as possible. A design that is complex, like a fussy illustration or an arcane abstraction, harbors a self-destruct mechanism. Simple ideas, as well as simple designs are, ironically, the products of circuitous mental purposes. Simplicity is difficult to achieve, yet worth the effort.
— Logos, Flags and Escutcheons, Paul Rand

I love that last sentence (emphasis mine). There’s so much in that article that relates to design in general, but that one held my attention for awhile.

Tags: ,

  • Weeks

    A quick Google search of “logo evolution” provides some intriguing web and image results, really demonstrating the streamlining of many logos – including Google itself…

    It'd be interesting to try and determine at what point a logo can really become simplified, i.e. at what point is the product/company so well-known that it is still identifiable in a shorthand manner (think Nike and the Swoosh)… And, on the flip side, what about when companies try to simplify a logo but go too far, to the point where the consumer has no idea what the new logo is referring to – like the Tropicana package design.

  • http://drewmyler.com/ Drew

    According to what Steve Jobs says in this interview about working with Paul Rand on the NeXT logo, it takes roughly $100m in promotion to make a logo as universally known as the Nike swoosh. So I think it's a matter of market awareness of your company; it'll only happen if you're huge.

blog comments powered by Disqus