Logo design mistakes

It’s no secret that the first brands served as marks of ownership (as in cattle) or of origin (as in pottery and such artefacts). As (mostly western) society evolved, the landscape has been literally littered with brands. You can chalk it up to poetic irony: the brand is no longer scorched on a calf’s hind, but in a consumer’s mind.

But the brand is now also the cornerstone of all corporate and institutional communication. If you want your communication to be effective, you will want it to be designed by a professional. The logo has very specific communication functions, so it should be developed with those functions in mind. This includes several issues related to visual communication, as well as all the technical requirements related to the use of the logo in different media, contexts, shapes and sizes.

Alas, it often happens that the people who design today’s logos and brands disregard some (or all…) of the inherent design issues. The following is a quick rundown of the most prominent mistakes anybody can witness just by glancing at our brand-littered urban landscapes. You don’t have to be a Logobuster to recognise a bad logo when you see one. But you do need to be a professional graphic designer to really know how to develop one.

Mistake #1: identity crisis

The top priority of any brand is to stand out from the competition. This is usually called “differentiation”. The first step in developing a logo is actually establishing an identity for the brand. This is directly linked with the strategic positioning of the brand. This post is not about strategic positioning (nor do I have the marketing chops to delve deep into that), so we’ll stick to the basics here. To assess brand positioning you need to answer the following questions:

1. What does the brand stand for and what values does it live by?
2. What value provides the brand and to whom?
3. What makes this brand unique?

The answers to these questions can be used to guide the development of the brand. Every decision regarding every visual element in the logo must bear in mind the values of the brand. It is very important to notice that these answers are most valuable in the negative mode: you will never want a logo that contradicts the values of the brand or that has otherwise unwanted connotations that might be detrimental to the perception of the brand. This relates to general, broader, humanistic values (for instance, not promoting violence) widely accepted by people everywhere, which all brands will stand for, but most importantly to those specific values that make the brand unique.

You might start off with the market where the brand wants to position itself. This means the logo needs to convey (or at the very least, not contradict) the core business and the target demographic of the brand. For instance, if you are designing a logo for a construction company, you want it to be a bold, solid image that conveys strength and durability (or, at the very least, something not fragile, delicate, dynamic, fleeting, volatile, etc.)

Logo identity crisis fosters three very common pitfalls:

1. The over-generalization pitfall: when your client wants the logo to be based on an image of the globe because “this is an international brand” — right… just like EVERY brand on the Planet. This defeats the main purpose of differentiation.
2. The personal-taste pitfall: when your client wants the logo to have that particular color combination or that particular typeface because it’s his favourite — the logo has to be in tune with the brand identity and not get tied up in arbitrary requirements.
3. The over-thinking-it pitfall: when you devise some convoluted reasoning or intricate concept to justify your design — in the end, the logo has to stand on its own. It doesn’t have to require an explanation or an instruction manual. What is most important is the public perception.

(Note: feel free to replace “your client” with “YOU”, when applicable)

Mistake #2: the conceptual leap of faith

There has been a lot of research on how designers work, and one particularly interesting notion is that of the primary generator (check Jane Darke’s original research). This is the idea that generates a world of possibilities from which one will eventually take the shape of the final design. We usually call this the concept for the design. Some examples: the logo for the Gugenheim Museum in New York is a silhouette of the iconic building that houses it; McDonald’s logo is also based on an architectural feature (though the original golden arches of one of the first McDonald’s restaurants are now lost in time); Apple’s logo is based on… well, you get the picture.

Very often, the concept behind the logo acts both as a primary generator in the design process, and as a communication aid to bridge the chasm between the logo as a pure visual element (a literal visual connotation) and the company or institution it stands for: you can’t possibly deny the visual reference between the Gugenheim’s logo and the museum’s building, nor between Apple’s logo and an apple.

However, it is not necessary to develop the logo out of an overt visual reference. Due to the extremely overcrowded visual landscape in which we move, the main contribution of the logo to the brand’s identity must be, first and foremost, differentiation. That is one of the reasons why we see so many abstract logos. It actually works because the bond between the logo and the company or institution is reciprocal and strengthens in time with the reiterated association between logo and brand. Just like your name becomes you, the logo becomes the brand. Ultimately, all logos (and all names) are arbitrary inasmuch as the association between logo and brand (just as the association between person and name) is not due to natural causes but to convention and continued use.

That is also why the merit of any particular logo design is very hard to analyse in hindsight, and why the logos of notorious brands don’t afford a thorough critique (better still: a thorough critique is possible, as long as it draws on this awareness). Our own experience of the logo/brand dichotomy gets in the way because, as much as you can’t unring a bell, you can’t “unsee” a brand. And so, debating the merits of the Nike logo is the same as debating the fitness of the name of your uncle Bob, whom you have known all your life as “uncle Bob.”

Though the logo doesn’t have to be an explicit visual reference, it also doesn’t need to be something completely off the ballpark. But sometimes designers will go through great lengths to find their primary generator, and in the process come up with some convoluted stories that lead nowhere, or at best to a place of complete arbitrarity — thus digressing into the making of an obscure code instead of conveying a clear concept.

Mistake #3: babbling graphic language

When you are trying to communicate with people, you probably try to get your message through, right? Graphic design communicates through a graphic language. The clearer your language is, the clearer the message. To achieve this, the first thing to do is eliminate noise. You can think of “noise” as everything that is irrelevant to your communication. So, if there is any element that ended up there with no apparent reason… get rid of it!

It’s actually very simple to develop a graphic language. Any language is a system, i.e., a code, a set of rules. You just have to set the rules and follow them — you can also break them, as long as it is for a good (and apparent) reason. This applies to every element and every detail in your design. This is the reason why designers use grids and color pallettes. A grid is simply a system for the placement and sizing of elements. And I’m sure anyone can understand the concept of a color pallette. The same concept might be applied to every single element and detail in your design. So, you might have to establish a rule for each of the following items:

1. Set of fonts
2. Set of font sizes
3. Color pallette
4. Texture pallette
5. Set of line thicknesses (and modulations)
6. Set of curve types (if any) and radii
7. Set of angles
8. Size relationships between elements
9. Placement of elements
10. Grouping of elements

Too many times we find examples of graphic work that exhibit a babbling and confusing graphic language, because designers didn’t bother to establish the rules for these elements.

But we also see an exhaustingly large number of graphic works that share the exact same graphic language (damned hipsters!). This can be due to the surfacing of a certain zeitgeist (and there sure are fashionable elements to graphic languages) but it can also be due to sheer lack of originality. Actually, it doesn’t even matter if you worked hard at trying to go for a particular expression, if in the end the majority of people’s perception is that the result lacks originality. Remember: graphic design is made for a public, and what matters is that public’s perception.

On the other hand, the graphic language can be a powerful communication element in itself, conveying a specific meaning. For instance, if you are designing a logo for a 1950’s-themed diner, you will most certainly use a lot of the rules exhibited by your typical space-age graphics. In that case, the graphic language itself becomes a graphic element (you can call it a meta-element).

Final stroke: Technical execution / Attention to detail

Technical execution will ensure that your design is enjoyed with the maximum resolution and quality on all its incarnations, but first and foremost, will ensure that the rules you have established for your graphic language are enforced, and, second, it will draw on knowledge from several fields (mainly from Gestalt psychology) to ensure your communication reaches maximum efficacy.

So, technical execution, in graphic design, has as much to do with technical reproduction requirements as it has to do with visual communication requirements, the most important of which is internal coherence. Lack of internal coherence is arguably the main telltale sign of an amateur graphic designer. Like an amateur guitarist will try too hard to focus on hitting the right notes, overlooking other crucial elements such as tempo, the amateur designer will try too hard to get a specific thing right (for instance, conveying a certain concept) and will overlook all the details that contribute to the internal coherence of the design and to the final impact of the solution of choice. A successful design is always one which has high perceived coherence across all its dimensions.

Internal coherence starts with the development of a fitting graphic language, but when it comes down to the end result, the absolute most important thing is attention to detail. Attention to detail, in any field, is the hallmark of the professional. The difference between an amateur and a professional is thoroughness, plain and simple (and ruthless efficiency…) You absolutely, positively, need to make sure everything is right. When you are done, take two steps back, forget that logo is “your baby”, and take a cold hard look at every detail. Turn it upside-down. Look at it through a mirror. Go grab a drink. Go to a party. Go to sleep. Now look at it again. See that amateurish error over there? You are probably surprised you missed it. And (oh boy!) you will surely be glad you spot it before it went public!