Logo Lounge: Current logo trends for 2008

LogoLounge offers a look at current logo trends for 2008, including emphasis on vivid colors and cleanliness.

I have to say that I'm happy to see the glassy bubble look disappearing from a year or two ago, and the trend of putting a green leaf in your logo seems to also be passing.

And the trend is…

Fri, 08/29/2008 - 13:01 — RhymingDesigner

Depressing.

Hey, I like vivid colors and cleanliness as much as anybody. But I also like the idea that a good logo is legible, intelligible, scalable, and convertible (to black and white).

About 95% of these examples say to me that the "designer" lacked knowledge of basic design principles. How sad is that?

Not entirely

Fri, 08/29/2008 - 16:51 — Jon (not verified)

While many of the logos may not directly reproduce well in black and white many times there is an alternate version of the logo that is for that particular purpose; which is perfectly acceptable.

Not to mention

Fri, 08/29/2008 - 19:54 — Roberto (not verified)

Not to mention that many companies nowadays are online only, so there is no need for "print" ready logos.

Jon and Roberto are forgetting something

Sat, 08/30/2008 - 21:11 — Lee S. (not verified)

Veteran designers recommend creating logos in black and white first to ensure the integrity of the design before adding color and other finishing touches. They also advocate showing the client early logo mockups in b/w to keep the client on track. This is conventional wisdom of designers who've been around and learned from experience. (Yes, an alternate version is advisable in nearly all cases. The key is to be sure it does not stray too far from the original.)
Also, a designer is paid to think ahead. That means asking questions a client might not think of: Will this new expensive logo look good on a business card? On a banner at a trade show? On an invoice? On recruiting or promotional materials?
A competent designer can come up with pretty artwork and call it a logo. The outstanding designer takes many, many things into consideration and really earns the fee.

I'm not forgetting anything -

Mon, 09/01/2008 - 05:56 — Roberto (not verified)

You're just being pompous! How do you know the logos displayed weren't first presented to the client in B&W? How do you know the client wasn't presented dozens upon dozens of revisions before they settled on the ones shown?

And the "conventional wisdom" isn't some super secret by experienced designers - it's textbook design. Are you telling me that the agency who designed the Sprint logo didn't even consider what it would look like in B&W?

The logos in that article are FINISHED logos. Nowhere does it say there isn't a B&W version. And nowhere does it say that Jon or I needed you to tell us what every designer with 5 minutes of experience already knows.

Whoa!

Tue, 09/02/2008 - 13:18 — RhymingDesigner

I think Lee was trying to say that since so many of the logos in question would not translate well to black and white, how did they ever make it to final approval? Maybe it was a weak point or maybe the dots just weren't connected. Nevertheless, my post raises questions that are still unanswered: Why are so many of the logos difficult to read, to understand, and to scale well?

I would agree with Lee that an experienced designer would always encourage a client to consider that one day the logo will be used in print.

And FWIW, conventional wisdom would be defined as something everyone in a certain field would agree on (this would include textbooks). Hence the term "conventional."

Please, let's put this to rest – unless James would like to share his thoughts.

I think everyone has a good point

Wed, 09/03/2008 - 03:28 — James

I think the majority of the logos they listed will not only scale fine, but will work easily in black and white. And while I agree with Lee completely, I just don't see that as a problem with most of these logos.

Of course, some of them are just horrific and don't work in color, let alone B&W.

Overall though, I find it odd that most people start-in with the "design in B&W white" statements when they're looking at finished logos, as Roberto stated. We have no idea how they were originally sketched or designed. I also find every one of the logos readable, with the exception of some of them under the "colorblind" and "stitched" categories.

Most of these logos are being used "out of context." In other words, I see a logo "mark" - but not a full logo. So it's hard to say one way or the other if I really like it.

Logo design is tough. Everyone has an opinion, and they all think they're right. And what nobody ever seems to admit or point out is that the CLIENT is the one who almost always ends up "art directing the shit out of them." I'm fairly certain that few of these logos look the way they started out looking.