There have been copious conversations, blog posts, debates and discussions about the Barack Obama logo that helped to catapult him to President-Elect status in the United States. What hasn’t been discussed are the logos that weren’t selected by his campaign.

Logodesignlove puts together a great blog post HERE, all about them.

Thanks Brandflakes!

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

As a general rule, when we are designing brand identities and specifically logos, we strive to create something that has a long shelf life and doesn’t quickly date itself - to do this we have to have a healthy knowledge of the latest design trends - what’s hot and what’s not.

We recently came across a really informative article from LogoLounge about a number of trends that have begun to emerge in recent history and wanted to pass it along.  You can read the full article HERE, and see examples of logos that exemplify these trends. 

A few of the common themes that were discovered include:

There has been less emphasis on sustainability or general “greenness” in logo design. There’s plenty of natural imagery, but being “green” doesn’t seem all that unique anymore.

Colors are becoming more vivid. Desaturation has drained away, and the chroma factor pumped up.

There’s an overall move toward cleanliness - in type, in line, in color - as if ideas are getting more and more succinct. It may be an indication of the degree of seriousness with which branding is now regarded.

Less is more common: less calligraphy, less Photoshop tricks, less artificial highlights.

Found pattern and illustration hang on and on and on. With a bottomless treasure chest of visual history constantly at the ready through retail collections and over the internet, it’s a direction that’s not likely to run its course soon, if ever.

Here are some examples that I thought were particularly striking:

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

Listphile recently posted a compilation of a number of Fortune 500 logos on their site, and that image is pretty telling.  Many of the logos have something in common: blue.

Brandflakes does a great job of explaining why this happens, particularly for Fortune 500 companies:

1. Blue is the only color that most people don’t hate.
2. People don’t get emotional over blue.
3. Blue makes people comfortable.
4. Blue is a committee buster - helps when it has to be approved by many.

I think this presents a great opportunity for other large companies to stand out with color (check out Sprint & Home Depot).

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

The new identity for the 2012 Olympic Games to be held in London, England has been released and I’ve posted it above.  Unfortunately for the IOC, the $800,000 logo has not been met with much acclaim since its reveal.  In fact, as ABC News reports, the criticism has been downright rabid.  Here’s an excerpt from that story:

An online petition posted by Jonathan Ellis Monday has generated more than 28,000 electronic signatures from around the world, many complete with scathing commentary, including repeated “Rubbish!” calls.

The criticism ranged wide. Many called the expensive price tag a waste of money, claiming that a national competition would have been more appropriate than using an expensive professional agency. Others balked at the design because it failed to capture the British spirit, saying the design was a source of collective embarrassment rather than pride. Still others complained that the “abstract” attempt was too much like a “1980s hangover.”

I was reading a post on Thought Gadgets this morning about this, and Ben points out that many blogs and Web sites are having official contests to see if ordinary people can come up with something better.  One of the more notable contests can be found HERE. Ben makes the point that this is a slippery slope because it really serves to devalue the work done by design + branding firms.

While I can’t argue that $800,000 is excessive for a logo design, the world has to have a better understanding of the work and process that goes into a design like this.  It’s not simply a few clicks of the computer mouse and voila!  It’s research, it’s brainstorming, it’s concept development, it’s design, it’s revisions, it’s production.  It’s a whole team of designers working together to achieve a solution. It’s concept after concept, direction after direction, revision after revision until it’s just right.

I personally don’t mind the logo.  To have tried to develop a logo that suits everyone everywhere would have been a nearly impossible exercise that would have resulted in a safe and generic solution. And don’t discount the importance of this word-of-mouth marketing for the event, still four long years away.  Sometimes controversy is key!

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

I’m really proud to show you all some of our latest work. Our team at Orange Element recently helped the great folks at interactive design firm Fastspot redevelop their brand identity to help them better communicate to their target audiences what defines them as a firm.

We’ve known Fastspot for years and are well versed in their work, but folks that didn’t know them as well didn’t understand that Fastspot is equal parts technology and design. They are a process-oriented firm that considers both sides of the equation, producing beautiful designs that deliver the best possible user experience.

To get to the final mark and identity that we settled on, we went through our typical discovery process and were able to get a good sense of what Fastspot was looking for. At that point, we collectively participated in a logo study to settle upon something that they felt achieved their goals. The results of this study were actually turned into a really great poster, which I will write about in a separate post to come…

Our final solution was something that I think communicates perfectly their blend of creative design and process-driven technological savvy (both necessary for extraordinary work, and the tone and personality of the mark we’ve created is a direct match with that of their firm. It’s a strong, beautiful, dramatic mark - just like their designs, which you can check out by visiting their site at www.fastspot.com.

Brand mark:

Lockup:

Business cards:

Mark on the Web site:

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

Brandchannel has a new debate out that I found pretty interesting. The question is: “Are 3-D logos revolutionizing or ruining logo design?” My answer: Neither. Here’s more on what I had to say. I could have written a thesis on this but unfortunately you’re only allowed so many characters:

This is an interesting debate, but I don’t think there’s a right and wrong answer-And I certainly don’t think 3-D logos are ruining logo design. That said I think there is something to be said for taking the simple approach when considering a brand mark. Obviously as designers we are looking to communicate something specific when we set out to design an identity, so we have to make sure that the message isn’t lost in the complexity of a design. Unfortunately, turning a design into 3-D often adds another layer resulting in that loss of simplicity.

What I have seen a lot of lately are brand marks that aren’t “3-D,” but that do have some sort of dimensionality. This can even be seen in some of the most noticeable brand marks such as BMW, Apple, BP and even Nike. These logos are 2-D designs, but they all feel as though they aren’t flat. These logos have subtle changes that give them dimension, but they all START as a 2-D mark. Also as many other respondents noted, 3-D designs fall flat when reproduced in certain mediums. A true test of a mark is to start with a black and white version. If it holds up in black and white, the mark does its job.

The bottom line: Designs created in 2-D can be adapted to have dimension; however, a logo designed in 3-D is generally a failure in 2-D. I’m a proponent of simple, clean 2-D designs. If we find out that 3-D is out of style in a few years (which I think it will be), there are going to be a lot of brands with 3-D logos on the hunt for a branding + identity firm!

What’s your take?

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com