Logo Design Love » Spec

Made in Britain logo revealed

David Airey — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 10:46:46 +0000

“Half of UK consumers are baffled when it comes to buying ‘British’ and two-thirds (67%) want an official seal of approval to show products made in Britain, while half (52%) think British brands should bring manufacturing back to the UK, according to new research by leading UK cooker manufacturer Stoves.”

Quoted from the Stoves website.

Stoves responded to its research and teamed-up with BuyBritish.co.uk in April to launch a student design contest to produce a standardised ‘Made In Britain’ marque for use on British-made products.

The 11 shortlisted designs can be viewed here on Facebook.

Shortlisted designs

“We received hundreds of entries but with the help of our judging panel of industry experts we are now proud to unveil our winning design by Cynthia Lee from Nottingham University.”

Quoted from Stoves’ Made in Britain page.

Cynthia received £200 and a LCD TV for winning the contest (source: Design Week).

Cynthia Lee’s original Made in Britain contest entry

“We think that this logo really captures the essence of the campaign and will proudly be displaying it on our website and marketing material and encouraging other UK manufacturers to do the same.”
DENVER HEWLETT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, STOVES

Made in Britain logo with updated typography

“To date, the campaign has received national press coverage, backing from prominent MPs and UK manufacturers and the research findings have even been debated in the House of Commons.”

Like Love Irish Food, I’m thinking this is another opportunity missed.

Elsewhere:
Crivens! Made in Britain logo launched!, on Bitterwallet
Made in Britain logo launched, on Marketing Week
New ‘Made in Britain’ Logo Unveiled, on Huffington Post
News analysis: The Made in Britain logo, on Design Week

Via @BlairThomson.

Published on Logo Design Love

Zambia Tourism logo

David Airey — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 13:12:54 +0000

“After 3,981 emails from 2,017 different people produced 4,445 slogans and 956 different images from 45 countries….the Zambian Tourism Team, with the help of a number of marketing professionals, chose the shortlist of 5 slogans and 5 logos. Over the last week the judges from around the world and of course from within Zambia have voted and two clear winners have been chosen.”

Here are the five shortlisted logos.

Zambia logo contest shortlist, 5 from 956

Here’s the winning logo by Michel Scarantino.

Zambia logo contest winner

And the winning slogan by Kelly Geoghegan.

“Discover Zambia, Experience Africa.”

The contest terms and conditions state, “It is not guaranteed that the winning slogan/logo will be used for Zambia’s tourism marketing,” although an adaptation of the logo is currently in use on the Zambia Tourism website, with the original shown on Zambia Tourism’s Facebook page.

Winning Zambia logo variation

Via @creativeroots.

Published on Logo Design Love

Human Rights logo contest

David Airey — Wed, 18 May 2011 09:54:22 +0000

A number of you have asked for my opinion on the Human Rights logo contest.

I don’t see how sifting through thousands of disparate symbols, illustrations, photos, and clip art, is the right use of time and resources. It’s difficult to judge submissions effectively when shown in isolation. Some context and a variety of brand marks would be hugely beneficial for achieving consensus on any single direction, especially with a jury of 30 people (interestingly including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mikhail Gorbachev) as well as 12 others drafted in to help with the process.

These thoughts from the swissmiss comment thread present a stronger direction:

“It would’ve been a better idea to hire a number of acknowledged designers to create their versions and then let the people of the world decide.”
— SILVER SOVA

If design can be crowdsourced, that’s how it might work — where crowds give an opinion on a variety of pre-designed outcomes, not where crowds do the actual work in the hope of catching a carrot (referencing spec websites).

And by hiring, money doesn’t necessarily need to be exchanged. Pro bono design is always an option for worthy non-profit causes. It’s like Armin said, “The problem with noble spec is that it attracts too many hippie logo designers.”

—

Update: 22 May 2011
Elsewhere, graphic designer Elizabeth Eadie shares her thoughts.

—

Update: 24 September 2011
The contest’s over. Here’s the chosen Human Rights logo.

—

Published on Logo Design Love

Typical design contest ending

David Airey — Tue, 10 May 2011 15:44:06 +0000

Remember that Himalayas Art Museum design contest I told you about?

The one where I said that if you value your time at £0, don’t be surprised when your clients do, too?

There was contention in the 50 or so comments, where I was called a “brainless twit” (and some other things, but that was the best one) for not considering the grand prize of €10,000 plus flights, five nights’ accommodation in Shanghai, the opportunity to showcase work in the museum, and to participate in the residents’ program.

Well, like I mentioned, it may as well be $1M, because when all’s said and done…

1,400 pieces of design were entered.
Two finalists were each given approx. €1,000 (not the stated €10,000).
No-one was chosen as the winner.

Results page.

But it’s okay, because even though the museum owns full copyright to all 1,400 designs, and the entrants can’t use the work in their portfolios, the 10 designers chosen as finalists are going to get a VIP card for the museum.

Published on Logo Design Love

Himalayas Art Museum gets it wrong

David Airey — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:28:01 +0000

Himalayas Art Museum is asking designers to submit speculative (free) work in the guise of a “contest.” The rules state:

“Once the design is accepted, all copyright, ownership, right of alternation, and right of use will belong to Himalayas Art Museum. The designer should not use it anywhere else, or in any other way.”

So not only we being asked to work for free, we can also forget about using our designs in our portfolios.

It’s a real shame, because this is a project I’d love to be considered for. It’s not like the museum doesn’t have a budget, as the “prize” is in the region of €12,000.

Yet again an arts organisation is asking us to fully complete a design project, then transfer all copyright, with nothing but the mere hope of compensation.

“Speculative design competitions or processes result in a superficial assessment of the problem and can only result in a design that is judged on a superficial basis. [Such competitions] will not result in the kind of work a client deserves.

“Only too often, [spec work] results in a client eventually having to bring a more experienced designer onto a project in order to execute it.”
— RICHARD GREFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIGA

Remember, if you value your time at £0, don’t be surprised when your clients do, too.

—

Story via Debbie Millman and Doug Bartow on Twitter.

Himalayas Art Museum image via mask9.com

Published on Logo Design Love

Make it a million

David Airey — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:01:15 +0000

Disregard the problem with spec work for a second, and imagine that running a design contest actually isn’t a waste of a company’s time.

Everglades Nation is asking designers to submit their best work for a chance to win $15,000. That’s a sizeable budget, and one that would go a long way toward hiring an excellent designer — one who will offer much more than a single 600 x 600px submission.

But when the contest rules state the following, why not just make it a cool $1,000,000?

“Entrant further acknowledges and agrees that, upon submission, the work becomes the sole and exclusive property of Sponsors [Everglades Nation] who shall have the right to edit, modify, publish, broadcast, publicize, market and/or distribute the submitted work(s) at their discretion at anytime or otherwise use in any way the entry, Entrant’s name and likeness, without further compensation to Entrant, whether or not judged a winner and Entrant will provide written consent upon request. This agreement will be binding upon Entrant’s heirs, successors and assigns.

“Sponsors are not responsible for administration of the competition or in the announcement of the prizes.”

Beautiful.

Published on Logo Design Love

Logo warehouses, crowdsourcing, and a lack of understanding

David Airey — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:18:59 +0000

Written by Canada-based designer Steve Zelle.

Logo design should not be approached with the goal of filling that blank spot on the top of your letterhead. It is not the time to recklessly do something trendy and cool. Most importantly, it is not about getting a task off your to-do list so you can move on to selling widgets to your customers.

The logo design process should provide value far beyond the delivery of a symbol.

Design is not a product

Many logos however are being sold simply as a graphic. Crowdsourcing and online logo warehouses make the purchase quick and easy with little need for any true understanding. Both the client and “designer” are released from investing in developing a deep understanding of brand, strategy, marketing and design principles.

By removing the requirement of understanding, logos can be sold as if they themselves are widgets with plug-and-play compatibility — a generic product that can be applied to whoever wants it.

Understanding is a service

Logo design should always be considered as part of a larger brand strategy. It is an opportunity to develop cohesive and consistent messaging tailored to a specific set of customers. To accomplish this requires customization, knowledge and skill. It demands that design is viewed as a service and not a product. It requires strategy.

Without a complete and well thought out strategy, you can’t successfully influence where a company is heading. A bank won’t hand money to a company that operates without a strategy, and, over time, neither will customers. They will choose to buy from a company with a solid strategy, a consistent message, and a defined direction — one with a strong brand.

While a graphic designer can help with the nurturing, a logo alone is not the solution to developing a strong brand. This strength can only come from understanding. The company must understand their business, competition, market space, preferences, trends, strengths, weaknesses, and most importantly why customers should care about them.

Understanding goes the other way, too. If their customers can’t understand what it is that makes the company unique and why they should care, then they cannot develop a connection. No connection, no strength.

One of the greatest values a graphic designer can provide is the ability to successfully translate this understanding into a visual brand.

Understanding is the missing link

Online logo warehouses and crowdsourcing put the onus on the client to ask the right questions, to validate the answers, and to translate that information into the selection of a graphic. In doing so, they remove the most critical part of any identity project — the focus on developing an understanding.

A graphic designer must provide a bridge of understanding between a company and its audience. They must ask the right questions, pushing the client for authenticity. They must then validate the responses, making sure there are no gaps in understanding or differences in thinking. They must provide direction and guidance built on strategy.

Logo sweatshops and crowdsourcing websites pretend this “little detail” has no value. They thrive on clients believing a logo is only meant to fill an empty space.

So I need understanding and not a logo?

No. You need an identity built on understanding, and the cornerstone for that is a logo. At the end of the logo design process you want:

1. A Creative Brief. A document derived from answers to hard questions. Developing the creative brief is vital to solidifying direction, objectives, audience and tone. In almost all cases, this is not an easy document to create.

2. A Partner. The designer should become part of your team. They should be available to provide support and advice throughout the project and into the future. As a partner, they must remain aware of your evolving brand and how best to leverage it.

3. A Logo. The obvious deliverable, the logo is part of a larger branding strategy and must meet all technical and creative requirements for the foreseeable future.

4. A Roadmap. You need to be armed with a strong sense of where the visual brand is heading and how it integrates with your marketing plans. At a minimum, this may be in the form of guidelines for the use of color, fonts and the logo itself, but often involves mock-ups of the brand in action.

But it costs more

Yes, but you receive better value. Hiring a graphic designer ensures there is a solid foundation for your visual brand built on understanding. This is certainly worth more than a graphic that looks cool but leaves you floating with a hollow and unauthentic reflection of your brand.

The most loved brands, the ones that last, are authentic. They are not a cheap veneer that peels away over time. Authenticity requires understanding. Understanding requires experience. Experience requires time. Time costs money.

Logo design and branding are not about getting an item off your to-do list. It is an ongoing exercise in fostering understanding and there is no $99 solution for that.

—

Steve Zelle is a designer and brand identity consultant based in Ottawa, Canada. He operates as idApostle and set-up a blog that I’ve enjoyed browsing — Processed Identity. You can reach him through his website or here on Twitter.

Published on Logo Design Love

What Gap did

David Airey — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:40:11 +0000

“This wasn’t the right project for crowd sourcing.”

Too right.

More in the Gap Inc. press release, via @debbiemillman.

Elsewhere
- Gap to scrap new logo, return to old design, on AdAge
- Gap scraps new logo after online outcry, on BBC
- Gap scraps new logo, on brandchannel

- What Gap should’ve done (previous LDL post)

Update (follow-up post):
- Lessons for next time: Where Gap went wrong (written by Clinton Duncan)

Published on Logo Design Love

The designer and the tech guy

David Airey — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:02:35 +0000

In this guest article, Steve Douglas, creative director at The Logo Factory, shares an experience when he lost a client by not charging enough.

——

Would anyone ask their plumber to work for free? The same goes for your mechanic. Your accountant. Lawyer. Heck, even the kid that cuts your lawn on a Saturday morning for ten bucks. When it comes to design, it seems lots of people aren’t similarly predisposed, and requests for free work, spec work and discounted work are the rule rather than the exception.

I’m not sure why that is.

Maybe because most end-of-project tasks are carried out on a computer there’s a notion that any design task only takes a few minutes and there’s some magical “design this” button. Or perhaps it’s because design isn’t what most designers do, but what they are, that leads to a perception that because (in theory) we enjoy what we do, we shouldn’t expect to get paid for the time we spend doing it.

Do this for free and I’ve got lots of work coming your way

In any case, requests for free and spec work come quite often in the design profession. The trouble is, working for free isn’t doing yourself any favours, even if carried out with the purest intentions. Or in response to the “just do this, and I’ve got lots of future work coming your way” request.

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard the “future work” pitch — you know, the “just do this and I’ll have a ton of future work coming your way” — well, I’d have an awful lot of nickels. Generally, I don’t take these potential clients up on their ever-so-generous offer. Not because I’m some arty-farty prima donna. Not at all. My usual response of “the promise of future work has no bearing on how we deal with this project” is given for one simple reason: When people promise a ton of work if you complete one task for free, they’re seldom genuine.

Working a limited time for free doesn’t lead to additional paid work sometime in the future. It’s so consistent that it’s pretty well a rule.

Even with active clients and active projects, performing free work can be problematic, and may very well have the opposite result to the one you intend. I’m gonna tell you about a recent incident at the shop, where “throwing in” some work for free not only didn’t help, but eventually cost me a decent client. I’ll not use real names, but regardless, the occurrence illustrates, in very real terms, the practical downside of working for free.

The designer and the tech guy

The gig was for, let’s say, Bob’s Money Mart. It was a fairly straightforward web design project. Bob was a wonderful client, a little pushy on the delivery times perhaps, but a client that was good to work for. He prepared his web content on time (a stumbling block on many web projects), he listened to suggestions, and he mostly knew what he wanted.

The build went without a hitch. As did creating the Flash animation that would make up a lot of the site interface. Because Bob was so reasonable, I didn’t mind putting in some overtime to get his site launched within a very tight deadline. I supplied revisions within hours of the pitch. I gave my personal cell phone so he could call me at night (sometimes a risky proposition — I have an office and an assistant for a reason). I even brought in a paid colleague to help speed things up.

All things considered, the project went smoother than a typical web design gig. I didn’t even have to install the files on Bob’s server. He had some “costs me a fortune” tech guy to handle that, and at project close I simply ZIPPED the files and sent them into the ether. The client was a happy camper and loved his new site. In terms of business, the project had ended up being marginally profitable. Win, win.

The danger of freebies

Once the site was launched, Bob wanted some contact forms put in place. His “costs a fortune” tech guy supposedly didn’t know how to set one up (in retrospect, I think he knew all too well), so I offered to help. I had some PHP script that a web developer created for me a few years back. I didn’t want Bob to get bombarded with spam, so I gave him a custom CAPTCHA script that I had paid someone to create for an earlier site.

According to our original agreement, since this additional work was being done after finalization of the project, and after the site was “live,” I should have charged Bob above-and-beyond the original budget.

But I didn’t.

My thinking went something like this:

1) Bob’s been a great client
2) I already had the finished scripts
3) The project went down fairly easily, with a few hours left on the budget
4) If I made Bob happy by helping him out it would lead to future work

Yeah. That old chestnut.

I sent the scripts to Bob’s tech guy and he uploaded the files. Trouble was, he couldn’t make them work (once again, I think he could have) and was now telling Bob that the script dysfunction wasn’t his fault. Had to be the stupid designer’s wonky script.

Now Bob starts to use the cell phone number I gave him earlier. He’s not terribly happy because his tech guy charges him a fortune and fixing the form/CAPTCHA system was going to be “horribly expensive.” Once again, I offered to help. I knew the scripts worked just fine on my servers. Probably needed some tweaking to make them work on his.

And I did get it to work.

Here’s the rub: A “favour,” using scripts that I had paid for, had now eaten up five more hours on a Saturday morning with the back-and-forth, checking this, checking that, uploading files, etc, etc. Now the project had gone over the budgeted time. Not a big deal, but by doing a free favour, I had managed to turn a profitable project into one that’s not so profitable.

Ah well, at the end of the day, I had shown Bob that I was a decent guy and I had built up some client goodwill. All I had to do was wait for the additional work to roll in.

Not quite.

About a month later, I received an e-mail from Bob. Someone at his office had come up with a wonderful idea — some movie thing that they wanted to use on the site. They needed to add the page and add it to the menu system. Not much, but it was going to take some time to retool the layout.

I looked at what was wanted and figured it would take three or four hours. I told Bob that I’d only charge him for two. Well, even that wasn’t on. Bob questioned the fact that I’d bill him anything. After all, I had “added that form thing after the web site was launched,” so why was this request any different?

Have you ever tried to explain to a client how one portion of a project was done as a favor while you expect to get paid for another? It’s not an easy discussion.

Bob demanded that I make the change, without billing him. He reminded me that he had “tons of work” coming our way and if we only performed this one change, it would all be ours.

I put my foot down.

If Bob wanted me to make the changes, he’d have to pay me to perform them. The inevitable “send the Photoshop files to our tech guy” e-mail came hours later. I suspect that Bob’s “costs me a fortune” tech guy performed the changes. And billed handsomely for it. I don’t expect to hear from Bob again.

How to earn respect for your time? Bill for it.

See, here’s the thing. When it came to the tech guy, Bob knew that he “cost a fortune.” Bob never wasted the tech guy’s time because he knew he’d have to pay for it. I screwed it up by performing free work as a favour. Bob respected the tech guy’s time even though it still pained him to pay for it. I had given Bob reason not to respect mine.

When it came to installing Bob’s contact form, the important factor was that I was solving a problem. A very big problem. Bob would have been glad to pay for having that problem solved. Yet I thought I needed to go the extra step and solve his problem for free. At that point I had changed the business relationship forever. Bob now knew that I’d perform “no-charge” revisions. All he had to do was figure out to “motivate” me. Which turned into a glorified game of “chicken.” And as anyone knows, when playing “chicken” you have to be prepared to go all the way.

In this instance, going all the way lost me a decent, well-paying client.

So the next time a client requests that you perform work for free, keep this little tale in mind. And think long and hard before offering to perform design work without billing for it. In the long term, it won’t accomplish what you think it will, and may end up turning a good designer/client relationship into a bad one.

——

Read more of Steve Douglas’ design thoughts over on his company blog, The Logo Factor, and follow him on Twitter.

If you want to contribute to Logo Design Love as a guest author, promoting yourself to the RSS+email subscriber base of 28,000+, send a message with brief details of what you want to write about.

Published on Logo Design Love

The kiddie designers of 99designs

David Airey — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:29:29 +0000

Here’s the sales pitch on 99designs, one of the main spec work websites:

“We connect 56,816 passionate designers from around the globe with small businesses who need design projects completed. And, we do it in a timely fashion without the usual risk or cost associated with professional design.”

Disregarding the fallacy of the numbers game — recently examined here by Steve Douglas — let’s focus on how such companies minimise client cost.

If you consider “working on spec” a form of free work (i.e., the designer carries out a request in the hope of getting paid, with no guarantee), and if you consider that people under the age of 18 are covered by child labour laws, then is 99designs keeping costs down through the use of unpaid child designers?

Member profiles show designers as young as 11 years old.

Following screenshots from 99designs (click for full size).

Spec work websites pitch the work of 11-year-olds as a viable alternative to hiring professionals.

More info elsewhere:
Children designers on design contest & crowdsourcing sites?

—

Update: 22 January 2010
I don’t see spec websites as my competition, so I don’t voice my opinion out of spite. It’s the shady practices going on that concern me. I’m all for kids wanting to experiment with design, and yes, good on those who are proactive. Absolutely. But have you seen the comment threads on many contests? Accusations are rife, some real foul-mouthed snarks — no place for a youngster to learn how great the design profession actually is. In fact, it’s a quick way to turn-off the future generation of designers rather than encourage them.

—

Logo Design Love » Spec

Made in Britain logo revealed

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

Zambia Tourism logo

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

Human Rights logo contest

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

Typical design contest ending

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

Himalayas Art Museum gets it wrong

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

Make it a million

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

Logo warehouses, crowdsourcing, and a lack of understanding

Design is not a product

Understanding is a service

Understanding is the missing link

So I need understanding and not a logo?

But it costs more

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

What Gap did

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

The designer and the tech guy

Do this for free and I’ve got lots of work coming your way

The designer and the tech guy

The danger of freebies

How to earn respect for your time? Bill for it.

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love

The kiddie designers of 99designs

Published on Logo Design Love

Related posts on Logo Design Love