Eventually they realized they needed a real designer to give them what they needed and could use in the marketplace to compete effectively.

This comment on anyone being able to design a logo is like saying anyone can write a great novel because they can type.

“Anyone may be able to design a logo but not everyone can create meaningfully directed brand marks that articulate and add value to meaningfully directed brand experiences.”

Like Miles says, nicely put, Andrew.

Erik, glad to know clients are seeing the value in what you can offer and having their cheap designs overhauled. I hope everything’s been great over there. Do pass on my regards to Julio.

[...] Michael Bierut talking logos | Logo Design Love [...]

I vividly remember identity assignments in design school. We all struggled to create exquisitely crafted forms. Almost all of us failed. After years of practice I feel that I have created a few marks that successfully capture the often elusive DNA of the client. And, for me it is one of the more satisfying challenges in graphic design.

Anecdotally we’ve had a few clients come to us over the last two years with logos they picked up cheap on-line at places like 99 designs. They have been badly crafted, lacking in any conceptual foundation and just plain ugly. Makes one question if logo design is really “not that hard to do”.

I remember Apple Computers old logo and it would look awful in application today. So I would say a good logo is an important part of the total identity.

Also to create a simple, truly effective memorable logo is not an easy process. You can’t point to the Target logo and say…oh wow thats simple. Anyone can do that. Simple solutions often come about after much work.

[...] compete with companies who offer a logo and nothing more (or 99 logos, for that matter). After all, logos are not that hard to do. In fact, it’s practices like those I’ve described that frequently have me [...]

Otherwise, it may well be that Chris Bowden has not been sensitive enough to Michael’s answers. Perhaps the nature of his questions conspired to undermine the possibility of uncovering more substantial insights.

What is that rubbish about authority over kerning in the comments on Brand New?! Most comments on Brand New appear to be from over-eager and inexperienced designers, who have, perhaps, ironically, been misled by the likes of Michael Beirut and other similar design-oriented public figures.

As soon as someone dealing in symbols resorts to truth to validate their position a lightweight philosophical process is revealed. Philosophy should never dominate a creative process but meaningful propositions do require at least a basic grasp of philosophy. Truth-dependent propositions are easily eroded. There is no ‘truth about logos’, there are only ever opinions about logos.

Surely Pentagram doesn’t still deal in logos?! Paula Scher also insists on talking about logos. This may be in order to retain a populist appeal for an increasingly design-literate audience and/or their clients haven’t woken up to the limits of design and the importance of brand consulting (of which graphic design is only a part). Perhaps then, it should come as no surprise that Michael has to deal with cynical corporate clients. I expect that his clients are also confused about the role of design in business. It seems that Pentagram is indeed a design consultancy and not a strategic brand consultancy. Without a strategy a brand isn’t worth much. And, in case Pentagram and their clients haven’t noticed, design is not enough anymore.

It is not how a logo is used that carries weight. A logo (the primary brand mark) cues the substance of a brand experience. This ‘substance’ is normally the story of a brand. A brand’s story is normally the reason a brand exists, which usually means a definition of the brand’s main purpose in the world.

In my view it is a wasted effort to talk of brands in terms of logos. And, also, a wasted effort to design logos. Logos aren’t worth much. The relationship to the reason a brand exists is usually obscured by focusing on a single brand mark. Besides forming a name, a brandmark on its own is unlikely ever to contain enough of a reason to exist.

Anyone may be able to design a logo but not everyone can create meaningfully directed brand marks that articulate and add value to meaningfully directed brand experiences.

A.

I can also agree with his last points, but I must ask: does he really mean, at the end of the post, a terrible logo… or a terrible brand?

David, again, thanks for this type of post. Keeps expanding my horizon.

All the best!