Comments on: Woolmark logo

By: Giorgio

Giorgio — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:02:29 +0000

I think you forgot to say the designers involved in this project were two: Francesco Saroglia and the great Franco Grignani.

By: Trevor Collins

Trevor Collins — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:46:03 +0000

It is grate to learn what a logo we all take for granted actually means.

By: David Airey

David Airey — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 14:16:48 +0000

Just a quick note to thank you all for commenting. I’ve got some tight deadlines approaching for submitting book chapters, so apologies that I can’t respond to you individually. Regardless, I hope things are good your side.

By: Amanda Vlahakis

Amanda Vlahakis — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 19:39:13 +0000

I’ve never really thought about it but now you point it out, yes I agree that it’s an excellent design.

Simple, yet bold, and not abstract (ie..the sort of logos that only designers get), it’s clear in it’s intended meaning of the graphic.

By: Nicola

Nicola — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:39:46 +0000

I have to admit that I don’t actually readily recognise these logos at all – perhaps a result of the lack of wool in my wardrobe or my lack of attention to detail when doing the washing…

I think as a family of logos which serve to communicate their association with each other these designs seem to work well. They are great. However, I think the results of the study reveal where they unfortunately fall down; although each design is distinct in a visual sense, there is a lack of distinction in the communicated meaning. The text obviously adds the dimension needed to ‘explain’ the logo, so that once a user has grasped the distinction, the image meaning becomes memorable through repeated exposure (and thus the text becomes superfluous).

The difficulty and challenge therefore seems to be creating visual marks which can function universally without words. I guess Woolmark is an example of where ‘branding’ and ‘information graphics’ are competing, with the latter losing out? Thoughts?

By: Matty

Matty — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:41:19 +0000

I really like this logo and the intelligent idea of having the simplified versions for the changes in fabric. I have not looked at this logo for some time but looking at it now I really appreciate the logo as an excellent piece of design. Great post, thank you for sharing.

By: Troy

Troy — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:29:32 +0000

I’m afraid I don’t recognize the logo well enough to share the nostalgic feelings of some of you, but I really like the different logos used for the various materials.
Clever.

By: Sherrie

Sherrie — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:31:21 +0000

I am part of the less than half that recognize its’ purpose. Actually, truth be told, I cannot relate to even that half, b/c I don’t even recognize the logo, so I am not feeling the nostalgia love. Does that indicate SES? Age level? Both? Now the Cotton logo, yes. :)

The Woolmark logo, particularly the earlier ones, remind me somewhat of the three-arrow recycling logo that takes on the triangle shape. I think it’s more self-explanatory to simpy use “Wool.” Or at worst, “Wool Mark.” I like “wool” standing alone. “Woolmark” is too brandy, as in a business brand rather than a mark for a material that is used across brands. Brandy as in Hallmark.

By: Anton

Anton — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:21:04 +0000

i wonder how this would look if it was designed today? a little bit more abstract? less twists? easier? what if another, worser logo had been used, would we all think of it as an as good one just because of the imprinting of decades?

where can i get a shirt with this logo printed on? i mean on the front, not in the inside …

By: David Airey

David Airey — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:55:57 +0000

David, Giles, although it didn’t occur to me when putting this together, I suppose there an emotional attachment in many of us. Maybe it’s subconscious, or maybe it’s pronounced enough to make you mention it, but either way, there are very few marks with such a widespread use.