The logo might be confused about how to feel, but I personally give it a big fat :)!
Went digging through my Delicious bookmarks and found this lovely collection of logos based on visual punning. I think most of these are pretty fantabulous, and I wish I were better at coming up with this sort of thing.
What I find interesting, though, is that when you think of the most prominent logos in our society (McDonald's, Starbucks, BP, and so forth), you're not really going to find this sort of graphic cleverness. They're either pretty straightforward (McDonald's) or a bit puzzling (a medieval siren for a coffee shop? What?). Is that a function of the logo itself (does visual cleverness not have mass appeal or something?), or of business factors (it happens that a company with a straightforward logo ends up with a lot of money behind it), or of something else I'm missing because it's late and I just started drinking tea? What do y'all think about the logos in the link — any ones you particularly like or hate?
I have this site and many other sites saved in my bookmarks on my computer. I tend to look at them a lot for inspiration, since my portfolio consists of logo designs. There is not a single logo that I dislike on the site, they are all unique in their own way.
ReplyDeleteI learned that the McDonalds originally didn't have a logo, but the way they built the McDonalds back then had to large yellow arches and viewed at an angle created a large yellow "M" that we now know as the "Golden Arches".
ReplyDeleteI guess with that long spew of useless knowledge I guess I am gust trying to say that logos to me are more than just a cleaver design and a bunch of pretty lines but more of a story that almost no one knows about.
Ha, that's a pretty awesome design. It's always awesome to see the library of glyphs for each font, but it's even more interesting to see what people can do with them.
ReplyDeleteThe logos on the site are original. I feel that logos that are visually appealing have more attraction than straightforward logos, but I think that the idea of a straightforward logos are more business-like and professional, psht.
ReplyDeletethese are all pretty cool. However, Im not too into the first to. At quick glances, the first one reads as PAiiSE, and the second one reads as J brella. obviously, this is not what they are, but most of the general public doesn't have a trained eye for these things...(or maybe they do, and I'm completely wrong)...
ReplyDeletepardon my spelling mistake. the first line was suposed to read as "I'm not too into the first two" not "to."
ReplyDeleteI like these as examples of logos, but at some point businesses don't need 'clever' they need 'effective' and sometimes those two just don't mesh. Take something like the Starbucks logo, like you mentioned. Does it make a lot of sense to have her in a coffee shop? Not really. Could you also do some kind of Star + Bucks (the shape and $$) and have it technically work? Yes, but it would seem like a spoof.
ReplyDeleteSo while I appreciate the clever logos, history also dictates a lot of logo design, especially for well-established companies.
But that was a very fun website. I think people would get most of those logos if they took the time to look at them. If only everyone in the world had the same appreciation for design that designers do...
I've seen some of these examples before, but I still appreciate their cleverness. This seems to me like the type of thing that you sort of comes to you at an "aha!" moment, rather than spending hours thinking about it. Trust me, I've tried.
ReplyDeleteThe Foot one is nice and clever without getting too tricky. Many of them are just great.
ReplyDeleteI wish corporate logos would get this clever. Nice link.
ReplyDeleteThese logos are great! I love the twins one with the 2 turned on its side for the n, very clever!!
ReplyDeleteThe image you included in your post is very witty and I enjoy how it is so simple and yet so effective in it's communication!
ReplyDeleteIt sure is the perfect word/image combo, pretty cool.
ReplyDeleteVery PUNny! I think Katie brings up a good point that sometimes organizations have to sacrifice witty artwork for effectiveness, and what type of tone/branding the company decides to carry out. On another note, I think the actual executions of most of the logos are great examples of simple typographic treatments.
ReplyDeleteI loved the logos. I also wish people appreciated design as much as we all do. But I also agree with what Katie said and I feel that a logo's success grows with the company's growth and advertising. So, sometimes it doesn't need to make sense.
ReplyDeleteOnce again this shows how a simple, yet effective strategy can translate into great design!
ReplyDeleteI love these things too! http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2Jpwk7/devsnippets.com/article/30-unique-logo-designs-that-actually-say-something.html
ReplyDeleteCheck out that site, it's a bunch of logos like this!