Beautiful! Isn't it?
Logos are often perceived as outdated, inappropriate for the product, category or service, and sometimes aesthetically unsatisfactory. But does a logo have to be beautiful or fit the product? What makes a good logo?
Ron Barti / January / 10 min to read / Image by Douglas Bagg on unsplash
// Hand on heart: who would claim that a BMW logo is beautiful or radiates joy? The Ikea logo is by far the worst representative of Scandinavian design culture. The three dotted letters from IBM also look as if they are about to disintegrate, which is not what we want from intelligent silicon. McDonalds' slim M, also known as the Golden Arch logo, is the opposite of greasy. And who believes that three stripes are better than two? I also remember broken Mercedes stars, which were often misused as brass knuckles. A logo that leaves ugly scars? Apart from these negative experiences, they all have one thing in common: they create identity. They trigger images in the mind, are unmistakable in the sea of signs and symbols and are recognised worldwide. But it doesn't have to be beautiful. Nor does a logo have to fit the product to be successful. But what does it have to be?
Logos are "learnt symbols". Like the vocabulary of a language, we learn their meaning through constant repetition. Memorability and distinctiveness lead to learning success. A logo must be different from the others, it must stand out, stand out, the eye must linger. Sometimes even the supposedly ugly, which offends our aesthetic sensibilities, helps. Because it is disturbing: the ugly duckling, the black sheep.
It's the story
So far, so good - we want to evolve. In a workshop in Berlin, our Creative Directors team tried to develop intentionally ugly design in order to regain a new perspective on beauty. It was an idea from our HR developer. What can I say, the success was moderate, because we designers were not brought up to make things ugly. We are envious of the inventors of the TUI logo, which forms a smile from three letters, and of the stamp-like, seductively smiling mermaid from Starbucks, who even has two fins. But it's not the shape, it's the stories they tell that touch us. Incidentally, the TUI logo was not the work of a designer, but the idea of a marketing intern and her sketch on a post-it note. So you don't necessarily need a designer to make a good logo. But you do need an idea. The rest is craftsmanship.
Stolen on purpose
A creative director calls the new Douglas cosmetics logo aesthetic and beautiful in a statement in the trade magazine Horizont➚. She doesn't want to rubbish her colleagues from the Hanseatic city. But please, two letters intertwined in a circle are nothing more than stolen from Chanel's monogram. At least they offer something for the eye to linger on, like the broken slats in the fence. Various design experts have had plenty to say about the design quality and balance of the letters. It's all about skill and craftsmanship, they can do that. The lettering shouts out its category, it doesn't need its own idea. As a "house of beauty brands", it doesn't want to compete with them, but rather provide the stage. The requirements for the logo are therefore low.
To die in beauty
As unbiased consumers, we accept a logo as it is. Because something happens at the moment of perception: associations and images arise in our minds. This is what the owner of the logo wants. We drive or wear it and feel a sense of belonging. A logo is a signpost and guide and only needs limited aesthetics. In the end, we only perceive the logo subconsciously.
Designers have the reputation of often only quoting the tried and tested and generally beautiful. They win prizes for good design, which unfortunately is not commercially successful and only suitable for the portfolio. Of course, designers are people of the eye and can tell stories with images and signs. But can they also invent them? They look more than they read and are aesthetically trained. You don't need that for logos. What is supposedly beautiful is easily overlooked anyway, gets lost in everyday life or depends on the taste of the observer. There is a great danger that a logo may be beautifully designed, but is overlooked for this very reason: "to die in beauty" or "too slippery to grip". At n-tv➚, you can vote on whether you think the BMW logo is ugly or beautiful. The manufacturer GAP➚ is also rowing back to the old logo after the storm of public indignation.
It's beautiful when it shines behind
One thing has become clear: a logo does not have to be beautiful. Its success depends on other factors. It has to be effective. It has to be recognisable, large or small, on buildings or the Internet, on any background. It has to be accepted in the cultural, social and business environment and by the public. And it must be transferable to goods and services. We only see it as beautiful because we think what the logo stands for is beautiful and important.
Remark
To die in beauty.
The phrase comes from Henrik Ibsen's (1828-1906) drama "Hedda Gabler" (III, 7).
The title character Hedda gives Lövborg, who wants to end his life, one of her pistols with the macabre remark that he should carry out his suicide "beautifully".
The phrase is used colloquially today in the sense of "not prevailing despite one's qualities"; for example, in sport, when a team whose game is beautiful to watch but lacks the necessary determination and therefore loses.
In the field of design, we want to express something that is nice and decorative, maybe even right in the sense of the task, but without content, substance or grip to be memorable.
beachte
In der Praxis wird das logo selten usgetauscht, eher die Kampagen. manchml gibt es auch ein Campgnenlogo. die cMPgen lässt aich leicht erneuern, die kennzeichnung nur mit viel money
Ready for more?
This article also links to others. Please see