July 09, 2004 | View Comments (15) | Category: Design
Summary: Don't underestimate the power of your logos.
Part of the brand of any website and yourself is the logo. Along with the voice of your site, the visual identity becomes just as important for your brand. It can dictate the initial feelings that a reader feels about you. Don't believe me? Go to a site that you consider ugly and if they start giving you tips on quality design then I am sure you will hesitate to even consider them as a viable source of information (sure many people feel like this when they come here ;-).
When you maintain a blog and start to go through several redesigns one aspect of your design that you may wish to forget about is the size of your logo. It's possible to believe that it isn't as important as it used to be since everyone knows your site now. Of course there will always be new people coming and going, but the regulars will recognize your site whether there is a logo or not.
Does this mean though that the logo should be discarded? I don't think so, because again if you are a designer you should plaster your visual identity all over the place if possible. Initially you might not see the benefit of this, but it's always good to grab the mindshare of your audience.
With the Mezzoblue redesign the logo was one of the components of the design that was brought up constantly in the comments. It really is so small that it becomes indistinguishable and even though Shea is already well known I am sure there are plenty of people that are unaware of him and visiting his site the logo doesn't give off a strong visual identity. This is by no means a knock on Dave since I am sure he has more business than one man could handle, but it was a curious choice.
While going through the Vault I didn't notice any sites that had overly large logos. Understandably this would take away from the content because then the logo would dominate the site. So is there a maximum/minimum size of a logo? Maybe designers don't see logos as being as important as I think they are.
Andrei wrote about personal dingbats some time back and I was fascinated to see some of the care people took in their identities. Wouldn't it be cool if you could be identified by a dingbat or a logo? At times that might be your only opportunity to reach someone. Why not utilize it more?
For SXSW, instead of giving out nametags, why not make tshirts with out dingbats on them? That would be so much cooler.
Some time in the future instead of having my sites' logos on the sidebar I am just going to have their circle dingbats to establish them and I will make sure they are a decent size. Even though you are a freelancer doesn't mean that you can't take on some of the characteristics of larger companies by sprinkling your brand all over the place. One of the best forms of advertising advice given to me was:
Place stickers everywhere you can.
Sounds stupid, but for some it does the trick. Nice to have stickers with just a nicely sized dingbat on it that would be instantly recognizable to everyone. In any case don't take your logos too lightly if you wish to establish both your brand and yourself.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/278
I'm not sure about just using your circle/letters as the only links on your page Paul, I'm very familiar with all of your sites, and I still have to think, "Hm, WS, that's Whitespace, FG is Forever Geek, Etc." It's not immediately apparent what the icons mean, or where they will go, even if you are familiar with the 9rules network. Especially when you have new people come into a more general site like Forever Geek, then they see all these little circles and have no idea what they all mean.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but if that is what you meant, I'd think twice about it. Your brand isn't quite as strong as Apple's or Coke's yet and it would be a shame if you lost some visitors because they overlooked the logos, thinking they had some secret meaning that they didn't understand. :)
Derek (http://www.twotallsocks.com/)
You know I've just been thinking about this stuff a bit myself. I'm going to go through a "rebrand" of my personal site soon (after a few weeks off!) and I plan on a new logo, new dingbat, etc.
And, no, it won't be a redesign. I'll be evaluating my site (my background has become part of my "brand" somehow....???) and just updating the visual part to fit something a bit more me.
Nothing big, just a refresh to something more original.
Anyway, like your t-shirt idea as well as the digbats. Nice work.
Keith (http://www.7nights.com/asterisk/)
Derek, I just didn't explain it clearly. In any case it wouldn't be done for a while and they wouldn't replace the logo of the site, but as the network grows (*cough*hint*cough*) I don't feel like having 20 full-sized logos down each site.
Scrivs (http://businesslogs.com)
This is really an entry about branding, not just visual identity (and yes, they aren't exactly the same). But anyway...
The power with logos is sometimes not necessarily in the actual logo itself, but its applications.
For example, the reason why, to me, the mezzoblue logo doesn't quite work isn't necessarily its size--it's because it isn't isolated enough. It isn't given enough whitespace to be significant in any way. When size doesn't work, whitespace does, and Dave just failed to provide that.
And I don't know if "dingbat" is the proper graphic design term. ;-) More like a mark or logomark. At any rate, being identified by a mere symbol alone takes a LOT of brand strength, which is why I think even though Scrivs' marks are vague, because WE understand it, it's fine. We're his audience, right? And--obscurity can also work to your favour. The curious will TRY to find out what it means. :-)
For example, do we really need the words "Nike" or "Adidas" underneath their swoosh or lines, respectively?
Lea (http://xox.lealea.net/01/)
Web designers go round looking at design and at logos, branding etc. The rest of the world doesn't. They notice them but it becomes more subliminal I think. I find most logos don't inspire me much, they don't in themselves give me a warm fuzzy feeling. But I guess if I like a web site's content and keep coming back because I like it, then the logo itself can start to give me the nice feeling, kind of a learned response.
The logo is only a small part of the whole website and though it is important for the reasons you state, I think we must remember that most people couldn't really care less.
Having said that, it is two months now and I still have not got the graphics for my site nor a logo. I have had lots of ideas but just can't decide. So I must think it is very important really, even though it is only a personal blog.
Peter (http://www.01010.org/)
For me a logo has nothing to do with the site, if the content is good, I don't let the visuals take away from my experience. However, other people do.
Yet I am still drawn to certain logos. I tend to find myself being more attracted to the simple ones. Which, I have actually been working on a writing about this.
I have found that the more simplistic a logo is, the easier it is for a person to remember what that logo is, and what it stands for. There are exceptions to this, everyone has a good idea of the Cadillac symbol, but chances are they can not describe it to you in full detail.
A good logo draws your attention, a great logo does not draw your attention away from the overall design. No matter what it is; websites, shoes, cars, computers, and so on. A great logo is able to seamlessly integrate into the rest of its surroundings.
Well, at least that's my onion.
Ryan Latham (http://www.worldoneweb.com)
I think that designers pay more attention to the logo than the end user. Some of the largest companys have fairly plain logos. Common examples are:
FedEx
Ford
Microsoft
The key to a successful logo is uniqueness, not beauty.
The size of a logo matters on a website. A webdesigner friend once told me, "The bigger the logo, the smaller the company." And that is usually true! Conversely, you can - as was written - go overboard and get your logo too small.
Will Stewart
I agree with Peter, I notice logos because I'm into design, my friends and family don't notice them and wonder what the hell I'm going on about when I say "Now there's a nice logo, mmm very nice."
I think a lot of them are the same, and it's been some time since I've seen a really good one that has caught my attention. Logos are important, but not as important as content or products.
I have quite a large (ok, huge) logo on my blog, the main reason I made it so big was because I wanted my site to be different and it is. I think I've made the different point though, so I might change to a smaller logo when I re-design.
Kitta (http://kitta.net)
A good topic that gets left to the side in the heat of creating. I have to say even though I do like the polished logo of whitespace, I did like the old logo. Maybe not as much to look at but because of the added dimension it had. The space between the words white and space emphasised and highlighted the words and worked well, I thought. Great logos stick with me when the form and the type become intertwined and reinforce each other like that.
I agree on the mezzoblue redesign. I stubbornly choose to read using the old stylesheet.
mattymcg (http://opinios.com)
"And--obscurity can also work to your favour. The curious will TRY to find out what it means. :-)
For example, do we really need the words "Nike" or "Adidas" underneath their swoosh or lines, respectively?"
Does mistery meat ring a bell? Label information with information. Don't make a ball represent 'contacts' and a shoe for 'contact'. That is just frustrating.
With logo's on the other hand you can do anything you want, because it has only one purpose: recognition. The funkier the better. People don't need to find out what it means. Nobody goes around looking for logo's, they go around looking for products, wich has a logo attached to it ( and therefore the whole company is reflected by that product because, among other things, has that same logo ).
A logo is like a name. If It's a wierd name, but I can pronounce it, it sticks much better. If It's too complicated ( or too simple! ), it gets dropped.
I have quite a large (ok, huge) logo on my blog, the main reason I made it so big was because I wanted my site to be different and it is. I think I've made the different point though, so I might change to a smaller logo when I re-design.
Haha, that monkey is not THAT big, right? ;) Everybody links that monkey to your blog. The header makes it visually recognisable as kitta's blog. Like MacDonalds, you can put ronald anywhere and be recognised as food, but you know it's MC when you see the overtly coloured seats and funny caps the workers wear.
"The key to a successful logo is uniqueness, not beauty."
But beauty plays a part. At least, for the overall view of the company. It doesn't affect the recognition part of it, but I like companies more with better logo's. Put a badly designed logo besides a good one, and I feel that the former is more trustworthy. Even if I've seen them for the first time.
But as soon as you start to know about the world wich the company resides, say internet, you know what is out there. You have a window to judge by: internet has a lot of good resources, and half of them are downright ugly. I now know that design on the intarwab doesn't mean very much for content, but if I'm looking for an online store, design is one of the most important things I look at.
It's the firehouse in the mist. But when I know the shoreline with my gps, radar and sona, I trust the firehouse a lot less.
[m] (http://mantaworks.nl)
I've never been one to care for brands/logos. Sticking your logo in huge print on clothes just looks tacky and in most cases it ruins a perfectly good item.
For me products of companies are more recognisable than their logos. For example: Apple have an "apple" for their logo, suprising enough - but I think they use their products to make them unique and recognisable. You can instantly tell which computer was made by apple, which interface was made by apple and so on. They rely on the quality of their products to appeal to people - not their logo.
Fair enough, most huge companies are easily recognisable by their logo - but if you took that logo away they still need to be unique. You can't rely completely on a logo to carry your company. In the end, if you take away the logo and you're still attracting the customers, then you've done a good job.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Will,
there is beauty in simplicity ... just because a logo is simple doesn't mean it didn't take a ton of planning to pull it off ...
I think logos are great for designers to help us brand ourselves ... we're all known for something ... why not make that one thing that sticks in people's mind as great as it could be ...
there are some sites I go to and return but deep down really wish they would have a better "look" or a cooler design that is comprehensive from logo to comment field to favicon to hyperlink colors ...
in this case, I think logos/marks/design really do mean somethingto the audience ...
Scrivs, I love the new brand you've got going ... works great!
chuck (http://telerana.f2o.org)
Logo design is difficult, especially for a service/product that is not so easily labelled, such as web design. I've lost much sleep over my own logo, settling for now on something which, although I like, probably doesn't do the best job of identifying what I'm about. I've seen some bad logos lately, such as the new TBS logo, that don't seem to have been in production for very long. The mezzoblue logo is fine, but needs to be bigger, or as Lea suggested, more whitespace to give it greater prominence. If clients come to us to build their brand, I guess we should try our best to have one of our own.
btw I've always wondered, what is the deal with 9rules? Will you eventually have 9 websites that you maintain?
Jim Amos (http://graphikjunkie.com/)
..."I've lost much sleep over my own logo, settling for now..."
One of the worst experiences for a graphic designer - I believe - is to go through having to design their own logo.
I love logo design and trying to figure out the relevance of the design to the offering. However, for sites that are viewed more through an aggregator than actually visited, logos become less important to me. In the case of feeds, it's font styles and usage which dictate professionalism in the terms expressed in the comments here.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
There are TONS of sites I visit that I leave almost immediately simply because I think the site is ugly and CANNOT be a professional business. But that is ignorance talking.
For some reason, when I come across a nice site that I KNOW had ALOT of time put into it, I tend to stay a little longer admiring the beauty. Most of these fall in the Css Vault or CSS Beauty. So I agree a good logo will distinguish you from alot of competition. There are times when I am driving in my car and come across little Mini shopping centers and look at companies logos up above their store. There is one logo that distinctively sticks out in my head whenever I see it. Its a great looking logo, colors and all and I really do feel sometimes that can weight VERy heavy on a customers decision to go into the store or not.
Its like, would you rather go into a store with a nice curvacious and juicy logo that looks inviting, or one that looks like its about to fall off the side of the building.
hmmm...
Bryan (http://www.juicedthoughts.com)