Corporate Identity

Good vs. Bad Logo Design

Good Logo Design

I think that this “Fish Food” logo by designer Garrett Bolin is overall successful. A good logo should be able to clearly define a message, be simple yet distinct, and be scalable for a variety of uses. This logo displays a clear message. An average person looking at this logo knows that it conveys a seafood restaurant by the clever use of cutlery as the bones in the fishes skeleton. Even without the “Fish Food” title the meaning still comes across. The ingenious design combining the seafood and restaurant theme also makes this logo distinct, the other requirement for a successful logo design. Overall the logo is also relatively simple, which is important for the clear message that it is delivering. The simple imagery is also important so that the company is able to use their logo in a variety of formats and sizes without losing the integrity and meaning of the original logo format. I think the basic color scheme is effective in this design as well. Lastly, the logo gives off a mood for the restaurant. I know that if I go to this place it won’t be an upscale fancy restaurant, but more of a laid back, possibly even humorous environment. If I can still critique this logo design, I feel like I want to see the fish skeleton just a tad simpler for the final design. For example, I feel like the bump in the tail is unnecessary to the overall design, and it is the only place in the illustration that that type of depth is used. I also would like to see the logo and the restaurant title just ever so slightly spaced a bit more from each other.

Bad Logo Design

For my example of a poor logo design I have chosen the 2012 London Olympics logo. I have no idea what that design team was thinking when they published this for such a large and renowned event such as the olympics. When I looked up this logo, I saw that it even had a petition at it’s release from the citizens of Great Britain to be replaced. How much worse can it get? First and foremost this logo is confusing and almost completely illegible. This logo appears in a few color variations of hot pink, turquoise, bright blue, or the orange version viewed above. All the color versions are unflattering and too bright. There doesn’t seem to be a clear reason behind the abstraction of the lettering, which adds to the confusion for the viewer. The only reason I know what this logo is for is because it has “london” and the olympic circles in small lettering, which would be completely lost when the logo would be scaled for different uses. Without the lettering and the olympic circles, I think a lot of people wouldn’t be able to tell that the visual is meant to say 2012. A logo should be able to simply convey meaning to a viewer and not leave them guessing. A logo should also be able to be scaled for a variety of uses, so it has to still be usable and be able to convey it’s meaning in different sizes. However logos are suppose to distinct, and this one most certainly is, just not for any good reasons.