Looking back at our logo design project, I was reminded of two interesting articles on branding I stumbled upon last semester.
The first comes from thedieline.com and looks at brand distillation. We talked a lot about simplification during logo design, that good logos need not and often should not be overly complicated or contain a lot of fluff. Simple logos cut production costs and ease application across a variety of mediums. But what this article looks at is how far can you simplify a logo and still maintain the emotion, connection, and message it was designed to convey. This is like an extreme version of what we do when we check readability in B&W and diminished sizes. It is also interesting to note the role that iconic packaging (which is a form of design) plays in this experiment and the recognition of name brand products. What do you think: what about these logos makes them so recognizable even in butchered, piecemeal form? Is something lost when these logos are reduced? At what level does the logo serve its purpose best?
The second article comes from awwwards.com and is an experiment called “Brandversations” which looks at logo and brand durability by morphing two competitors’ logos together. What do you think: does one logo overpower the other? Is the essential and basic form of each logo strong enough to preserve the message and identity of the company when a close competitor’s image is heavily impressed?