Good for Good’s Sake ☁ Ian Storm Taylor

A recent post on Drawar criticizing some designers’ reaction to Gap’s new brand seemed so off-base to me I have to respond. While Scrivs’ makes some good points about the redesign’s intentions, one paragraph stood out to me:

“I think designers simply want things to look good for good’s sake at times. It’s different when we are talking about industrial design, packaging design or architecture because then aesthetics and function really do play a huge role in how people perceive things. But a logo? Logos can’t be held or manipulated. They are 2D objects on paper that we look at and leave at that.”

I don’t understand how a designer can argue that an object’s appearance doesn’t affect the receiver. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be employed. It makes no difference whether the object is three dimensional or not. We process things visually first and foremost. Consumers are affected by a brand subconsciously; they have no choice in the matter.

The idea that logos are “2D objects on paper that we look at and leave at that” is also extremely narrow-minded. Sure the example is a logo on a screen, but that logo is representative of the identity as a whole. Will it not be reproduced on signage? on clothes? in the exhibit design of the store? Identity design and a company’s logo transcend the paper it is printed on.

Down the road, that logo will appear in industrial design, packaging design, interior design, web design, and plain-old print design all at once. It falls on that logo to remind consumers of the brand that companies work so hard to create. When a logo doesn’t accurately represent its brand the company sends a mixed message. Sure it might not negatively impact their profits, but it certainly could be strengthened.

I think that is what designers are upset about. We are the people that sweat the small stuff. We don’t ignore a logo’s design because we can get away with it. I for one am glad that my designer peers are outraged and welcome their responses as dialogue. They are passionate about what they do, and they want to talk about the problems with the new identity. Do we not all notice things that could be improved and iterate on them in our minds? Why should we not further this practice and discuss our ideas with our peers?

It’s not about things looking good for good’s sake; it’s about good design down to the last detail.

This article has 11 comments.

Scrivs
October 6th, 2010

How does Nike’s logo work hard to exemplify the brand they have built over the years?

Also there should be discourse about how the logo could be improved, but how much of that has been done? Instead it’s simply told that it sucks. That is not improving, iterating or anything else beyond just bitching.

As for Gap, people will or will not like the clothes. Of all the clothes you wear how many of them can you think about the logo that represents their company? Now if they start printing clothes with that huge logo on the front along with gradient then I would consider them being silly.

Of course I think it could be improved and every company should strive to put out the best logo they can as I have stated a million times in the entry, comments and in the past. However, I don’t see this change affecting their bottomline which has been in a 5 year decline.

Logos for clothes work (or don’t work) when they become the clothes themselves. I’m no expert in Gap clothes, but going through their online selection I’m not seeing the logo be present anywhere visible on the clothing.

So once again, strive for a great logo that is well-designed. It makes sense and gives you a stronger leg to build on, but there are just too many instances of companies succeeding in spite of their ugly logos to pretend that this changes things for Gap.
Brian Purkiss
October 6th, 2010

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this matter.

Logos are a big deal, they affect the brand and indicate which direction the company wants the brand to go. If logos weren’t a big deal, everyone would get their logos from 99designs and designers wouldn’t have jobs.
Scrivs
October 6th, 2010

“When a logo doesn’t accu rately rep resent its brand the com pany sends a mixed mes sage.”

You either love or hate Dell. When you look at the logo you are reminded of that feeling you have for it. The logo doesn’t dictate that feeling. Apply this to basically any other logo in the world.

If down the road someone comes to love Gap jeans and they see the logo they will think they love Gap jeans. You are saying the logo shouldn’t convey that.
Mark
October 6th, 2010

Ok, let’s take your example of an object’s appearance affecting the receiver and flip it on its ear.

Let’s take a bad company and give them a spruced up logo. Microsoft cleaned up and simplified their Explorer “e” for version 9 — did that change your feelings for Microsoft or their browser? Or do you think it’s the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig?

Phillip Morris, the conglomerate known mostly for cigarettes under that brand, changed their name to Altria and created a new logo to reflect their diverse portfolio of companies, but they still sell cigarettes — is that ok?

Google has to have the king champion of goofed up logos, complete with sad Photoshop bevels and bad drop shadows. There is NO PLACE this hack looks remotely close to good or translates well. They even tried to prettify their page with full screen photography ala Bing, the masses rejected the beautifying attempt.

How does all that play in this “good design down to the last detail”?
Ian Storm Taylor
October 6th, 2010

@Scrivs
Logos on the clothes themselves is far from the only scenario where they are applicable. If you look into a Gap store now, you will see their old logo everywhere. And when that new one starts to replace it, it will be everywhere. When you’re in a mall, you can look down the line of stores and recognize a brand from far away by the stores signage (which usually consists of a huge logo). Like I said in the article, the logo will be used in clothing design (tags and prints), packaging design, the interior design of the stores, the store windows, etc.

It’s not about whether it might not affect their bottom line. If you even have to mention that, I would consider the logo a failure because you’re discounting that it will help them.

I would say the Nike logo definitely represents some of the ideas of the company itself. Nike is a sports company. The logo is a check mark, perhaps symbolizing completed goals, and definitely a mark of success. It is also very dynamic and full of motion, an important aspect of sports and outdoor activities. Not only that, but the swoosh going towards the upper right (as many logos do) is a sign of progress and improvement, something people often strive to achieve in their sporting adventures. Finally, the logo could even be argued to be a subtle reference to the letter “V” for victory (Nike being the Greek goddess of Victory, for which the company was named).

On the other hand, the new Gap logo feels like a corporate brand from the 80s coupled with one quarter of the Windows 98 packaging, both extremely dated and not a look I would see the company striving for. Of course you could make an argument that they were trying to reference the American Apparel brand, but I would say they did a very poor job if that was their goal.

@Mark
The changes Microsoft made to the logo for IE9, in my opinion, aren’t anywhere near improvements, so that is a non-argument.

In terms of Phillip Morris (I’m not familiar with the brand as I don’t smoke but…) it sounds like an improvement because they were consolidating their brand and making it more applicable to a wider product range. If they had any negative connotations with their old brand, I would assume the switch would help them shed those bad associations in consumers’ minds.

And finally, for Google, I think the fact that they tried to “beautify” their home page by adding photo backgrounds shows the pressure they were under from seeming under-designed compared with Bing. However, I think they approached the problem in a very poorly thought out manner and that’s what it was a total flop. But that threat from Bing was and is still present. They even tried to update their logo slightly a while back in response to the pressure that the sleaker Bing was giving them. (Although because they are a big and well known brand they have to do so slowly and in stages so as to not shock consumers. Something Gap completely threw out the window with their redesign.)

But either way, I don’t think you providing examples of companies that don’t have a focus on good design “down to the last detail” helps to destroy my argument in any way. I’m not arguing that companies need to do it to be successful; I’m arguing that designers are passionate about good design, even in the smallest doses, and that is why they are criticizing the Gap redesign.
Brian Purkiss
October 6th, 2010

Good design can drastically add to the quality of a company, their brand, and their products.
Mark
October 6th, 2010

Still, I would love to know of just one example where the rebrand of a logo only turned a company with a bad reputation around in the eye of the public in a similar manner as apparently a bad logo can do with a good company.
Brian Purkiss
October 6th, 2010

Mark, I don’t see how that is relevant to the current topic of a bad brand hurting a company.

Logically, an example or lack of an example wouldn’t prove or disprove our arguments.
Mark
October 6th, 2010

Brian — who said anything about me being logical? ;)

If a logo, on it’s own, has the power to destroy (or drag down) an otherwise good company with a solid reputation for good quality products and services, then in my logic (or lack thereof) a logo should also have the reverse power, as well; and bring a down company up.

I’m just looking for an example of that. Or if that’s not logical, I’d like to know how it is that Google’s awful logo isn’t having any negative effect on them under the arguments that you and Ian are presenting.
Ian Storm Taylor
October 7th, 2010

@Mark
Obviously Google is doing very well for itself. But, like I mentioned before, I think with the appearance of a seemingly better-designed Bing as a competitor, Google has shown certain changes in design (whether good or bad). They recently tweaked their logo, making it slightly less tacky (still a long way to go), and they also attempted to offer the large background photos on the search page. Both of these things seem to be direct responses to consumers thinking Google is “under-designed”. So while they may not be floundering by any means, I’d say their recent actions have shown that they feel that having a better design (or even giving the appearance of having better design, depending on your stance on the changes) will help their company.
Paul
October 7th, 2010

I agree.

Visual design, including logos, definitely says something about the company. Subconscious clues that I might not fully understand (but that are certainly present) affect me when I first learn of the brand. Then, after knowing a brand and having either a positive or negative experience, the logo does indeed remind me of that experience when I see it. The logo loses it’s original subconscious clues and now reflects back my experiences to me.

So the shedding of skin of an old to new logo is definitely one part of it, but so is making sure you have a logo that sends the right signals to newcomers. There are lots of examples of big companies + bad logos and small companies + great logos, but those fringe cases aren’t useful for talking about the craft in general.

The stepping back and considering the branding from all sides and creating a design that communicates well to all of these angles is the hard part and I think that is why parts of the design community die a little bit when they see something that does indeed communicate (and might suffice), but seems to miss some of the marks quite pointedly.