*** From the Archives ***
This article is from April 11, 2003, and is no longer current.
Design How-To: Fixing an Indistinct Logo by Using Figure-Ground
Creativepro.com readers can subscribe to “Before & After” at a discount. Click here to learn more.
When it comes to logos, distinctive does not necessarily mean complicated. Yet, oversimplification can result in a weak, unmemorable brand.
In this feature from our new partner “Before & After” magazine, learn how to re-make a so-so symbol as a memorable mark. We start with a straightforward black-and-white logo based on the designer’s initials.
You’ll see that changing the type style, playing with figure-ground, adjusting proportion, and adding a single color transforms this logo into a stamp of distinction. To see the final results, open the story as described below.
We’ve posted this story as a PDF file. All you do is click this link “A Design in Figure-Ground” to open the PDF file in your Web browser. You can also download the PDF to your machine for later viewing.
To open the PDF, you’ll need Adobe Acrobat Reader. Get it here:
.
To learn how to configure your browser for viewing PDF files, try these tips from Adobe:
- Click here for Explorer on the Mac
- Click here for Explorer on Windows
- Click here for Navigator on Windows
- Click here for Navigator on Mac.
 |
I liked this article, and thought it was pretty informative. Watching other designers from start to finish is always interesting. Hope to see more like these in the future.
I’ve been waiting for something like this.
Looking forward to more.
Will consider getting the mag. after that.
The original design was weak, mainly because of the overly large black box and the fact that the j drew all the attention. But the revised design is no better. The meeting of the tail of the j with the counter of the d creates a distracting hot point in the design that pulls attention away from the overall logo. It’s also odd that the pencil sketch design was rejected because it would require halftone reproduction,bbut somehow the fact that the final redesign requires two spot colours is not seen as a equivalent drawback.
I disagree with the improvement. The visual vocabulary has more responsibility to the brand then just what feels good to the eye. While I agree with the approach to the improvement, the finished look is still 1984. Watch your positioning with the look and feel. Change your typeface and maintain the brand.
This instruction reminds me of the college courses I took years ago. It’s a good reminder to use basic tools of observation and simplification for an effective logo.
The way this logo was analized was indeed very interesting, but the end result wasn’t any better, as other readers already pointed out. It looks indeed rather old fashioned and the only part I found an improvement was the line of text underneath it.
You have to ask yourself the question: Is this a logo for a designer? I think the designer was working so technically that he forgot about that. Because to me, in no way this log prepresents a designer, sorry.
I’ve been a subscriber to B&A since the beginning. I don’t always agree with their conclusion on what constitutes the best design, no two people ever can.
What I so deeply admire (and what they work at the most) is the analytical process of saying WHY something works or WHY something does not.
Many of us designers work intuitively, but when we get stuck—we’re stuck. These folks give you a map for getting unstuck. A little simplistic sometimes, but effective always.