Re:How we designed our logo for $30
by realscreen on Thursday October 25, 2012 @05:02PM
(#4699564)
> nobody would have noticed/cared.
Exactly.
It's OK. Not the end of the world to have a bad logo. It can evolve. There are plenty of examples of this evolution from bad to memorable. When your resources are thin, put them where they matter. But, put two equitable products up against one another and it will matter.
I agree with your message, but I'd argue that the logos in that Speckyboy link aren't necessarily good design. They just have the marketing budgets behind them to become ingrained in your brain.
yep, they might have been better off with a 0$ logo if they had basic inkscape skills (since they already knew what kind of message they were trying to get across). on top of that I believe they didn't even choose the best one.
Yeah sure, this is true. Anyone remember the dotcom swoosh era (http://lekowicz.com/library/logohell/logohell.html )?
Startups also get stuck on UI (custom, bootstrap, jquery-ui, yui), backend (node,ruby,java,groovy,php) and database (mysql,postgresql,redis,mongo).
For most businesses the logo is just something that shows up in the top left corner of the website, it really doesn't matter all that much as long as it is clean. I bet if you took this logo (http://kevinohashi.com/sites/default/files/Review%20Signal.p...) and had it up on your site without mentioning you paid $30 nobody would have noticed/cared.
What you have is just a cheap logo. And that's OK. Like a cheap car or a cheap UI it serves a purpose. Just like if you built a web application using out-of-the-box bootstrap the majority of end users will not even notice.
That doesn't mean logos should only cost $30, or that for the $30 you spent that you have a great logo. Then again, maybe you don't need a great logo. A great logo should be instantly recognizable and fit with the message that is your company. http://speckyboy.com/2011/06/15/30-of-the-most-iconic-logos-...