Complex Illustrative Logos?
- Started
- Last post
- 12 Responses
- popovich
I am talking about a Nestle Logo
or Versace
or even KFC
and such....
I good client of mine is planning to launch a "worldwide brand". The brand is based on a living person, an inventor, a quite well-known personality in certain circles. The client is not only licensing his name, but also wants to use an image of him, an illustration, as a logo. He wants to commission the illustration to an artist, who is well-known for something absolutely different. Another famous photographer is to be commissioned with some photographs of the personality. The idea behind is clear: to get as much media attention for the launch as possible for as small amount of money as possible (the names of the photographer and the artist, working with another legend should help it). That's the initial point.
As nice as the intentions might be, I think the idea of using an illustration for a logo is not the best solution. However, I am not sure I have enough arguments to make my point clear. For one, using an illustration requires certain space devoted to the illustration + logotype + white space around all this — it may take quite a lot of space on an ad. Handling such a complicated logo with other brand logos (the products sold) may also cause some trouble (or will cause trouble eventually).
Any more arguments?Anyone knows the brand guidelines of Nestle, Versace, KFC and alikes — what do they say about using the illustration and the logotype? When is it a good idea to use both and to use just one?
Cheers.
- Amicus0
Your arguments about space doesn't always wash, because the type of the logo's you use as examples is also used by itself. This might be part of the solution you are looking for, depending on the inventor's name.
- popovich0
That's why I was also asking, if someone is acquainted with the guidelines of the brands to either support the client's idea or to give more contra-arguments.
Also, in the case if KFC, the face *must* follow the rule "positive face on negative background", otherwise we will be watching at a zombie here.
Versace escapes this problem be using the lines for the drawing, but it has another problem of utter complexity and detail, meaning the illustration can only be scaled down to a certain limit. But then again, there is a pattern they have as a part of CI, which can be applied to small surfaces.
Nestle? Do they use the illustration on the packaging at all? Is it a pure corporate thing?
- pillhead0
There is always the danger of to mush complexity in a logo and it start to loss the identity of the brand you are trying to create.
- rodzilla0
Do they know what types of applications this logo will be utilized on? That could dictate wether or not it is a good idea. (ie. embroidery, woven labels, will it be able to be on a business card and retain its unique identity?)
- popovich0
Well, I can imagine that a retail chain would have pretty numerous applications for a logo, and this is what this business will be about. So yes, from stationery to signage to uniform and, certainly, media all the way. And that last point makes me "nervous" because on a print ad this identity will have to be combined with other identities, most of them utilizing the "premium" black background, which is not necessarily suited best for faces...
- showpony0
i don't really have a problem with using a face... it can work. it's obviously all about the economy of the form, and choosing just the right amount of detail etc... starbucks logo is pretty complex, but works across a wide range of applications pretty well:
- popovich0
Don't get me wrong: I am not all against it, I am just very cautious about such a complexity. Especially when a graphic artist who has been doing street art will have to do a commercially-oriented illustration, which someone will have to adapt for myriad of applications.
- phatlee0
Check out Chris' work:
http://www.epicicons.com/- amazing stuff. good example.zenmasterfoo
- Nice work there, very goodpillhead
- Anders0
Break the logo into parts, use the more complex versions whereever it's possible.
- popovich0
@phatlee: okay, you win. :)
- Miguex0
Popovich:
I think I agree with you, complex/ illustrated logos don't always work, there are 2 options:
a) To use alternative marks, (logotype-isologo vs just logotype)
b) Use great graphic synthesis, like on the starbucks logo, and make sure to specify "smallest size applications" on brand guides.The challenge will be to eliminate unnecessary clutter from the graffiti artist's work. (some graffiti artists are AMAZING logo designers, some are not.)
I'm pretty sure Starbucks uses a type only mark as well, connected with either their green or typeface.
Maybe watch the size of Type vs graphic, sometimes people shrink the logo to where the type is unreadable but it's because the graphic was too big compared to it.
- popovich0
yes, I believe the brand identity, which uses illustration, encompasses much more variations and details: a standard logotype and a sign and its derivations (like sign on top, type beneath or sign to the left, type aligned to the right) ; a sign alone; a standalone logotype. It probably should include a part of illustration for use with small surfaces or have a pattern to use. It also seems that investments to achieve brand visibility and awareness for such brand identity are much higher, than for a plain logotype version. ROI my pants, so to say (excuse my french).
Cheers!- and from the sounds of your original post, the most inexpensive route is what they want no?rodzilla