- Analyse and comment on the use of type, shape and colour;
- Compare and contrast the designs;
- How successful is the design?
I have chosen to do a few more than 3 as I have found that particular industries follow a stereotypical design for their logos which will include or not include particular things.
My first category is food. I have noticed that food logos are always brightly coloured and their shape within their design reflects that of the food that they are representing. For example with the ones I have chosen: the face of the man featured in the Pringles logo is an oval shape, just like the crisp they produce, the Doritos logo has a triangular shape going through it (again like the shape of the crisp they produce), and the Domino's logo is in the shape of a pizza box to represent the food they are serving. Domino's have also added in the feature of including the symbols for a domino game piece which allows customers to clearly denote the reasoning for that being because of its name.
The brands have used bright colours in order to stand out. This could also connote stand out flavours and is used in order to make the brand attractive. They need this in order to show that they are the best brand to pick as they have many rival and cheaper competitors, whereas high end fashion designers do not face the same problem (I will explain this further down.)
Commenting on the type used, all of the brands have used San-Serif fonts. This is likely because they do not need to use 'fancy' looking fonts (Serif fonts) as they branding is straight to the point. They do not need to impress their customers with their branding as they are known more for their taste, which is more important than their image. This, again, is different to other retail categories, such as fashion.
Overall I would say all three logos are successful in their design because they are clearly showing the product they are giving you subtly through their logo and due to their bright colours are able to stand out from a crowd.
My second category is delivery companies. Delivery companies always follow quite a simple design for their logos so that they are straight to the point. One stereotypical feature of this is an arrow (to signify getting from one place to another, which is the purpose of a delivery company. You can see it here with Amazon's logo, with the arrow running underneath the name and with FedEx where the arrow is hidden in between the 'E' and 'x'.
Starting with Chanel, you can see that their logo is made up of two 'C's', one facing forward and one backwards and overlapping. They have done this because the designer's name is Coco Chanel so they have used her initials, making a simplistic yet effective design. Using the initials of the designer is a stereotypical thing to do in fashion designing, which can also be seen in my example of Louise Vuitton. The difference between these two brands, however, is that Chanel have used a San-Serif font for both their logo and name print, however Louis Vuitton have used a Serif font for their logo and a San-Serif font for their name. The reasoning for this would appear quite simple as, if Chanel were to use a Serif font for their logo, it would make it look quite strange as the C's would have flick's on the ends of the top half of the curve, whereas by using a San-Serif font, the C's look like mirror images on both each other an each half of them, making the logo look more professional.
Addressing the colours that they use, all of the brands use a plain black with white background for their logos. This is because, being designer brands, they don't need to be eye catching logos or to jump out at you because their brand identity is enough for you to want to buy from them. In this respect the design is very successful as they are showing that they do not need fancy logos to be a good brand.
When contrasting the designs, it is very clear that all of them have certain elements which are stereotypical of their category in the market. All of them are effective and successful in their own way and all use totally different characteristics. Food brands are very colourful and representative of what they are selling, delivery brands are plainly coloured with an arrow and designer brands are usually coloured black with a simple design. Because they are all for different purposes, none of them are more effective than the other and all of them are very well known and recognisable brand logos.
My first category is food. I have noticed that food logos are always brightly coloured and their shape within their design reflects that of the food that they are representing. For example with the ones I have chosen: the face of the man featured in the Pringles logo is an oval shape, just like the crisp they produce, the Doritos logo has a triangular shape going through it (again like the shape of the crisp they produce), and the Domino's logo is in the shape of a pizza box to represent the food they are serving. Domino's have also added in the feature of including the symbols for a domino game piece which allows customers to clearly denote the reasoning for that being because of its name.
The brands have used bright colours in order to stand out. This could also connote stand out flavours and is used in order to make the brand attractive. They need this in order to show that they are the best brand to pick as they have many rival and cheaper competitors, whereas high end fashion designers do not face the same problem (I will explain this further down.)
Commenting on the type used, all of the brands have used San-Serif fonts. This is likely because they do not need to use 'fancy' looking fonts (Serif fonts) as they branding is straight to the point. They do not need to impress their customers with their branding as they are known more for their taste, which is more important than their image. This, again, is different to other retail categories, such as fashion.Overall I would say all three logos are successful in their design because they are clearly showing the product they are giving you subtly through their logo and due to their bright colours are able to stand out from a crowd.
My second category is delivery companies. Delivery companies always follow quite a simple design for their logos so that they are straight to the point. One stereotypical feature of this is an arrow (to signify getting from one place to another, which is the purpose of a delivery company. You can see it here with Amazon's logo, with the arrow running underneath the name and with FedEx where the arrow is hidden in between the 'E' and 'x'.
Amazon's arrow could also be portrayed as a smile, using the letters as eye's which signifies good customer services. They use a San-Serif font in order to keep the logo simplistic and only include the company colours (black and yellow). Their design is successful as, even if you just saw the yellow arrow, everybody recognises that as Amazon.
FedEx's design is very successful and clever in the way they have produced it. They have minimised the tracking of the words so that all of the letters are touching each other. It is clear that they have done this so that they have an arrow featured in their logo without physically inputting one. They have used a San-Serif font in order for it to be clear what the letters are when the tracking is reduced and they have only used two colours (the company colours) in order to distinguish the two words and in order to make people link those colours to their company.
Moving on to my last category: Designer brands. The brands I have chosen are Chanel, Louis Vuitton, Apple and Nike. The reason I have chosen these is because they are all very different in what they produce, however are all a high 'designer' brand name and hence follow the same stereotypes when it comes to their logos.
Starting with Chanel, you can see that their logo is made up of two 'C's', one facing forward and one backwards and overlapping. They have done this because the designer's name is Coco Chanel so they have used her initials, making a simplistic yet effective design. Using the initials of the designer is a stereotypical thing to do in fashion designing, which can also be seen in my example of Louise Vuitton. The difference between these two brands, however, is that Chanel have used a San-Serif font for both their logo and name print, however Louis Vuitton have used a Serif font for their logo and a San-Serif font for their name. The reasoning for this would appear quite simple as, if Chanel were to use a Serif font for their logo, it would make it look quite strange as the C's would have flick's on the ends of the top half of the curve, whereas by using a San-Serif font, the C's look like mirror images on both each other an each half of them, making the logo look more professional.
The other brands I chose were Apple and Nike. Apple is a technology company and Nike is a sports design outlet. Both of these logo haven't included any type and are purely based on image. The reason for this is because both companies are so large and well known that they do not need any type to accompany their logo because everyone knows exactly who they are purely based on the apple and tick.
Addressing the colours that they use, all of the brands use a plain black with white background for their logos. This is because, being designer brands, they don't need to be eye catching logos or to jump out at you because their brand identity is enough for you to want to buy from them. In this respect the design is very successful as they are showing that they do not need fancy logos to be a good brand.When contrasting the designs, it is very clear that all of them have certain elements which are stereotypical of their category in the market. All of them are effective and successful in their own way and all use totally different characteristics. Food brands are very colourful and representative of what they are selling, delivery brands are plainly coloured with an arrow and designer brands are usually coloured black with a simple design. Because they are all for different purposes, none of them are more effective than the other and all of them are very well known and recognisable brand logos.
No comments:
Post a Comment