Dear Non Logo-Types,
Some people truly LOVE designing logos. It’s their favorite part of graphic design. These people are usually smart and conceptual thinkers who enjoy the technical and executional intricacies that go into perfecting them. And this is obviously an awesome and marketable skill for a designer to have. For some reason, though, the ability to design logos has become synonymous with being viewed as a successful graphic designer, and I cannot tell you how many feel they’ll struggle in the industry if logos aren’t their strong suit.
So, I want to make a couple of things clear.
A brand is so much more than a logo. . .
…and you can still be a very valuable and marketable designer even if you don’t have a single mark in your book.
Here’s a note I sent to a past student who was concerned about her abilities tied to mark-making.
I know you mentioned you don't feel that you are well versed in logos / marks. I think it's great that you want to get better at them, and i think you should totally push yourself to do so. but, i also wanted to let you know that you can still be a VERY valuable designer even if logos are not your thing. I have good ideas for logos, but i'm not as interested in perfecting them / making them as i am all the other stuff in a branding system...typeface / image / pattern /texture / illustration / icons / etc… And that's ok! A logo is obviously very important, but if a brand rides on a logo alone, it can get very boring and one note...so all that other stuff i mentioned is ESSENTIAL to branding and the look, which you are very good at!
2. We can’t be masters of all
Since when did it become necessary or expected that designers be equally talented and
well-versed in every area of the field?
I feel like places expect us all to be amazing at every part of design, but that's like expecting a professional writer to be amazing at writing every genre or a doctor to know how to solve EVERY medical problem. This is why there are specialties! :)
My advice for all of you non logo-types…
If mark-making isn’t your thing, and you must present some kind of logo, it’s totally fine to do something very simple and wholly typographic so that the mark takes more of a backseat to the remainder of the system. Don’t necessarily strive for a conceptual solve. Stay understated. It can simply be a nice typeface. See the awesome example below designed by Content and Forms.
And here’s another by untitledmacao. Again, more of a typographic treatment as opposed to a true logo.
I “accidentally” bought myself a bunch of design books recently and would highly recommend Graphic Fest. It’s a collection of fair and festival branding systems, and seriously, almost every example’s identity rides on all the “other stuff” that isn’t the logo. YES. There are logos present, but in the way I tend to see those specifically uninterested in creating logos handle them — in a more simplified but very fitting typographic way. Nothing wrong with that! I would DIE to get to design any of the examples in this book, and I would feel totally capable in terms of handling these types of marks.
Click image to purchase!
So, what are your thoughts on this? Are you a logo-loving type? Or not your thing? Would love to hear anything and everything on the subject.
