26 Feb 2004 | pek said...

I like the concept and his line of thinking. I don't like that cap G - too supercilious for my tastes.

26 Feb 2004 | tron said...

What browser is that? All the background stuff could go - I like google how it is now - white no bitmapped typewriter etc. Perhaps google could make it permissible to allow someone to upload their own skin if they saw fit. I wouldn't but maybe someone would.

26 Feb 2004 | Charbel said...

With alltheweb.com you can use your own skin...I like the infinity concept, but not the way it was implemented here...

26 Feb 2004 | pb said...

It's interesting. Despite how agonizingly awful Google's logo is, you wonder if it works really well for them.

26 Feb 2004 | JF said...

Honestly, I don't think logos matter much. They might matter to designers, but not to the general public (sometimes we designers think we constitute 90% of the population). As long as they are "acceptable" they're fine.

26 Feb 2004 | pek said...

pb, it is kind of funny - I like what Shepard has done, but in the back of my head I kept asking myself - "where's all the color"? Now, alltheweb's logo - magnifique! Psyche!

26 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

...agonizingly awful Google's logo...

Google's logo, I believe, is brillant. They've created a brand which takes a number so huge and hard to fathom and brings it down to a simple, childlike approachability. Same with their easy to use interface.

Irony at its best.

26 Feb 2004 | dmr said...

What about the Josh Davis version? I really like the idea of physical references in the digital environment; that sounds geekish yo. Is this an easy way to find out where Tufte likes to eat pizza? Maybe.

26 Feb 2004 | Brad Hurley said...

When Google first appeared, the reason I chose to use it instead of AltaVista was because its home page took no time at all to load on my 56k modem connection. And that was due to the simplicity of its logo and lack of graphics on the page. AltaVista's search page took forever to load because it was full of unecessary graphics and ads.

I love how Google plays with their logo on holidays, and if you have the Google toolbar (windows only, unfortunately) the search box also gets dressed up. It was full of little hearts on Valentine's Day. Nice touch.

26 Feb 2004 | Tim said...

I'm surprised he didn't suggest something like this...

Hmmm. Maybe Google will do it on National Obey Day.

26 Feb 2004 | Matthew Oliphant said...

Honestly, I don't think logos matter much. They might matter to designers, but not to the general public...

Generally I agree, but I think logos carry a significance that can sometimes push the limit of good branding. My company (like most I am sure) has lots of toys and items with the company logo. I brought a branded "basketball" home to my daughter and she pointed to the logo and said (at age 2.25), "That daddy's work."

That's good market penetration.

On the Google logo, I think it might be better if the infinity symbol was not quite closed on one end, perhaps with an arrow on one stem. Google is not infinity, but it approaches infinity. But I wouldn't change their logo.

26 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Jason, logos don't matter? You crazy?

You can sell *anything* on the web, I'm convinced, if you have slick packaging and graphics. That's all it takes.

I posted this idea in my blog a few weeks back. Somebody give me an idea of what to sell, I'll make up a whiz-bang web site and graphics and I'll give them 20 percent of my first year profits.

I could retire on this idea ... if I could just come up with a product to sell. Hmmmmm ...

Logos matter; Google's is good.

26 Feb 2004 | matthew said...

I like the "G" and the infinity symbol but I don't care for the typewriter. What I like most, though, is Ideo's vision.

26 Feb 2004 | Tim said...

Honestly, I don't think logos matter much. They might matter to designers, but not to the general public...

I think logos are part of the quest for recognizeability. Simply stated, a logo's purpose is to make a brand instantly recognizable to as many people as it possibly can. On that note, the logo makes up for a lack of potential recognizability of the brand itself...the name. "Apple" the word means a lot of things to a lot of people (the recognizable logo focuses it to the specific brand).

It's been written about, i'm sure, over and over, but Google has managed to create a brand (a word) that is immediately recognizeable...it's a verb, it's a noun, it's a company...that all points to the same thing. Hence, I believe, there is less of an impetus to create a snazzy, memorable logo.

Or something. I'm no logo-ologist.

26 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

...you wonder if it works really well for them...

Huh? You can't really have doubts - can you pb?

Even my 86 year-old father-in-law talks about "googling" something on the web.

I've never heard anyone say "lets altavista or alltheweb - or even yahoo it."

In the south, it's not uncommon for someone to say "I'm going to go get a Coke" and come back with an entirely different brand. Coke became a generic term for soda just as Google is becoming a generic term for search.

Again, I think the simplicity and friendliness of the brand has alot to do with that.

26 Feb 2004 | Jason Fried said...

No, Don, I'm not crazy. Well, OK, I am crazy, but not because I don't think logos really matter. As long as it's not "horrible" (subjective, yes), then it's fine.

26 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

In the spirit of one of the top five movies of all time, "Hi Fidelity" ... the top five logos of all time are ... ???

26 Feb 2004 | ML said...

Logos are like band names. A cool one helps. But in the end, it's the music that matters.

26 Feb 2004 | Charbel said...

The simpler the logo, the more effective...Look at the IBM logo...or even Microsoft which is just normal type...

Logos only add value, but never degrade from the value of a company because it's all about the product...Now, for companies that are solely web based, then logos (and website presentation) matter much more because it is the only way the company interacts with customers...

26 Feb 2004 | stone said...

top five logos of all time are ... ???

With the specification "of all time", you slant the playing field towards those that have been around the longest. I'm thinking here of religeous signs: the magen david, the buddha, the cross, the crescent, etc...

26 Feb 2004 | Belen said...

Top logos (must include, but not necessarily be limited to):

McDonald's
Nike (and, related: e.g. Michael "Air" Jordan)
the USSR's hammer & sickle (see below)
Volkswagen
Starbuck's (modern addition)

The above list was generated according to the thought that the "top" logo must be have the widest recognition (penetration) AND stimulate any viewer to think of/respond nearly identically to other viewers. Another interpretation may generate a different list altogether.

26 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

... widest recognition (penetration) AND stimulate any viewer to think of/respond nearly identically to other viewers...

Along those lines you would have to include the Microsoft (Windows) and Apple logos.

Those two especially stimulate like-mindedness both postively and negatively - depending on which side of the fence you're on.

26 Feb 2004 | Chris from Scottsdale said...

Awhile back everyone was discussing this site which asks people to draw popular logos (I think it was from Europe so has a slant towards companies over there).

monochrom's attempt to evaluate the actual power of brands by making Austrian people draw a total of twelve logos (nine international, three typically European) from memory, 25 people per brand.

I tend to agree with the thought that logos don't matter. I honestly hated Google's logo when it first came out but now I can see the value in having a fun brand that the masses like and doesn't follow convention. Why would they want to be like everyone else? Do it up wierd and play with it a bit.

26 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

I'm guessing the reason Google didn't include the inifinity symbol is precisely for a reason the designer noted: "The number Google is finite, but its so large that it is infinite for all practical purposes."

When part of your brand image is the precision and accuracy of your search results, you don't adopt a logo that shows that "close enough" works for you.

Honestly, I don't think logos matter much.

Define "matter." Seriously. The question of whether logos matter or not depends on the objective you're speaking of. Does a logo matter to someone who's not familiar with your brand to begin with? No. Is it a valuable tool in reinforcing existing brand impression and recognition? It's a question pretty much worthy of a response of "duh."

Speaking of recognition, here's a fun little thing to drive you insane: The Retail Alphabet Game.

26 Feb 2004 | One of several Steves said...

By the way, the proposed logo and page design both suck. Especially the page design. Part of Google's brand image is complete simplicity and task focus, and that page completely disrupts everything. And the logo has gone sterile.

While I'm at best lukewarm to the current Google logo (hey, it's no worse than Yahoo's - oops, I'm sorry, Yahoo!) one of the things I love is how they deliberately mess with it on certain days, as Brad mentioned. Breaks one of the most basic rules of brand identity management, but it works beautifully for them.

26 Feb 2004 | Hagbard Celine said...

All well and good, except "google" isn't a number. A "googol" is 10^100. The brand name may have been derived from the number, but they are not the same.

Tangentially, dictionary.com notes that "googol" was coined at the age of nine by Milton Sirotta, nephew of Edward Kasner (1878-1955), American mathematician.

26 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

...All well and good, except "google" isn't a number. A "googol" is 10^100. The brand name may have been derived from the number, but they are not the same...

Sure they are...from a marketing standpoint. How successful do you think they would've been with the proper name googol?

Personally, I'd be afraid (withiin the context of this discussion) of what I might find at a site named "googol.com"

26 Feb 2004 | Matthew Oliphant said...

And that's how I know they have good branding. I know how googol is spelled, but I still typed Google.

And googol.com needs some interface help.

26 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

A bit off topic, but just because it might be interesting, here is a link to the original college paper that was written by the founders outlining the plans for Google.

Pretty interesting - sorry for the OT.

27 Feb 2004 | coudal said...

Thanks for the OT Mark. Brilliant. How have I never seen that before? Plus, it distracted me from getting all worked up about "Honestly, I don't think logos matter much" and "As long as it's not 'horrible' (subjective, yes), then it's fine" Sheesh.

27 Feb 2004 | Paperhead said...

I remember reading recently about how fantastically successful the Google logo actually is (with the punters). A good slick corporate logo is all fine and good in the right place. The Google logo is neither slick nor corporate and that is its strength, it makes Google seem friendly and downhome whilst at the same time subconsciously telling you that they have better, more important things to do with their time than having logo meetings and the long drawn out process of creating a slick corporate brand - they are far more preoccupied with giving you the best search engine in the world. That is just so much better than some overly contrived use of an infinity symbol to back up a half-arsed, mistaken, pseudo-intellectual concept.

And Jason's right about logos. Great logos are the ones that worked. It's that simple. They become great with hindsight. This is what highlights the problem with the design of the infinity logo, it's over-conceptualized. There doesn't need to be a tie-in. What, exactly, is the connection between a burger and the golden arches? Oh yeah, it's a big letter M for McDonalds. Is Coca Cola red or white? Does that typeface make you think of a drink. Hell no. Apple? Well, erm...it's an apple with a bite missing (a stroke of genius). Do four rings makes an Audi? Ooh a circle divided into thirds for Mercedes? VolksWagen? Once a logo has worked you can read whatever you want into how and why it succeeded - and most of it will be nonsense. It just worked.

27 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

Respectfully Paperhead, I disagree with you a bit. Great logos don't just "work" by happenstance. They work, because alot of thought went into the message they are trying to convey.

If you look closely, the golden arches are french fries - arguablly what McDonald's is truly famous for.

I've heard several interpretations on the origin of the Apple logo - from a grove of Apple trees, to Newton (which was actually part of one of the early versions of the logo) to, my favorite, a symbol of Eden - the bite indicating the entry into a "brave new world" from what was known and safe.

Coke's been around for a century or more, and yes, that typeface has become synonomous with drinking soda.

I don't know about Audi and Mercedes - four wheels and a steering wheel? But Infiniti is is two parallel lines in perspective stretching out to...well...infiniti - but also appears to be a road in the same perspective. Lexus could be interpretted as a turn in the right direction. The hidden arrow in the FedEx logo doesn't appear by accident.

Even the logo for Basecamp is, in my opinion, a great logo - the graphic strengthens the name by appearing to be a mountain range (where most basecamps would be located), with the valley highlighted by a checkmark - strengthening the purpose of the product.

The logo for 37 Signals on the other hand, does nothing. The graphic doesn't strengthen the name, the name has nothing obvious to do with the service. Sorry guys. Not slamming your service and capabilities, just you choice for a mark.

However, to wrap this novel up - I think the URL 37signals.com/svn is cool because svn is not only short for the obvious but if sounded out sounds like "seven."

Am I right about any of this? Maybe, maybe not. But, after having been in more marketing strategy meetings than I can remember, I know for sure conversations and ideas bounce around like this.

27 Feb 2004 | Paperhead said...

Good points well made Mark.

However, I would have thought that the fact that you have heard several interpretations of the Apple logo somewhat substantiates what I was saying about reading meaning in later. And yes, the Coca Cola typeface has become synonymous with drinking soda, but after the event, with hindsight. The association exists because the logo was successful, not vice versa.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't recognize a Lexus logo if it bit me on the arse, and I'd be hard pushed to draw the FedEx logo without looking - as they are not my carrier of choice, I don't see their logo so often. Perhaps you do. But this illustrates what I meant, if you see a logo often enough and for long enough, it becomes successful. I frequent this site on a reasonably regular basis, so from memory, I would have no trouble drawing the "does nothing" logo for 37signals, so whether it "does nothing" or not, it's in my brain now, in the way that fedex is in yours. A logo is a reinforcement and nothing more, it's the product itself that actually does all of the legwork.

If you use something a lot, you will recognize the logo, be it good, bad, or indifferent. If enough people use the product a lot, it will become a famous logo, and if enough people use it for long enough it will become a great logo. That's why Jason's right, they really don't matter that much, that's the myth of brand.

. . . I hear that there's courses now that can deprogram all that marketing strategy stuff out of people's brains ;-)

27 Feb 2004 | JF said...

Even the logo for Basecamp is, in my opinion, a great logo - the graphic strengthens the name by appearing to be a mountain range (where most basecamps would be located), with the valley highlighted by a checkmark - strengthening the purpose of the product.

We designed that logo in a day, and, in fact, a lot of it happened by accident. Ryan nailed the basic mountain shape, then I came in with the snowglobe idea (holding a project in your hand and looking at it from all angles). The mountains were originally reversed (tall one on the left, short on the right), but then Anil Dash saw it and suggested we reverse them so the valley creates a checkmark (a hallmark of project management). Another side effect of the tall peak on the right short on the left, was the creation of an upward-moving chart with the check in the middle. So, we had the basic idea nailed in a day, but then the rest sort of happened by accident. But, yes, it's a great logo with lots of hidden meaning ;)

The logo for 37 Signals on the other hand, does nothing. The graphic doesn't strengthen the name, the name has nothing obvious to do with the service. Sorry guys. Not slamming your service and capabilities, just you choice for a mark.

That one was actually planned. The 37s logo is an abstract human form facing you with its right hand raised saying "Hi!" It also looks like it might be a "signal" of some sort. It was intended to be friendly and "human" which is how we try to approach our work. However, the 37signals logo was originally developed for my previous company, Spinfree. So, it wasn't really attached to the name 37signals in any meaningful way except that it seemed to fit 37signals better than Spinfree. It seemed like a more natural fit so we went with it.

27 Feb 2004 | JF said...

I should say, once again, that Ryan kicked ass on the Basecamp logo. It really is one the best I've seen. Great execution.

27 Feb 2004 | pb said...

If logos really don't matter then it would be safe for Google to change to something more appealing.

"home page took no time at all to load on my 56k modem connection. And that was due to the simplicity of its logo"

Actually the Google logo could be a lot smaller if it lost all the shading and shadowing and 3D (like ebay).

Here's the question: would Google have more or less success with a "better" designed logo?

27 Feb 2004 | Thumper said...

...the origin of the Apple logo...a symbol of Eden - the bite indicating the entry into a "brave new world" from what was known and safe

Acutally, the creator of the Apple logo, the first striped version presented at a recent Chicago MUG meeting. He indicated that the bite means nothing other than he thought that the mark would be more recognizable as an apple if it had a bite taken out of it.

27 Feb 2004 | Todd Dominey said...

Bleh.

27 Feb 2004 | JF said...

Thanks for the input, Todd ;)

27 Feb 2004 | Don Schenck said...

The Basecamp logo looks like a snowglobe.

I *love* snowglobes. Seriously.

27 Feb 2004 | Mark Fusco said...

Bleh.

Genious! That has the potential to be a great brand! Todd, honestly, as soon as I read that I saw a logo type, slick pagacking and graphics, merchandise out the wahoo...

Great for teenagers and others who prefer not to be a mindless sheep.

Reminded me of what they are doing at despair.com BTW: Check out their demotivator posters - they're brilliant.

Bleh. The anti-brand, brand. - Don, there's an idea for you.

Forethought builds great brands / logos.

27 Feb 2004 | Darrel said...

I don't really get this. It's new wall paper. So what?

No one uses google for the logo or superfluous eye candy.

27 Feb 2004 | Charbel said...

All this talk has made me curious as to what the 37 signals logo represents, or how it came about ????

27 Feb 2004 | steve said...

Charbel, see JF's post above.

27 Feb 2004 | Charbel said...

aaah, thx Steve for the link....I missed that post somehow before (:

29 Feb 2004 | ~bc said...

Is this an easy way to find out where Tufte likes to eat pizza? Maybe.

If Tufte eats pizza, and works at Yale, he then eat's his pizza at Pepe's. Regarded by some as the birthplace of pizza, Pepe's is phenomenal. Regan used to send a Presidential helicopter (Marine One) up to New Haven to pick up pizzas for him. At least that's one of the many tales that surrounds it. Yes, I did use Google to look up this link. (Perhaps I'll comment again with something on that logo, after I read the rest of the thread.) BTW, if you're in New Haven, go. But don't go hungry, the line's out the door and down the street every night.

29 Feb 2004 | ~bc again said...

OK, back as promised. I think the artist's rendition is designy-for-design's-sake. EG, would do great in a classroom critique. That's not a hit against, it means its strong as a design. But its not necessarily appropriate to the Google brand. The Google brand is such: Simple face for average people which allows them to dig deep and usually meaningfully into the internet, which is neither simple nor average. While Google's logo could use a touch up, I think whatever that would be, would have to be honest to the Google ethic. Do no evil with our logo.

29 Feb 2004 | JF said...

The Google logo was just designed by the engineers because they "needed a logo." And it works just fine. Google wouldn't be better or worse today if they would have had a different logo. They'd still be the #1 search engine out there.

01 Mar 2004 | Tony said...

Just from reading through the Wired article in quesion, here's a quick critique:

Joshua Davis' redesign is interesting and practical, but doesn't represent the kind of service which Google provides or wants to provide. It's a relevant alternative to Google, but not something they themselves should be trying to do.

Jenny Holzer's would make for an entertaining art installation but is clearly not meant as a serious proposal.

Shepard Fairey's is awful, and a typical product of somebody who trades in style over substance. It removes all of Googles strong assets in one fell swoop whilst adding nothing in return beyond possible short-term cult appeal.

Ideo's concept is the only one on show which has realistic merit. Recognising that there is nothing wrong with Google as it stands, they have opted to extend the brand into external environments instead. This is exactly the sort of thing Google may need to do in the future - and if they don't then other companies will be trying to license the Google brand and do it for them.

01 Mar 2004 | Hagbard Celine said...

Speaking of all this, you might want to read this article on Google comment spamming. Looks like SVN has been a victim, judging from the post repeated in every comment thread in the archives.

01 Mar 2004 | pb said...

Honestly, I don't think logos matter much.

Define "matter." Seriously.

Has positive bottom line impact. In which case the original poster is correct.

02 Mar 2004 | but that's just me said...

Mr. Mark Fusco...TOTALLY off the subject, but I see from your website that you're seemingly from Houston. You don't happen to be related to Matt Fusco, do you?

06 Mar 2004 | adam said...

what does it mean?

07 Mar 2004 | Donovan said...

Hmm....reminds me of the infinity in Hoobastank's logo, just flipped.

http://www.showandtellonline.com/images_splash/hoobastank.jpg

20 Jan 2005 | lolita said...

Hello folks nice blog youre running