5 ms·
Startup Logos from 2010
- calbear81 16y agoI would knock off some points for the "web 2.0" style logos that incorporate elements that don't translate well to black/white print form or cannot be easily recognizable when constrained such as on embroidery.
- Semiapies 16y agoThat seems obvious, but for a company that interacts with customers online...why?
- Periodic 16y agoYou want customers to think about your brand, and to do that you want to give them every exposure you can. You might end up with magazine adds, outdoor adds, or t-shirts, all of which can be strong marketing tools. Putting your logo offline makes your brand seem more concrete, it helps pull you out of the pure virtual realm so that customers can relate to you better.
- Semiapies 16y agoBut which of these logos are going to look bad on a full-color ad or a decent-quality t-shirt?
- shadowpwner 16y agoLook at other examples of a purely online company. I'm not saying not to be innovative, but logo branding is similar offline and online.
- wmwong 16y agoFor non-designers, telling whether something is designed well or not usually is a feeling. It would be very helpful if it could be put into words why each logo was in each category. That usually turns a feeling into substance that can be reused.
- periferral 16y agoi agree. cant really tell what is great about groupon and what is terrible about the echo logo.
- awj 16y agoAlso, SimpleGeo and StockTwits seem to be using about the same concept: use the company name as the logo, replace a letter with a symbol representing the business. The former is "good" while the latter is "average", and without an indication as to why it looks like this list is entirely arbitrary.
- mynameisraj 16y agoI'm a designer… StockTwits has a lot of small issues with its logotype which contributes to its 'average' label. The type is not kerned correctly, uses an awkward typeface (look at, for example, the w), and has that odd messages icon on top of the i. SimpleGeo, on the other hand, has a beautifully kerned typeface, contains a more recognizable logo (note the compass; this is something that can eventually become instantly recognizable), and is overall simpler- by that, I mean that it can be used in a large variety of mediums (note the color in StockTwits' logo). Overall, the main difference is in the type itself- tall, awkward, and lanky type versus medium, large, and overall more visually clear type.
- bherms 16y agoI agree too... Categorizing these based on subjective gut reaction from a single person takes away any credibility from the author.
- foresterh 16y agoSame here... I think a lot of the ugly ones are great, and the great ones are ugly.
- pedrokost 16y agoIt seems that logos with rounded fonts are worse than logos with more 'squary' letters (I realize I lack some appropriate terminology). Could that be because squary fonts are more serious looking, more trustworthy?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- dasil003 16y agoGithub Octocat is not a logo, it's a mascot, and a damn awesome one at that.
- guywithabike 16y agoAsk yourself: If she didn't have the headers, could you tell what order the list was in (good to bad or bad to good) or where the line was drawn? I sure couldn't.
- dhimes 16y agoI agree. I can see that the fonts in Yinzcam and meesocial don't work, but I can't see why, for example, Crowdrise is worse than Boxee.
- tomdeal 16y agoAside from the subjective Good/Average/Bad this is a very nice list of how logos in 2010 looked. Most of them are simple and clean. If I remember correctly, in 2008/2009 we had a lot of shiny logos with shadows (the typical web2.0 look) which has been abandoned almost entirely. This years logos are more designed than just made, they invlove more of the product they represent.
- to 16y agoyeah why is the octocat under ugly? i mean i get 4square, that thing looks like someone colored a volleyball poster from the 60ies...