Causation, correlation or just crazy questions?
Great logos seem to have some sort of magical quality. It’s surely true that a significant part of creating a great logo is art or even magic. Otherwise, we could simply create an algorithm and dispense with the branding/logo developer consultants in one push of a button.
I don’t think Dave is trying to say there isn’t any art and, that if you follow these steps, you too can create a logo to match the greatest logos of all time. So let’s leave the art or magic out of this discussion. Let’s also agree that Dave’s article is very useful as a guide to making better logos.
But, I am curious about the science behind logos.
To cut to the chase, it is in test #4 “Is it Memorable?” where I begin to wonder if we aren’t using some kind of circular reason to explain why a logo is great. Something like — we remember this logo, so it must be memorable. I’m probably butchering circular reason here, but it got me thinking. I began thinking about why the a logo might be memorable and specifically looking at the examples Dave uses — Budweiser, Dorritos and Lexus.
Let’s take Budweiser.
Is the Budweiser logo memorable because it’s memorable or because you have seen 1,000,000,000 impressions of this during your childhood, adolescence and adulthood while watching just about any sport?
How would the logo gods (or Dave — because he is more likely to answer) address this question? — I really want to know, as I am sure there must be a scientific answer to support the importance of the test #4.
Perhaps I am just too curious? Or more likely, maybe I am asking a stupid question?
But, it doesn’t stop there.
I got excited about understanding what was going on with the science behind this logo testing thing when Dave introduces test #6 “Is it Timeless?”. Ok, this is where I might be straying into existential thought by asking the following question:
Can anything be timeless, really?
Doesn’t everything originate (particularly when we talk about fonts and design) at a particular time? Perhaps script fonts are timeless because they remain relevant across many decades — but, then I start thinking that script fonts make me think classic, old fashioned, established. They don’t make me think timeless.
I’m pretty sure there is a good answer to the question. An answer that backs up the scientific approach of creating a timeless logo.
Still following along?
It gets worse, for me — that is.
Test #7 “Is it Simple?”. This seems like a good test on the face of it. I love simplicity and who is going to argue with the example of Nike — not me! But, from a scientific standpoint I wonder if this holds up. Or put more humbly — I wonder what is the science of simplicity. For functional stuff, simplicity refers to the least amount of complexity to make something useful. In fashion, simplicity feels like it’s just the least — period. And yet a logo falls somewhere between a functional product and fashion.
Let’s look at an example:
Imagine a room full of people looking at flash cards of logos. Or better yet, playing that logo game available for your iPad — my son plays it when he is bored. Now, think back to psychology 101 and ask yourself this question:
Would someone remember a logo because it is simple or complicated?
I know this sounds like a ridiculous question, but when I think of the things I remember, it’s a mish mash of simple and complicated things. Ummm, wait, perhaps I am mixing up the tests in this last question (memorable and simple)?
In any event, it would be awesome if someone (Dave?) could help me out with the science behind logo creation. I’m pretty sure I will never be able to learn the magic, but perhaps by understanding the science a bit more I can start to put a real value on the magic.
