Logo is the clothing

Everyone has an opinion on design. Below every new logo posted you may find comments such as: “I could’ve done this for free”, “a logo has to be simple”, “this one looks just like…”. Design is very simple to judge and that is why everyone thinks they are dead right.

However, not a single professional designer is able to “dot the i’s” once and for all. There is no software that can definitively tell you: “This logo is 46% more successful than the previous one and will attract the core audience of housewives at the age of 30 to 45”. Instead, we are left with MBTI archetypes, brand platforms and communication strategies. But mistakes even the huge agencies and brands make show that the latter do not work all that well.

That is the reason for design to be sprawling with all these myths, misbeliefs and subjectivity. Not to stray off the path surrounded by this chaotic mess, I use the following metaphor that never failed me yet. Hopefully, it helps you understand the design world better.

Analogy

Brands are often compared to people, for they have character, ambitions, friends and enemies. I suggest treating logos and corporate identity just as you would treat clothing. Let us see, how this works:

Asking, “how much does this logo cost?” is basically the same as “how much does the clothes cost?”. The answer is obvious: it depends. On whether you buy it at your nearest marketplace in order to save a few bucks or whether you prefer top tier suit, which, to be honest, not everyone is able to appreciate. Therefore, one should decide based on their earnings and common sense.

“Is logo any important for my company?” is basically the same as “is work clothing any important?”. If you are an attorney at law and hold meetings with your potential clients, then buying an expensive suit will eventually pay off. But if you are a truck driver delivering road metal to your one and only customer then, perhaps, what you wear is not of utmost importance. However, if the aforementioned truck driver is wearing an expensive suit, that is strange. Same goes for logos: an app logo is important, whilst government contractors’ logo would hardly arrest anyone’s attention, for everyone knows it most certainly contains an eagle or a flag or Russian borders outline. And if it does not, that is strange.

“Make a recognizable logo for me” sounds the same as “Make recognizable clothes for me”. It goes without saying, that even a turtleneck with jeans would become recognizable, were you to present a new IPhone every year wearing those. The same goes for logos: a yellow ‘M’ on red background becomes recognizable if it is seen on every single corner. There is no such thing as some special ‘recognizable’ clothing. There is clothing that stands out, but most of the time it is a sore thumb kind of a situation: vulgar and inappropriate. In the end, recognizability depends on what your actions are whilst wearing the clothing and how many people can see you wearing it.

“The logo should be unique” turns into “clothing should be unique”. Being at a party with your friend wearing identical dresses is frustrating. But trying to sew coattails onto your regular jacket because security guards at shopping centers also wear jackets is straight up insanity. The same goes for logos: they should not be alike; everything else is a matter of taste. The fact that a company from a different business field also has a jumping cat for the logo must not bother you — you would not get confused for each other.

Let us apply this clothing metaphor on a bigger scale.

Logo, just as clothing, should not just be pleasing. No one stands in front a café trying to understand whether they like the logo or not. In this instance the design works as a filter “friend-or-foe”: this one, judging by the sign, is a cheap joint for truck drivers, this one is a fast food restaurant and this is one is a fancy restaurant. We all know how they look, after all.

And that is exactly why there is not much sense in asking people “I had a logo made for me, do you like it?”. No one really knows what your project is about and rarely do people judge the logo on the scale of “like it or lump it”. Going back the clothing analogy, you are running the risk of finding yourself at a rock concert wearing a tailcoat. After all, the tailcoat is just a beauty.

But if no one really understands the design, what sense even working on the corporate identity? Once again, back to clothing analogy: people rarely make jackets themselves and follow the fashion trends. However, anyone can draw conclusions based on appearance: this one is a chav and this one is a biker. Whilst, this young lad in jeans and a t-shirt may as well be both a student and a young millionaire — would never know without speaking to one. A programmer may wear whatever he wants, as long as he does his job well. Nevertheless, it is still nice, if it is not a sweater stretched down to the ground.

Conclusion: what should the logo be

Let us draw a conclusion — what should (a logo) the clothing be?

First of all, of high quality. Even when speaking of torn jeans, they still should have legs of the same length and a zipper at the front, not behind.

Secondly, the clothing must match a certain aim. If you are to join the ranks of entrepreneurs at a meeting with investors, choose a strict jacket with trousers. Although, if you want to distinguish yourself from others, wear a screamingly bright t-shirt, jeans and a pair of kicks — you would be all the rage against the rows and rows of jackets.

Thirdly, you should feel comfortable wearing certain clothes. A guy in a screamingly bright t-shirt is either an eccentric genius or a local mouthbreather, who did not understand that it was necessary to come in a jacket. And if he sweats a lot, stutters and twitches, then probably he has an improper image.

But u know, it’s not the clothes that count, but the things the clothes cover.