Susan, IBM is not only great because it was conceptual (the lines represent speed, dynamism and actual lines of information, which was their business) at a time when logos were little more than type, but it is a nicely balanced, highly professional logo that fits the company perfectly.
SFW, I guess they are whatever you would use to judge “greatest”. Mine would be beauty, success (at communicating the brand), staying power, context, flexibility (in its various applications), wit, and symbolism.
Btw, does everyone know about the little arrow (between the “e” and “x”) in the FedEx logo? I didn’t know about it until YEARS after they redesigned it.
I learned about it a few years ago from my daughter, who learned about it from her jr high art teacher. Ever since then my kids get excited whenever they see a Fed Ex truck.
Mercedes
Harley Davidson
Coca-cola
McDonalds
Olympics
X (the seminal L.A. punk band)
New York Yankees
American Airlines
MGM (Metro Goldwyn Mayer)
Union 76
Pixar
Budweiser
Jack Daniels
NBA
Starbucks
Superman
Target
Microsoft
UPS
Wells Fargo
In-N-Out
Playboy
RKO Radio Pictures
A Band Apart (movie production company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Band_Apart )
Matt,
Mercedes, Olympics, Yankees, Superman, Target, (old) UPS, In-N-Out and Playboy are all fantastic. Any of those could be pushing for that #5 spot.
When we say the Mercedes and Yankees logos are among the best, are we conflating the bare logo with what the company has done with it? Is the Yankee logo objectively better (under your criteria above) than the similar “NY” Mets logo? Or countless other similar logos? Are we just allowing ourselves to be influence by how old it is, and what is has become associated with over the last 100 years? Same with Mercedes. The design of the logo doesn’t seem all that special — just an inverted Y in a circle, really. If Yugo bought the symbol from Mercedes, would you still be impressed by the logo itself, as opposed to everything it stands for?
Comment by Greg Call — September 7, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
Say what you want, but no symbol has stronger brand recognition and instant realization than the swastika. Nothing like a genocide/holocaust to establish your brand. That probably doesn’t make a logo “great,” as in, “cool,” but it’s darned effective.
Comment by Supergenius — September 7, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
I think the old, swirly Coca-Cola type is the most enduring product graphic ever created; still used today worldwide.
Also, here’s an overlooked “logo” that’s very effective: on Steinway & Sons, two S shapes back to back with an ampersand makes a lyre/harp. It’s on every Steinway piano lid.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 7, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
About the “arrow” in FedEx, I mentioned it the last time you started a thread on logos here at Kulturblog.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 7, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
This is the greatest sports logo ever. It’s among the best team names ever, too. When New England was awarded a World Hockey Association franchise, it was competing against the Bruins of the NHL, so to differentiate it they called it the Whalers, a play on WHA’ers.
This is already the worst sports logo ever, and it hasn’t seen the ice yet.
Greg brings up a good point. The question to answer is which logos best help the entity they represent. That’s a much more complicated question to answer than which ones are most prominent/recognizeable/aesthetically pleasing. Logos and companies have kind of a symbiotic relationship and it’s hard (impossible?) to tell how much each contributes to (or diminishes) the other’s success.
Because the Nike swoosh is included, I am assuming we are looking at iconic symbols as well as words?
There are some timeless or aged symbols/logos that maybe should be mentioned. The cross, the star of david, the Islamic moon symbol.
The swastika is similar … it’s been around since long before the Nazis. Too bad such a cool-looking design became so strongly associated with evil and genocide.
There is the skull-and-crossbones image associated with pirates.
Of course, talking about things like that might be breaking the category so that it is too wide.
Greg & Tom,
Good questions. In my criteria I mention context and success so I’d say yes, those things are important to consider. Does the success of a company make the logo seem better (Mercedez) or has the logo helped make the company more successful. I don’t know. Do I listen to pop music because I’m miserable or am I miserable because I listen to pop music?
Supergenius & Dan,
I was going to put in the swastika (and the cross) but figured that was more a discussion on symbols than logos so I just kept it within the corporate arena. There is a very blurry line though.
D,
You’re right that Coke is the most enduring and recognized brand/logo, I just don’t think it’s very “good”, meaning I don’t think there was very much thought put into it when it was created. It looks like most other “logos” of the time…Coke just happened to last longer than everything else.
I don’t think you can entirely separate the aesthetics or design of the logo with what the company represents, what they have done with the logo. Both criteria are factors in making certain logos iconic. Yes, the Mercedes logo is simple, but its simplicity is what makes the logo so recognizable. Having said that, it makes the list because of what Mercedes has done with it. If that logo represented Yugo, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But the same could be said for the Nike logo.
I agree about the Coca-Cola logo that it was simply designed to be…beautiful type. But I think you’re overlooking its power. Coke has been around 130 years, and if they wanted to change the logo, they could have. They actually changed the drink itself without changing the logo. THAT’s power.
I’ve got the impression you don’t think designers before a certain time were very good, or thought about what they were doing, and I think that’s a mistake.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 8, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
D,
You’re wrong about what I think of previous designers. The problem lies with the fact that so much of this stuff wasn’t really even “designed”. There were no branding or corporate identity firms back then. I just think that those earlier logo designers (illustrators really) didn’t realize how impactful their logos could/would be. It’s not a matter of “not thinking” or laziness or anything on their part, it’s just the way business was run back then.
What’s so great about IBM?
Comment by Susan M — September 7, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Comment by Susan M — September 7, 2006 @ 11:01 am
What are the criteria, Rusty?
Comment by SFW — September 7, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Susan, IBM is not only great because it was conceptual (the lines represent speed, dynamism and actual lines of information, which was their business) at a time when logos were little more than type, but it is a nicely balanced, highly professional logo that fits the company perfectly.
SFW, I guess they are whatever you would use to judge “greatest”. Mine would be beauty, success (at communicating the brand), staying power, context, flexibility (in its various applications), wit, and symbolism.
Comment by Rusty — September 7, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Btw, does everyone know about the little arrow (between the “e” and “x”) in the FedEx logo? I didn’t know about it until YEARS after they redesigned it.
Comment by Rusty — September 7, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
I learned about it a few years ago from my daughter, who learned about it from her jr high art teacher. Ever since then my kids get excited whenever they see a Fed Ex truck.
Comment by Susan M — September 7, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Try these:
Mercedes
Harley Davidson
Coca-cola
McDonalds
Olympics
X (the seminal L.A. punk band)
New York Yankees
American Airlines
MGM (Metro Goldwyn Mayer)
Union 76
Pixar
Budweiser
Jack Daniels
NBA
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 7, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
A few more…
Starbucks
Superman
Target
Microsoft
UPS
Wells Fargo
In-N-Out
Playboy
RKO Radio Pictures
A Band Apart (movie production company: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Band_Apart )
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 7, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
I also thought of Mercedes and McDonalds. Pixar is a good one, especially if the hopping lamp is included.
I would put Nike’s swoosh at #1.
Comment by Tom — September 7, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
Matt,
Mercedes, Olympics, Yankees, Superman, Target, (old) UPS, In-N-Out and Playboy are all fantastic. Any of those could be pushing for that #5 spot.
Comment by Rusty — September 7, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
Rusty,
When we say the Mercedes and Yankees logos are among the best, are we conflating the bare logo with what the company has done with it? Is the Yankee logo objectively better (under your criteria above) than the similar “NY” Mets logo? Or countless other similar logos? Are we just allowing ourselves to be influence by how old it is, and what is has become associated with over the last 100 years? Same with Mercedes. The design of the logo doesn’t seem all that special — just an inverted Y in a circle, really. If Yugo bought the symbol from Mercedes, would you still be impressed by the logo itself, as opposed to everything it stands for?
Comment by Greg Call — September 7, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
Say what you want, but no symbol has stronger brand recognition and instant realization than the swastika. Nothing like a genocide/holocaust to establish your brand. That probably doesn’t make a logo “great,” as in, “cool,” but it’s darned effective.
Comment by Supergenius — September 7, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
I think the old, swirly Coca-Cola type is the most enduring product graphic ever created; still used today worldwide.
Also, here’s an overlooked “logo” that’s very effective: on Steinway & Sons, two S shapes back to back with an ampersand makes a lyre/harp. It’s on every Steinway piano lid.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 7, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
About the “arrow” in FedEx, I mentioned it the last time you started a thread on logos here at Kulturblog.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 7, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
This is the greatest sports logo ever. It’s among the best team names ever, too. When New England was awarded a World Hockey Association franchise, it was competing against the Bruins of the NHL, so to differentiate it they called it the Whalers, a play on WHA’ers.
This is already the worst sports logo ever, and it hasn’t seen the ice yet.
Comment by Matt — September 8, 2006 @ 8:58 am
Greg brings up a good point. The question to answer is which logos best help the entity they represent. That’s a much more complicated question to answer than which ones are most prominent/recognizeable/aesthetically pleasing. Logos and companies have kind of a symbiotic relationship and it’s hard (impossible?) to tell how much each contributes to (or diminishes) the other’s success.
Comment by Tom — September 8, 2006 @ 9:16 am
Because the Nike swoosh is included, I am assuming we are looking at iconic symbols as well as words?
There are some timeless or aged symbols/logos that maybe should be mentioned. The cross, the star of david, the Islamic moon symbol.
The swastika is similar … it’s been around since long before the Nazis. Too bad such a cool-looking design became so strongly associated with evil and genocide.
There is the skull-and-crossbones image associated with pirates.
Of course, talking about things like that might be breaking the category so that it is too wide.
Comment by danithew — September 8, 2006 @ 9:50 am
Greg & Tom,
Good questions. In my criteria I mention context and success so I’d say yes, those things are important to consider. Does the success of a company make the logo seem better (Mercedez) or has the logo helped make the company more successful. I don’t know. Do I listen to pop music because I’m miserable or am I miserable because I listen to pop music?
Supergenius & Dan,
I was going to put in the swastika (and the cross) but figured that was more a discussion on symbols than logos so I just kept it within the corporate arena. There is a very blurry line though.
D,
You’re right that Coke is the most enduring and recognized brand/logo, I just don’t think it’s very “good”, meaning I don’t think there was very much thought put into it when it was created. It looks like most other “logos” of the time…Coke just happened to last longer than everything else.
Comment by Rusty — September 8, 2006 @ 11:02 am
I don’t think you can entirely separate the aesthetics or design of the logo with what the company represents, what they have done with the logo. Both criteria are factors in making certain logos iconic. Yes, the Mercedes logo is simple, but its simplicity is what makes the logo so recognizable. Having said that, it makes the list because of what Mercedes has done with it. If that logo represented Yugo, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But the same could be said for the Nike logo.
Comment by Matt Thurston — September 8, 2006 @ 11:24 am
I agree about the Coca-Cola logo that it was simply designed to be…beautiful type. But I think you’re overlooking its power. Coke has been around 130 years, and if they wanted to change the logo, they could have. They actually changed the drink itself without changing the logo. THAT’s power.
I’ve got the impression you don’t think designers before a certain time were very good, or thought about what they were doing, and I think that’s a mistake.
Comment by D. Fletcher — September 8, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
D,
You’re wrong about what I think of previous designers. The problem lies with the fact that so much of this stuff wasn’t really even “designed”. There were no branding or corporate identity firms back then. I just think that those earlier logo designers (illustrators really) didn’t realize how impactful their logos could/would be. It’s not a matter of “not thinking” or laziness or anything on their part, it’s just the way business was run back then.
Comment by Rusty — September 8, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Amen Susan #2. It’s definitely the coolest band symbol.
Comment by Eric Russell — September 9, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
You forgot about the best known symbol around the world - the Red Cross
Comment by D Evans — September 12, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
The IBM logo (known internally as “the 8-bar”) is exceptional in how it has stood the test of time. How many logos from 1972 or earlier look less dated that it? I think that in order to really appreciate it you need to look at a cleaner rendering of it.
I’m probably biased, but I think it could be ranked even higher. If IBM ever changes the logo it will be a move of desperation.
Comment by a random John — September 12, 2006 @ 2:44 pm