That is a crazy-ass website, I’m in love.
Me too! - I can’t believe that got turned down.
The problem with that one, to me, is that it isn’t at all obvious what the contraption is. You’d need to be an optometrist to recognize it – and then you would probably not be the target audience for the business cards.
The problem with cliches is that they might get designers sniffing disdainfully, but they get the point across to the mass audience. That’s how they got to be cliches in the first place. And sure, you could pay a designer a few thousand for a truly inspired, unique, and clear logo. You’d also never ever recoup your investment. You’re promoting your services (which aren’t logo design), not entering design competitions.
I probably can’t source this now, but a while back I came across an article discussing office building design. One of the claims there was that there are buildings that win design awards, and there are buildings that the occupants love – and very rarely if ever are those two the same building.
1 Like
Do you wear glasses? I do, and I recognized the image right away.
I’m also a designer.
A mass audience isn’t who you’re targeting when you work in a specialized field. You’re directly targeting people who need your services, and will be familiar with them. So, it makes just as much sense to use a phoropter for an optometrist as it does to use a stethoscope for a doctor.
In the end, it’s always best to make your client happy. So if a client wants what everyone else has, then give that to them.
1 Like
This was my response as well, having looked through one of those my entire life I’m more than familiar with being asked “Which is better, number one or number two?”
Maybe if you don’t need an optometrist you don’t know what that thing is, but for people who sit in the chair once a year it’s pretty common. It would be like having one of those suction thingers the dentists use on your card, you know it if you’ve seen one.
1 Like
I do, and I had no clue what it was. Despite more optometrist visits than I care to count I had no idea what the device was – or what it was called, for that matter. As far as I’m concerned the image could just as easily have been of a car transmission.
Optometrists don’t provide a specialized service any more so than car mechanics do. What percentage of Western population has used the services of optometrists? I’ll wager it’s at least somewhere between a quarter and a half. But most people see an optometrist once every year or two. I don’t memorize the names or appearance of my dentist’s instruments, either – and I see her four times as often.
And I suspect you’re speaking at least partly as one when it comes to the obviousness of this logo. I’m speaking entirely as a consumer here, and as a consumer this particular logo would not have helped me understand what services the specialist was offering. Without the text to explain the logo I would have been utterly lost.
But all that said, I’m wondering if that’s even the purpose of the logo. As a designer, what do you aim for? That immediate recognition of the sort of service the logo owner offers, or branding, meaning the logo can be abstract so long as it’s memorable and is immediately associated with the owner on subsequent encounters?
1 Like
Oh, I’m intimately familiar with the device. But I still don’t feel the logo is a good representation of it.
Edit Staring at the logo and actual phoropter photos some more, I think I see what my problem is with the logo: It’s slanted. Now, I don’t know what shape your face is, but my eyes don’t sit at a diagonal. The only association I’m getting with the phoropter logo is of a conveyor belt drive sprocket.
1 Like
At least two people other than you knew what that logo image was. Even though you didn’t, you still would have gotten the information, and the logo is recognizable for you to find at a later date.
Your statement above is completely true of the logo chosen, which only depicts the initials, and then uses a popular branding style. No one at all could know what the company offers without wording explaining it. Not only that, it might not be findable if too many other companies choose that design.
1 Like
You had two people who, when shown the image, went “that’s a phorometer”? (which is very different from being told “that’s a phorometer” and going “oh yeah, of course!”)
I can identify a phorometer with ease (aside from not knowing its actual name until today). But the highly stylized representation we’re talking about is a different story entirely. I agree, it’s more recognizeable than other logos, but I would associate it with the business name through memory rather than any meaning inherent in the shape.
As far as getting the information, yes, I would have. I would have also gotten the exact same information from the words East Country Family Optometry" written on a white rectangle in Comic Sans. That’s hardly a convincing argument in favour of the logo.
You tangentially touched on my last question: Whether a clear meaning associated with the logo was more important than the audience’s ability to recognize and associate the image with the business on subsequent encounters. I would argue that the latter is the more important of the two. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the topic.
1 Like
“THE ICONIC MANKA OX LOGO – designed by my uncle – the great Khan Manka (Sr.) - IS BACK!” […] “After Khan Manka’s death in 1937, my father – the asshole Harry Manka – said he always hated the Ox logo…”
Ahahaha, this is great.
Actually, I knew what it was as soon as I saw it, and thought, “Wow! That’s really clever.” I won’t speak for @SteampunkBanana. He can chime in on that, if he’d like to do so. Here’s an image of a photometer.
All the logo designer did was select to use the central lenses and omit information she considered unnecessary - that’s exactly how you design a logo illustration from a real, complex object. Logos are often best when identifiable alone, but not all are dramatically representative. In fact, some logos are only abstract. May I present Adidas? Their logo, in all forms has been abstract, and about company philosophy, not product. It’s the recognizability of the logo that helps to sell the product.
Getting your memory to work for you is a major point of a logo. Simplicity is another one. The fact that this logo is a simple line drawing means that it can be edited and used in many ways. Usability is really important in logo design - if you can’t see the image small (like on a card), or enjoy it large (like on a billboard), it’s useless.
Not really. Thanks to the expert fallacy, neither one of those suggestions would have suggested a technical professional. In the example, both the design and typeface chosen do just that. (Also, please don’t use straw man arguments.)
I thought I already answered your question - some logos are literal, some abstract, and some are midway between. The reason that the phorometer logo fares better with me than the ultimate choice made by the client is that they chose something abstract that other people are also sure to be using. It’s fine to be abstract, if you’re unique. Otherwise you risk getting lost in the crowd of all the other people using a currently popular abstract design.
Even if people don’t quite understand the phorometer logo, they’ll recognize it and tie it to that company. It won’t look like every other business in town. She didn’t make some outrageous un-reproduceable set that would never fit to a design space. This was a standard designer working on a normal design problem, and she provided a workable solution.
That was very informative, thank you for the insights. I have some background reading to do now, methinks.
Though you may want to brush up on your logical fallacy definitions. Illustrating my point with an extreme example is not the same as substituting the original premise with a weaker one for the purpose of demolishing it.
Hi waterloonie, thanks for your comment.
I’m well aware of the definition of the strawman fallacy. When I spoke about a strawman fallacy, I was referring directly to the quote I pulled. In design, placing comic sans on a plain white rectangle is an example of extreme exaggeration. It’s basically anti-design with no additional information projected other than the inexperience of the designer. As you aren’t a designer yourself, you may not have realized that you did make a strawman argument.
Comic sans is well known by designers, and is often considered a heartily reviled, and still very useful typeface. People go to great lengths to avoid using it. Here’s a humorous take on the topic to show you just how extreme that emotion is. (NSFW language)
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
