I had wanted to make this a monthly post because really – what could be easier than posting someone else’s work that you can either critique or rave about and just be done with it?
To be frank, the main problem is that I really don’t see logos for non profits that I like very much. Logo’s don’t need to cost a lot, they just need someone to think about that they are doing and be appropriate and relevant to the charity. (And by the way, I don’t care what anyone says, but a logo designed by your board is NEVER going to be a good thing.)
So let’s take a look at the pro’s and con’s of my logo of the month.
At first glance, I really like it. It is simple, memorable, and would reproduce well at small and large sizes. The type face is a contemporary sanserif called Bree which is notable for it’s stylized characters. But when I started to really look at it as a communicator and designer, it started to lose it’s shine.
The use of emoticons. Are we there? If this is a logo for a charity whose demographic is younger – it would be fine. But I’m not sure my dad would get this (no offense dad!).
The actual mark. Obviously this is a logo designed by a designer who wanted to make a cool logo but I think they didn’t do their homework. Being schizophrenic does not mean you are happy and maybe sad at the same time, or you two people at once – it’s about the distortion of a person’s reality. This mark does not speak to that. It plays on a common misconception about what schizophrenia is.
The type face. I do like it – but ideally – the type face should say as much about the charity as the mark does. But with a few little tweaks, it could have gone much further.
Agree? Disagree?
I welcome you to send me some of your favourite logos for consideration for Logo of the Month.
Absolutely on target, John. Any logo needs to pass the “fresh test” and I’m not even referring to the viewing public. Will it still be fresh five years from now? (In fact, is an emoticon fresh even today?) Second, be wary of subjective qualities like cleverness and humor in something as permanent and universal as a logo. As you correctly point out, what seems witty to someone who does not deal with the everyday pain of schizophrenia, may feel insensitive and even false to those on the “inside.” Obviously, we don’t know what this if for–hopefully it’s not for something that will brush up against people who have to deal with the disease.
Your review is bang on.
At first I thought it was clever too – but that’s where it ends. Spend more than a few seconds and you realize all the points you also bring to light about appropriateness and demographics and you quickly realize this logo is off the mark.
Logos need to be more than just “cool”. They need to represent the heart of an organization and have the strength to stand strong for years to come.
Thanks john and Mark for your comments. The mark was created by designer Josiah Jost and is available for sale through his site for $300 US. And John, like you, I am hoping to not see this “logo” become the face of any charity.
I didn’t like the logo right off the bat. As someone who has had the opportunity to work with the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, I am disturbed that someone would create a logo that misrepresents what schizophrenia is. It is not a multiple personality disorder or bipolar disorder. This logo also puts the label of “schizophrenic” on someone who suffers from schizophrenia, rather than treating them as a person. Again, I guess we don’t what this logo is for and where it would be used, but I personally don’t like it.