10 Examples of Simple, Effective Logos
Published November 4th, 2007 in DesignIf you are looking for a new logo, remember that a logo doesn’t need to be fancy to be effective. The purpose of a logo is branding and recognition, which the 10 examples below achieve with simplicity.
48 Responses to “10 Examples of Simple, Effective Logos”
Err.. And the Golden Arches??
They were on the longer list that got cut down.
I have to say, what a simple and effective most. Truly a manifestation of images speaking louder than words. Great job.
I’ve saved you to Delicious and I suspect you will get quite a lot of other traffic from this post.
Maya Norton
The New Jew: Blogging Jewish Philanthropy
That’s a good reminder. I think that sometimes I get to caught up in trying to make something fancy and forget the real purpose.
Are those logos effective because of their simplicity, or simply because we know them so well? The Apple logo has evolved nicely over the years and is very ‘web 2.0′ but Google’s logo hmmm – would another company with a logo like Google’s fly now? I don’t think so! I think it’s a bit 90’s really
Great Post.
I like simple stuffs but over the years logos has been misinterpreted to become a must-complicated stuffs since not much creativity can be craved out with a simple design.
A simple sign might sometimes give out different message in different countries. This is why most of the people who wanted a logo will prefer adding the company’s name or website title on it.
One example will be like Vandelay Website Design but still your design is simple to me. Nice I should say…
I agree with Caroline. We see those all the time. What if we hadn’t? We wouldn’t know what they relate to. I like seeing logos with a simple tagline that tells what the company does or a benefit.
Another nice post.
Caroline, regarding Google’s logo, personally I’d ditch the shadow on the text, although I think that’s only used online? For me, Google needs a very simple logo, because the name is unique. Likewise, if you have a simple name, then the logo needs to be more memorable / unique.
If there’s a weak logo in this list, I’d give the wooden spoon to T Mobile.
It doesn’t need to be the great thing… look at GAP’s logo, It’s simple, but still nice.
@ David: I agree with everything you said… no more words – thanks
Good list.
Wayne: I think the FedEx logo with the hidden arrow is an excellent example of creativity within a simple design.
Caroline,
You’re absolutely right, in most cases the popularity of the brand cannot be ignored. But I think what it shows is that simple logos can be marketed just as effectively and no one thinks of them as being low-budget or sub par logos.
Wayne,
Good points. I think a lot of design is overly complicated in attempt to look impressive or professional. Minimalistic designs in logos and websites can be very effective.
David,
I’m glad you commented here. It’s good to hear from someone who does a lot of logo design. That’s an interesting point about a unique name having a simple logo.
I agree with Pelf… the McDonald’s logo would be more recognizable, compared to say the T-Mobile logo.
*Digged*
Mind you, regarding Google one thing they do have going for them is all the custom logos they do for special occasions – they are *very* cool.
You forgot to mention your own logo. I like it. But out of all major brands, I will go for Apple’s logo. Its attractive and simple.
I stumbled upon your page through a google alert. While I agree these logo’s are simple in execution, they are not effective because of it. Rather, their effectiveness is the result of years of careful branding and public exposure.
Nice list! I’ve tried to get people to understand what works and what doesn’t work in a logo. These are all great examples to try and follow. To many times people not only want some big image that sticks out like a sore thumb but they also want their tagline which consists of 25 words and the name of their company. I try to tell them “THIS IS NOT A LOGO!” hehe.
With logos, you’ve got to keep it simple I think. You don’t have to have all kinds of images and fancy stuff.
Kristoff,
I’m not saying the logos are necessarily effective because of their simplicity. My point is that simple logos can work just as well, or better than, more complex logos.
Deron,
I don’t really do logo design, but I know what you are saying abouts client’s desires. Thanks for your feedback.
I wouldn’t call adidas or tmobile simple. But I totally agree that simple is the way to go to present any content. How would you rate my blog logo?
I guess simple is open to interpretation.
Simplicity in design has always been the hallmark of great logos. Anything by Paul Rand endured decades (IBM among them). They have a classicism that holds visual appeal 30 years ago and 30 years into the future. Web 2.0 is trendy and essentially a filter exercise applied to the flat 2D logo. Try and put that glossy wet looking logo on a mug or tshirt. the price will send you crying back to your BETTER more impactful 2D flat mark. IMO Target is the best somewhat new logo. It pushed through the marketplace into the public consciousness because is “parrots” the name back perfectly… just like Apple’s logo. Nothing beats a simple word with a graphic example distilled to it’s barest essentials. Creativity and hard work in graphic design is practiced by very few people today. Almost everything today is trendy forgettable visual garbage.
I agree, these are good logos. I believe the top one is Target though. It’s just, well, a target.
I’ve realized most brand makers of electronics do stick with the SONY style model… Samsung, Sanyo, Timex, Altec Lansing, Toshiba, HP, Nintendo, Microsoft, Nextel/Sprint, AT&T etc.
I feel like, for restaurants and store, it’s just the opposite as they need to be fancy and stick out until you are more well known. Think of the insane naked siren Starbucks Coffee & Tea logo at the original store, compared to now where most just have STARBUCKS COFFEE written on the building.
I’m a fan of the Starbucks logo, I eve like the original one with the topless mermaid.
Short but good work buddy, i want to say that there is no confusion that simplycity is not working but it’s depends also on company’s own reputation,type of service etc etc….!!
But i would say simplycity always work like black and white color.
haha
I guess simple is open to interpretation.
Simple is always better, but today we see designers going crazy with gradients and calling mastheads logos. Whats your take on that?
I don’t think that Google’s logo is good. It gained popularity just by constan repetition. One problem is the shadow, and another – old style typeface with its edgy corners.
Anyway, I like how Google uses the letter “o” for the page count.
Trackbacks