Gareth is a brand identity designer specialising in creative logo design & identity.
He is the author of Smashing Logo Design, a book dedicated to everything 'logo'.
It’s now been just over 5 years since the logo for the London 2012 Olympics Games was revealed and so we finally get to see it in action, much like the athletes. Never before has the design of a logo grabbed so many headlines, with not just designer geeks venting their disgust but the general public chiming in with their own opinion on the oddly shaped & coloured icon. In general, the logo received very negative feedback with one of the most common & scathing critiques being that it looks like something unsavoury. That surely wasn’t music to the ears of Wolf Ollins, the agency behind the controversial design.
This was the original image presented, with its jarring and jagged edges in extreme abstract form coupled with a neon & futuristic colour palette:
Back in 2007 it was claimed that the logo would evolve in the run up to the games, suggesting that with the event being a few years down the line, that it was a bold prediction of how logos could look in the future. Or quite simply, trying to be ‘ahead of the times’. Since the games began I have noticed a slightly cleaner version being used more prominently:
At the official unveiling of the logo, Sebastian Coe, the Chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games, gave some reasoning for the design:
We don’t do bland. This is not a bland city. We weren’t going to come to you with a dull or dry corporate logo that will appear on a polo shirt and we’re all gardening in it in a years time. This is something that has got to live for the next five years.
You can watch a snippet of the unveiling ceremony below if you’re interested:
At the time of its release, I will be honest and admit that I defended the logo to some extent, but deep down I knew it wasn’t great to look at. I think every designer in the world believed they could create something better. I clung on to a belief that maybe they did have the foresight into what could be perceived as cool & relevant in the future and I also admired the way that they seemed to have taken a huge risk in creating something that is different. Being a brand identity designer myself, I know all to well that creating something that looks like everything else is the easy option and actually goes against the principle of creating an identity in the first place. You cannot argue that the London 2012 Olympics logo isn’t unique.
If you take a look at how the logo compares to the previous identities of the last 12 Summer Olympic Games you’ll agree that it stands out and doesn’t conform to the safer & softer abstract trend:
The same can be said for design of the official London 2012 Olympics & Paralympics mascot characters which were unveiled two years ago. Quirkly named Wenlock & Mandeville, they certainly do not follow the traditional cute and loveable template that’s for sure. Again, their design received ridicule from the public & people began to worry that the whole branding exercise was heading for disaster.
A comparison of the mascots for the Summer Olympic Games since 1992:
At this stage though, I noticed that at least there was some form of consistency. The accompanying logotypes for the mascots used the same typeface as in the master Olympic logo, set in the custom designed 2012 Headline. The style of the typeface also received some negative reviews claiming that it looked odd and ‘too greek’ but at least it conformed to the same style as the logo.
Understanding the public reaction
So why was there such a negative reaction? Obviously, the £400,000 that it cost to develop the logo wouldn’t have been easy for the general public to comprehend. When you consider the long in-depth process involved and the enormity of the task to create something that is usable and can be applied to many different mediums, I am not surprised by the price at all. It’s not as if one person was paid all of that money just to draw a few jagged lines and colour them in (most people seeking a logo design actually think this is all logo design involves).
I personally believe the main problem was that the average person on the street couldn’t connect with the image emotionally. Only a few days after the Olympics had opened, my Grandfather asked me what the logo was meant to be. When I explained that it was an abstract representation of ‘2012’ he was very surprised, but it at last made some kind of sense to him. Since the Olympic bid was won the main focus has always been on London and how great it would be for the capital of England to host the games for a record third time. However, there is little reference to London within the logo, and I think that is the main reason why people can’t connect to it. If you look at the Beijing 2008 logo, it was drawn in a traditional Chinese style and this was carried through for the rest of the iconography. The Athens 2004 logo had a subtle reference to Olive wreaths, the traditional prize at the ancient games and the Sydney 2000 logo had subtle references to Australian culture.
But for London 2012, the logo doesn’t encapsulate anything that can instantly be recognised as anything that relates to London, England or Great Britain. I am not saying that it should have included abstract drawings of famous British landmarks or anything that obvious but I think that is what the British public were expecting. You could say that the general public we’re like one giant typical design client, and as soon as they were presented with something that was out of their comfort zone it’s not surprising that the design received such a backlash as it did.
The logo in application
5 years is a long time to wait, and like Coe said, we had to live with the logo and anticipate how it would feature in the broader identity system. Since the games have started, I have to say I am very impressed at the diverse usage of the logo and also how the supporting branding elements really add to the overall experience and interaction.
The biggest factor to note is that everything pulls together really well in a consistent style. The logo looks natural in its surroundings, often presented on backgrounds that follow its diagonal contours.
The illustration style for iconography and ticket design conform to the energetic and vibrancy of the linework.
Even the official mascots look great in situ. If this was in Japan, I’m sure they would be heralded ad bizarre but modern.
I just had to share one of the clever stamp designs below for its ingenuity.
Style in application on a range of other branding deliverables:
So is the logo a success?
Having seen everything as a complete brand identity, I have to admit it’s great. I love how it typifies the energetic and youthfulness of the event. I’m also willing to put good money that the majority of people who have tickets for Olympics and purchase official merchandise featuring the logo were originally critiques of its design. I do however think that it was too radical for a nation to get fully behind, support and be proud of. Though us Brits do tend to be over critical of our own at times.
The problem with trying to predict the future of design is that our assumptions are often way off the mark. For example, when you see movies depicting the world in 2050, the writer assumes that all previous buildings will have vanished, be replaced with super-simplistic gadget-ridden dwellings and that we will all travel using spaceships or hover boards. In reality, progress is always much slower than that, so you have to applaud Wolf Ollins in creating a logo that does look futuristic compared to it’s predecessors, but it could have been much worse.
Overall, it’s been great that everyone has started talking about design and it has definitely helped to gain an interest in the event itself. Who knows, maybe, it was a controversial design on purpose for that exact reason. Is it a logo to cherish? Maybe. Is it memorable? Definitely. It’s up to you to decide whether it stays in the mind for the right or wrong reasons.
Clients, to be fair to them, often don’t receive a fair reputation by us design folk. It’s not their fault that they may ask for some silly requests because, unlike us, they haven’t been educated about the foundations of good and bad design. If they had, they wouldn’t need the help of a designer and so it’s part of our job to help guide them through the process. Admittedly, there will be times during a project that any designer may feel the need to strangle a client due to audacious requirements or communication that borders on abuse (see clients from hell for some funny but serious examples).
I’ve decided to help improve the average client’s reputation by giving them some pointers on how to act in a working relationship on a design project. See below:
Enquiries
Provide as many details as you can. A great designer will understand that questions like ‘how much for a logo?’ rely on many variables before an accurate quote can be given. It’s helpful if an in depth explanation of the problem is giving from the offset.
Be enthusiastic about your project. If you’re not excited about what you are doing, don’t expect anyone else to be either.
Don’t be precious about your needs. Be prepared to know what you want but at the same time embrace expert design advice that could be an improvement.
Be willing to invest in great design. Top quality design services don’t come cheap just because a designer enjoys what they do for a living. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.
Respect a designer’s worth. If you must go down the doomed route of holding a design competition, don’t invite designers to take part. It’s rude, and most won’t want to take part in a scenario where there is a slim chance of getting paid.
Communication
Be approachable. We understand that it’s important to remain professional but being overly serious all the time can stifle creativity. Friendly discussion can help to form an improved working relationship.
Recognise and honour professional expertise. It’s cool that you may have designed your own website back in 1994 but we do this professionally every working day. Leave the design work to the experts and enjoy the ride. You wouldn’t suddenly grab the scissors from a professional hairdresser & start cutting your own hair like a maniac would you?
Understand the purpose of a design brief. If you change your mind about the direction your project is taking, talk to your designer first before making wild requirements that are completely different to the aims and objectives of the design brief. Look. A rainbow.
Respect project timescales. Hearing from a client is always nice but if you are calling every hour to check how we are progressing, it will turn into a living nightmare for a designer. Give them time to work their magic.
We appreciate that from time to time certain situations arise where you are not able to respond as quickly as you had like. If this happens just let your designer know why this is this case. Making up excuses won’t help any working relationship & honesty is always respected.
Feedback
Please don’t get family members involved. It doesn’t really matter what your Aunt Nelly thinks about design.
If you don’t like something tell us why. Great designers give reasons for their design decisions so we expect the same of your opinions. Three word answers aren’t helpful to the process.
Take your time and think. A lot of time and effort will have gone into designing a solution that the designer answers your design brief. Evaluating the proposed concept as a whole and considering the view of the target audience may make you see things differently compared to making a knee-jerk reaction.
Payment
Always meet payment schedules and deadlines. If your designer makes an effort to deliver the work on time then it’s only fair that they should be paid within the agreed timescale. We have to eat as well as draw pretty pictures all day.
Exchanging services is sometimes accepted as payment by designers but don’t be disrespectful. Offering ‘good exposure and future opportunities’ doesn’t put food on the table.
Don’t expect us to work for free. Though pro-bono work for worthy causes is often accepted. (by worthy causes – that’s registered charities etc, not ‘Dave’s new logo fund’.
I’m sure every designer will be able to add at least one piece of advice to clients to this list. Please feel free to do so below.
A mascot – which is defined as any person, animal or identifiable object that is visually used to represent something, can help to bring recognition to a brand identity. As they are also able to help distinguish between competitors and strike an emotional connection with consumers, you could argue that a brand mascot is just as powerful as a logo.
You will notice that most brands that have a mascot will often include them in the official logo artwork. The majority of brand mascots are fictional characters, often drawn in a cartoon style, which therefore creates a fun appearance and helps children to form relationships with their favourite brands. These early choices are often the result of mascots being the focal points of an advertising campaign. It’s argued that children as young as 3 years old are able to identify the character of a certain fast-food chain, amongst other global brands. Through the power of nostalgia, brand loyalty formed at an early age can last a lifetime.
Let’s test to see how powerful the usage of mascots within branding is by seeing how many of the mascots and the brands that they represent you can name from the list below; they get harder as the list goes on:
[spoiler]1. Ronald Mcdonald – McDonalds
2. Jolly Green Giant – Green Giant
3. Jeeves – Ask Jeeves
4. Michelin Man – Michelin
5. Tony the Tiger – Kellog’s Frosted Flakes
6. Mr. Peanut – Planters
7. Pillsbury Doughboy – The Pillsbury Company
8. Kool-Aid Man – Kool-Aid
9. Chester Cheetah – Cheetos
10. Mr. Clean – Mr. Clean
11. Cap’n Crunch – Cap’n Crunch
12. Mr. Pringle – Pringles
13. Fido – 7up
14. Rich Uncle Pennybags – Monopoly
15. Nesquik Bunny (a.k.a. Quiky) – Nesquik
16. Charlie the Tuna – Starkist Tuna
17. Smokey Bear – Unites States Forest Service
18. Hello Kitty – Hello Kitty
19. Elsie the Cow – Bordern Dairy Products
20. Reddy Kilowatt – Electric Company
21. Windy – Zippo[/spoiler]
We are just a few days away from the release of one of the most anticipated movies of all time, The Dark Knight Rises. As with the new Spiderman logo, I thought it would be interesting to compare the new Batman logo to those which had preceded it. As you can see by the great batman logo animation video (via Antupainamku) below, I think you will agree that the recognisable bat shape has gradually got more radical over the years, much like the movies & comics themselves.
I’ve always been interested in knowing about not just the meaning behind some of the world’s most famous logos but also the history of their design. Processes differ between agencies and amongst designers of all skill levels, which means that most famous logos will have been designed using various methods and during differing timescales.
I managed to track down the company responsible for the logo design of one of the most popular social network brands of the 21st Century. That brand is of course Facebook. Mike Buzzard, of Cuban Council generously answered my questions about how they went about designing a logo that is viewed by almost a billion people on a daily basis:
Hi Mike, how did you land the prestigious job of designing the logo for Facebook?
Sean Parker contacted us at the beginning of 2005 after being referred by a friend of his. Our company had 3 people at the time, being the three original founders, myself, Toke Nygaard & Michael Schmidt. We just getting organized with our own business entity, and had yet to establish lasting clients, a line of credit or anything of the sort; we were working project to project.
Was there a design brief in place and if not how was the direction for the logo decided?
There wasn’t a brief. At that time our process was a bit looser than it is today. Most of our dealings were with Sean, and once with both Sean and Mark at our office just after they received their funding. We had a variety of meetings in our SF space as well as in Palo Alto where they were setting up their first official office on Emerson Street. The brief was basically formulated through conversations during these meetings while the direction was determined based upon type selection/disqualification and then customization/refinement.
How was the decision for the final wordmark made? Was it a modification to an existing typeface or was it drawn from scratch?
It was a modification of the typeface Klavika, which was designed by Eric Olson. Type and graphic designer, Joe Kral, who was a good friend that was working closely with Cuban Council at the time, completed the type modifications and final word mark, whilst I oversaw the project.
Was there any particular reason for the choice of blue as the main brand colour? If so, were any other colours originally selected?
We experimented with a variety of colors, but Mark was pretty adamant about using a blue that was derived from the original blue he had used on thefacebook.com, which he had chosen based on his colour blindness, so he told us.
Do you still keep in touch with Sean and Mark?
At one point Sean asked us if we’d be interested in receiving equity for the work, but having been through the bubble burst of 2000-2001, we confidently declined. Since the project we haven’t had much direct contact with Sean, but we’ve met with and worked with some of his peers.
What is it like knowing that you played a huge part in the design of one of the worlds most iconic logos of the modern digital age?
When you put it like that, it’s a bit intimidating. I think it’s really a matter of perspective — the outside perspective is that we orchestrated “one of the world’s most iconic logos”, but to us at the time we were just working with another start-up who was lean on cash and needed a good, lasting design to get them afoot. I think I am desensitized to seeing the mark, the icon, the variations of the logo nearly everywhere I turn — but when I stop to think about it, I’d say at the least it’s extremely rewarding.
I’d like to thank Mike & Cuban Council for taking the time to answering my questions. If you haven’t already taken a look at their website, please visit www.cubancouncil.com, you won’t be disappointed.
This article is published in the new book by www.logonest.com, Logo Nest: 02, the book by Logo Designers for Logo Designers
A like for a like
With a title like that it would be understandable to assume that this is going to be another run of the mill article on plagiarism. Instead, I have chosen to tackle a subject, which seems to be downplayed or mostly ignored.
At the end of each year many graphic design related publications, both online and in print, offer analysis on the current and possible future trends. This applies to all disciplines of our trade, but scrutiny of logo design trends or even ‘clichés’ seem to be most prevalent. Design elements and techniques are identified to inform what should be avoided so that your work doesn’t become classed as bland and common.
Something that is hardly ever analysed is the behaviour of designers rather than just focusing on their output. One particular trend I have noticed, which surfaced around a year ago but is now rife, is having a strange effect on the industry. Most designers partake in this practice, yet nearly all don’t even realise they are doing it.
Everyone wants to be liked; it’s a natural human instinct. For designers, it seems it is more important than ever for peers within the industry to like or even ‘love’ the work that they produce. I partly blame an increased emphasis on this need to be liked on social media. It’s true that the social media boom has connected people more than ever, making it possible to increase a networking base that would have been previously unachievable. However, it’s also been argued that when you increase your number of connections, it makes them weaker individually.
These connections can be with peers, old clients and new. Never before has it been easier for a designer to showcase their work or even collaborate with new contacts. The avenues made available to showcase work have also increased as a result. It can be difficult for any designer to keep up especially if they want to gain as much exposure as possible.
However, part of me is worried that this increased desire or even ‘need’ to have your work liked by the masses is not only effecting the mindset of designers but also the way in which they work. The problem is that social media platforms and inspiration showcase websites put an emphasis on your own personal totals, which could be misconstrued as a reflection on your own ability, performance or social standing within a group of peers. When I say ‘totals’ it’s all about the number of followers you have or how many people like your latest piece of work. I’m sure any designer who is on twitter will have noticed tools which ‘guarantee to get you hundreds more followers’. They don’t. But that’s for another article.
I’ve seen it all too often that some people, especially those who are new to their careers, fret and worry about how much their work is liked as if it is a definite condemnation of their true value as a designer. It also works the other way in that just because a designer is top of the pile on a certain network, they start acting like a superstar designer (which is a non-existent entity anyway). This is partly due to the fact that most inspiration sites put the best (most liked) work on the front pages, which is then seen as the ultimate goal to achieve.
So how do you get more people to like your work to help push your current standing up towards the plastic design gods? You may think that the obvious answer would be to produce the highest standard of work. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The simple answer is to become popular using the tactic, which is the main focal point of this article.
The main thing I’ve noticed is that if a designer likes another’s work, that ‘like’ is then reciprocated in return. I guess you could call this a connection. Like for like. An unwritten agreement between two designers to like each others works in the future, regardless of the context or the quality. You will also notice that the feedback or critique given to work has changed. In the main it’s overly positive comments such as ‘great work!’ and rarely includes any insightful input on how to improve the logo. It’s also very common for poor souls who dare to question design decisions or even have the audacity to offer their own suggestions for improvements to be shot down in flames. As long as the collective crowd like the work, then that means it’s definitely great right?
As the majority of work racks up tons of likes through ‘pat on the back’ style appreciations and is pushed to the front of galleries, in essence it becomes difficult for people, especially those looking in from outside the industry, to truly distinguish the really great work from even the mediocre. Not even to mention the bad. I think it was Stefan Sagmeister who once said that ‘99% of ideas are crap’, and I can really see what he means by that, any designer who goes through a labourious creative process will also.
The counter argument is that ‘you have got to be seen to be heard’ which is perfectly understandable. It’s common sense that for your work to be appreciated then you have to publicise it as much as possible. However, logo design is often at times frustrating, and I feel that without being perfectionists we can never really strive to get even close to logo design nirvana. The funny thing is, some of the best designers I’ve seen out there don’t even care about what peers think about their work, as at the end of the day, if it creatively answers the brief and the client likes it that’s all that matters.
Before I get accused of slating off the majority of work and sounding negative towards the logo design industry or even logo designers, I just want to explain the reasons for this article. It’s not intended to boss people around and tell them to stop liking things and I really don’t want it to be taken in a negative way. In fact, there aren’t any underlying instructions or pieces of advice at all. It’s merely just another observation of logo design trends, and I hope you can like, love and appreciate it.
Fans of the Spider-Man franchise will be pleased to know that along with a new movie that is due to be released on 3rd July 2012, comes a new iconic spider logo. The move is possibly due to the new version of the classic comic by Marvel being a reboot of the original film rather than a sequel, so what better way to make a difference that to give it a fresh identity.
Below is a comparison of the previous icon used in the films and a still of how the new logo (with mass effects and accompanying typography) will feature in the trailers for The Amazing Spider-Man. I have to say that it looks meaner, leaner and deadlier. A new logo obviously means potential for a whole new range of merchandise & memorabilia.
To celebrate The Queen’s 60th year sat upon the throne, a new logo has been designed (see below).
Your first impression may be ‘that’s bloody horrific, it looks like a child drew it!’. Well….it was.
The logo was designed by 10-year-old Katherine Dewar, from Chester, who won a competition for children between the ages of 6-14 (yes – we know crowdsourcing is bad etc but I think we can make an exception in this case!). I have to admit that I quite like the logo, considering its context, and I love the fact that it isn’t serious like previous logos associated with Royalty. It definitely gets across the message of just having fun and celebrating a rare occasion.
I’ve just noticed that it’s been almost 3 long years since I last did my last blog post on a book review. I’ve bought a hell of a lot of books relating to logo design and brand identity since then so I hope to be able to review as many as I can over the next few months, especially as a few readers were requesting some suggestions on this old post.
A good place to start would be with my highest rated logo design book that I’ve purchased in that long period, Logo Design Volume 3 by Ed. Julius Wiedemann [TASCHEN]. The main reson behind acquiring this title is because it includes an in depth interview with the makers of the 2010 Oscar Winning short animated film, Logorama
The book is part of a series which also obviously includes Volumes 1 & 2, plus Brand Identity Now, which I will review in a few weeks time. Each book in the series is very robust, with a nice foil finish on the cover of the books own identity, with each letter set in a different font (which is normally a big design no-no but in this case – it works).
Before you starting reading any of the books in this series one thing you will have to get used to is that the copy is set in three different languages, all on the same page & in three separate columns. This makes it look like there is far more content than there actually is but it doesn’t take away from the quality of what’s inside. The book kicks off with a great article by the author who challenges the reader to think about the question, ‘Are logos still important?‘ followed by a more in depth piece by Paul Middleton, the Dean of Design at the University of NorthamptonNeville Brody and there is a feature on the new identity for international recording artist, Victoria Beckham.
As with most logo design books, the final section includes a showcase of logos created by designers from all over the world, which are helpfully categorised into the industry of the client. I can see this book being useful to budding design students looking for inspiration as well as seasoned professionals looking to get an insight into how the top design agencies tackle identity projects. The showcase itself is nothing new in concept but it is always great to see fresh work, though I do question whether some of the inclusions are real projects or self initiated. For a logo design book that costs less than £20 it is worth it for the feature on Logorama alone.
You may or may not have noticed that I love a monochromatic colour palette. I’ve had a few requests asking whether I could display some of my previous logo projects in black and white, which I feel is always the best way to truly look at the form of a logo. I’ve put together a custom designed WordPress website (with the help of Dan!) that does just that. Take a look at www.blacklogos.com.
When a brand is performing well, its logo is the ultimate symbol of success. When a brand fails and ceases to exist, the poor logo becomes an eternal reminder, haunting its previous owners who once were so proud to show it off. Businesses fail every day, even more so in the current economic climate, with even multi-national companies being threatened with the possibility of bankruptcy. Some of the larger well-known brands that ceased trading have logos that will allow some of us, possibly as former users of the products or services, to reminisce about times gone by as we were once used to seeing them on a daily basis. Below is a collection of logos from defunct brands that you will no longer see in use:
SeaFrance
When SeaFrance, one of the biggest ferry operators between France and England, was liquidated at the start of 2012, this logo sank to the seabed quicker than you can shout ‘TITANIC!’.
Consignia
Unbelievably, Royal Mail spent a whopping £2m trying to send this rebrand to the four corners of the UK as the new identity for The Post Office Group. That’s one very expensive stamp, and I can’t imagine that much of that budget was set aside for the design of logo due to it’s uninspiring spiral mark. This logo was eventually cosigned as ‘Return to Sender’ in 2002 due to a very strong public backlash, just over a year since the rebrand was officially put into practice.. It goes to show that rebranding a company that is over 500 years old is a very sensitive project.
Borders Group
At it’s height, Borders had over 500 bookstores worldwide but eventually turned the page on it’s final chapter in 2011.
Tweeter
Not Twitter. Tweeter, an electronics retailer giant founded in Boston, finally pulled the plug on operations in 2008. I think it would be hard for a brand with such a name to survive in the current social-media reliant age we live in today so it was probably for the best.
MG Rover
This logo (or should I say these logos), probably reminds people of misery more than most. They also mark the end of an era. MG Rover was the last British owned car manufacturer to operate on British shores, just a few miles away from the down with design office. After the company became defunct in 2005, the value of existing MG or Rover vehicles plummeted.
News Of The World
We all know how this headline story finished so I’ll just say that the majority will be glad to never see this logo in print again.
LDV Group
Another vehicle manufacturer based in Birmingham, United Kingdom (can you notice a pattern?). Aston Villa supporters will probably either love or loath this logo as it adorned their official kit between 1998 and 2000.
Kwik Save
The discount supermarket chain Kwik Save, also based in the UK, went bust in 2007, though it looks like it could be set for a comeback with a newer and cheaper logo.
World Championship Wrestling
80’s babies will remember this logo as the alternative to the Worldwide Wrestling Federation, which finally elbow dropped it’s main competitor, WCW in 2001.
Enron
Another classic tale which doesn’t need much emphasis, though it is probably the biggest disaster on this list. Employing over 20,000 people, Enron, also became defunct in 2001. You may be surprised to know that it’s logo was designed by Paul Rand.
If you are lucky to be young enough not to remember this brand then you could be forgiven for thinking that it could have connections with basketball. Pan Am World Airways was the largest airline in the US up until its demise in 1991.
Orion Pictures
Another logo that you may not be familiar with but have probably seen many times before. Orion Pictures, a movie production company which went under in 1998 was responsible for big screen hits such as Robocop, Silence of the Lambs & Dances With Wolves.
Factory Records
Factory Records was an independent record label responsible for releases by recording artists such as Joy Division, New Order and The Happy Mondays. The label eventually ceased in 2007 when its founder, Tony Wilson died of a heart attack. I think this has to be one of my all time favourite logos due to it’s sheer simplicity.
Daewoo
Trying to remember the brand name of a major worldwide company based in South Korea that ceased operations in 1999? That’ll be the Daewoo. You can be forgiven for not remembering it as it’s quite forgettable, though the type does remind me of the Kenwood logo, possibly due to the treatment on the ‘W’.
Pay ‘n Save
The Washington based retail chain, Pay ‘n Save finally cleared it’s shelves in 1992 after recording huge losses.
If you enjoy looking at old logos you may be interested in this flickr account which has the largest collection I have seen online. I am unsure whether any are still in use but they are fun to look at anyway.
To celebrate moving into our new office we wanted to give something back to the design community. We’ve secretly been working on some free social media icons to give away as a token gesture. The icons are fully scalable in vector format.
We’ve tried to include icons for as many of the most commonly used social media platforms as possible. The full set of icons are listed in the image below. If we missed some out and you would like a new icon added, let us know and we will see what we can do.
[spoiler]1. Ronald Mcdonald – McDonalds
