Karl Gerstner wrote in his Designing Programmes:

“Instead of solutions for problems, programmes for solutions — the subtitle can also be understood in these terms: for no problem (so to speak) is there an absolute solution. Reason: the possibilities cannot be delimited absolutely. There is always a group of solutions, one of which is the best under certain conditions.”

The above paragraph was published in 1964, at the peak of the modernist crusade. The same decade Neuburg introduced his contructivist, functionally minded Neue Grafik at ICOGRADA in Zurich, and Paul Rand was working for IBM.

The 60s set the bar in corporate identity design. Modernist, focused on the ‘consistency, consistency, consistency’ mantra, helvetica and simplicity.

At the same time, the concept of brand has been evolving fundamentally. Brand as  product, organization, person and symbol — all those notions became a part of the brand identity systems. Yet, the visual identity remained more or less a slightly stretched result of the constructivist paradigm. As Paula Scher states:

“Generally, there’s a paradigm of what things look like in any arena. What you want to be able to do is find a new way to stretch that paradigm forward, to break its own mold.”

For years logo was treated as a base of an identity system, augmented with graphic means only essential to make it visually coherent in multi-channel environment. Used as a stamp or badge, such identities culminated in Umberto Eco’s “closed texts” — visual systems with unequivocal, static meaning, recurrent structure & disciplined sequence.

Eco juxtaposes “closed texts” with “opera aperta” (open work): open, internally dynamic “opere in movimento”, in which the the artist (or designer) deliberately leaves the arrangement of their compontents either to public or to chance, giving them a multiplicity of possible arrangements. By definition such works are simply much more engaging to the user.

Digital media have vastly reshaped brand landscape and thus allowed to stretch the paradigm a bit further. Technical restraints that limited design for half a century are gone. Together with rising consumer awareness (cogent brand conversations, no logo movement etc.), they gave the means to think of identity as a vessel for expressing personality rather than consistency.

The recent AOL rebranding is one example of a series that shift from the “logo as a badge” strategy to the identity as a visual language flexible enough to convey a number of ideas. Others include: the controversial London 2012 Olympic, Natural History Museum, Walker Arts Center, City of Melbourne, Casa da Música, and, undoubtedly most known: MTV, changing countless times throught the last 26 years and Google.

All these identities (named “flexible identities”) have in common:

1. endless permutations of the logo itself (often designed through customized software);
2. versatile and  distinct visual language (colors, typography, imagery, etc.) allowing adaptation to different environments, executions and contexts;
3. the concept behind is a system rather than a particular design, giving the designer almost unlimited freedom (though within some contraints);
4. they empower the organization with almost complete visual and verbal laguage, open to virtually any message it may need to convey;
5. the visual differentation does not spoil the fundamental, thought-through brand personality & identity that stands as a benchmark; a signifier may (and does) fluctuate but the meaning stays fundamentally the same;

Although the flexible identity solves most of today’s brand identity problems and seems a logical development, the static brand probably is not coming to an end. A dynamic branding model obviously has some constraints, but I think that it is an evolution phase rather than a trend. Of course, like any other idea it might enter a stage of an overused fad, quickly making the static brands trendy again. Evolution by definition is a gradual process.  Maybe we’ll reach a moment, in which a simple, straightforwad and “classic” logo and identity system will seem refreshing.

Gerstner’s “boîte à musique” identity designed in 1954 in all likelihood was the first example of flexible identity, a “programme for solution”. Unless the possibilities will be delimited absolutely, the flexible identity looks like a reliable strategy.

I’ve been recently commissioned to review a logo for a beauty product. The what do you think question. The logo itself was well crafted and will probably prove successful, but it got me thinking about general rules for logo design. The technical aspects are well covered (e.g. here or here), but there are a few guidelines that exceed the obvious “it has to be legible and memorable”. So, here’s my list of common, but not that obvious at first glance, mistakes in logo design:

1. Cliché logos
   Undoubtedly clichés communicate. Usually they provide straight-forward symbols easily understood by all. They facilitate the communication process and therefore are quite common. The problem is distinctiveness: there are around thousand of logos with a tree (highlighting heritage), leaves (nature) or a globe (we’re global). The design idea does not have to be unique in the history of graphic design (which is highly unlikely), but it has to be distinctive in a particular marketplace.
   Every industry has its fig leaf, concealing the designer’s lack of original idea, so make sure you find one before the designing work. And if you, unfortunately, happen to exploit a cliché, make sure it is executed with a superb design.
   [Sidenote: the same applies to so-called generic shapes: a star, a heart, a circle et cetera: no matter how much effort is put to make them look distinctive, there are millions of other versions of the same shape.]
2. Great name cluttered with an excessive symbol
   If the name is exceptionaly good (quite rare these times), don’t clutter it with an  excessive symbol, with apparently no or little meaning of itself. For instance, if the name of the product is Sun, drawing a sun symbol is entirely useless. It might of course provide a handy visual device to implement allover the promotional materials, but it does not bring a meaning. It’s just an illustration. There’s one exception, though: a symbol is virtually essential if it is to endorse other brands.
   [Sidelink: Symbol or Wordmark? by Tony Spaeth]
3. Symbols oriented backwards
   If you ask somebody to draw an arrow pointed up or forward, almost certainly you’ll get ↑  for up and → for forward. Yet, there are at least dozen of logos heading backwards, with no logical or aesthetic reason whatsoever. So unless you want to highlight a company’s upcoming downfall, keep the symbol up and forward oriented.
   [Sidenote: The matter has a lot to do with left-to-right reading and is thouroughly discussed in Emotion matrix by Artemy Lebedev.]
4. Message-in-a-bottle logos
   By definition, a logo is a quintessence of a company’s idea or conception expressed visually. Or in a more straightforward way: a compelling, conceptually relevant message conveyed with a single graphic idea. It’s like a figurehead at the prow of a ship, indicating the concept behind a brand and demonstrating its values, target image, positioning and/or other characteristics. Sealing this message in a bottle and releasing it into the ocean (so as no one can read it) is the worst scenario there might possibly exist.
   So first of all: find the message and express it in a creative and visually appealing way. Secondly: don’t ever put a meaningless dingbat just to have something there. Great logos are made by great concepts, not great dingbats. Thirdly: always keep in mind the positioning. Missing the target is a deadly weapon.
5. I’ve-seen-it-somewhere logos
   There are two common scenarios that result in I’ve-seen-it-somewhere logos. The first one is plagiarism or counterfeiting, obviously to be condemned. The second one occurs when a client approaches with “we need a logo and we’d like something like that”, pointing for instance to Sony Ericsson symbol. There are at least two pitfalls behind this kind of reasoning. To begin with, companies are different, so the likelihood of the same corporate culture, target, etc, is close to zero. As a result, the logo will almost certainly fail to express the idea behind the brand, not to mention fitting the industry it operates in. Secondly, the stronger the pointed brand, the harder it will be for a company to gain distinctiveness.
6. Snowboard-to-jewelry logos
   It’s kind of a no-brainer, but it’s often missed: a logo has to be appropriate for the target industry. If you’re designing a high-end jewelry brand and the resulting symbol could easily fit a snowboard manufacturer then — most probably — something is wrong. At times it’s a company’s strategy to break the rules (e.g. because of a specific positioning). Otherwise, it’s extremely risky and hard to successfully launch without significant promotional budget.
7. Missed-the-context logos
   Logos are by definition seen in context. A logo might look great on a website, with all these gradients, shadows and so on. It probably looks even better printed beautifully on an expensive paper, A3 size. But is it going to work in the actual context, for instance on a supermarket shelf with all the other products around? When the customers are moving and not particularly intent on focusing their entire attention on a 3x3cm sign?  Does it grab attention?
   So: Do your homework and check the designs used by competition, find ways to be distinctive. Double-check readability, use mock-ups whenever possible. Prepare variations of the sign for particular applications (low-resolution, monochromatic, etc). Remember, that a sign is not a stand-alone symbol, but a basis of an entire visual system.
8. Head-scratch logos
   In the end, a logo has to be easy to comprehend. The are several implications of this statement: it not only has to be legible and look good in most applications (from letterhead to billboard), but it has to communicate the message within just a few seconds. So don’t try to express more than one attribute per logo, it’s not a piece of art to be contemplated for hours. Thinking that it must contain entire message in detail is simply ignorant of how human brains operate. Focus instead.
   Again, remember who’s the target. If you use a sophisticated metaphor for a generic beer brand, the potential buyers might simply feel intimidated. And if you happen to do so, make sure the message expressed literally is relevant and appropriate as well. For instance, I might have never heard of Hermes‘ winged sandals, but when I see the Athlete’s Foot logo I get the message.