C64 Brandname

[carlsson]

A flat logo would look boring on its own. Probably. Maybe.

I believe it boils down to how much faith you have in your logotype. Well-established ones like IBM, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Dell etc seem to work on their own in 2D, but those are logotypes kept alive through all the years.

Actually, I thought Tulip would rework the Commodore concept much more than they seem to have done. Either they have great respect for the existing artwork or they are not willing to spend too much money on an uncertain project.

[wobbler]

regarding flat vs. beveled vs. boring vs. whatnot:

The old saying 'less is more' can be applied on many different areas, like music for example. It definately applies to graphic design, and _especially_ to brand names and graphic identitys for company's.

Any company with self esteem has its own design- and brand manual. These manuals (can be a printed document, an online website, or a combination of both) is something that should set up regulations of how any communication from within the company is supposed to take place. There's for example regulations of what typeface(s) the company use, there's guidelines of what corporate colours the company use (specified for any kind of media/channel the use is to take place in), there's rules of how the logotype can be placed and used (on dark backgrounds, how close you can place the logotype to an other graphic element etc etc).

All this because of the importance that the company should communicate in the _same way_ to the audience. Everytime. Why? Well, if IBM suddenly should change their typeface into a slanted variant of Tahoma (that's a typeface), noone could be sure if it really was the _real_ IBM or not. And, since IBM has built a strong brand (that's the 'soft' values around a company) the past decades it woud be a disaster to use a version of a logo that didn't follow the set guidelines.

Anyway, all of the above has almost nothing to do with the look of a logo. Or does it?

A logotype is (should be) something that immediately visually communicates the brand and what the company stand for. Of course, if it's a totally new company that noone has ever heard of before, it takes some time to communicate all of this. But for example by using advertisments including text and images glued together with a design manner and then by chucking the logotype (and perhaps a byline) at the end of the advert, people will sooner or later 'read in' the brand values in the logotype.

It has yet to be seen what kind of brand value Tulip will add to the new Commodore 64... BUT – from what I see of the design of the logotype... yuck. I mentioned it before in ths thread: Bevels and drop shadows has NEVER been known to work among logotypes. It only make the graphic and visual appearence cluttered and.. well.. plain ugly. I remember when the first plug-ins making these effects appeared around 1996. 'Black Box' from Alien Skin, anyone? :) Of course, I was astonshed of how easy it then was to make all your graphics shiny and beveled, hovering above the surface with a rilly coooool transparent drop shadow. But the initial astonishment soon vanished due to the fact that it looked and feeled (yeah, I've written the word somewhere else in this text).

Ok, hope some of this was of amusement. Or at least gave some explanation why I (and other people working in the graphic design area) feel that it's a pity that a really strong logotype is to be massacred by a company that seemingly has no clue of how to make sense of a company's brand identity. End of rant (and long sentences). Really.

[Chris Abbott]

I don't think I made myself clear: those logos that were released were probably the versions that they felt would appeal more to journalists or something, or look better on the page: it's just an expression of the logo as opposed to the actual logo itself, which exists in various non-beveled, flatter forms.

i.e. the beveled, drop-shadowed logo is not THE logo, just a slightly jazzed
up manifestation of it.

Chris

[wobbler]

Ok, but I still don't get it. Why release a 'jazzed up' version of something that won't be used in real life anyway? It sounds to me like an explanation made up afterwards.

I also don't think that journalists has any other preferences regarding taste or so, compared to other.. uh.. 'professions'? A logotype is a logotype is a logotype.

Anyway, if this really was/is a 'sneak preview of a logo that really wasn't the real stuff anyhow', I really start to wonder what the guys and gals at Tulip is up to. Never tamper with a company's identity, ya hear! =)

[CraigG]

They'll be sending me said logos for C64Audio, so let's see how they are. Those logos were probably done to appeal to journalists when seen standalone or in print. A flat logo would look boring on its own.

Drop shadows don't work in print, period. Reducing them online makes them look muddy. Best and most recognised corporate IDs in the UK: 1. Nike; 2. Apple; 3. BBC - all flat logos, all mono, and all very nice indeed. They look stylish rather than boring. I still maintain that the new Commodore "logos" look like something thrown together by a 17-year-old junior designer in Photoshop.

it's just an expression of the logo as opposed to the actual logo itself, which exists in various non-beveled, flatter forms.

Does that include the logo itself, or just the removal of the blue 'badge' thing? The skew is almost as bad, though, distorting the shape of the original C=, which worked so well as it was. Try skewing the Apple logo by 15 degrees and see how shit that looks.

As I said on Lemon (and in my email to Ironstone, for which I've not yet got any response, unsurprisingly), I don't think the logo has any bearing on the products, and I'm optimistic about what Ironstone might produce. However, the logo, as it stands, is shite.

[Chris Abbott]

> for which I've not yet got any response, unsurprisingly
Your feelings betray you, Padawan...

They've responded politely to every other mail they've had, so I should think that when they get the time they'll respond to yours.

They do read the Lemon threads, btw, so they're perfectly aware of what's
going on. They take a few days to respond to email these days, since
they're on a round of business visiting.

Chris

[CraigG]

Yeah, fair enough, Chris. I've been in a rotten mood all day, and it had to come out somewhere. Try trying to isolate bizarre JavaScript Document Object Model bugs in Gecko-based browsers and see how you fare!

As for Ironstone, I'm sure they'll respond sooner or later, and I'll be interested to hear their take on the whole logo thing.

I should probably state, for the record, that my advice (and rants) are solely in the hope of benefitting Ironstone and therefore the larger community as a whole, despite what some people might be thinking.

[Chris Abbott]

<<<
Try trying to isolate bizarre JavaScript Document Object Model bugs in Gecko-based browsers and see how you fare!
>>>

lie mode=on
I do that all the time, it's easy
lie mode=off