The only logo that makes sense is Nvidia’s considering that they’re in the 3D business and perhaps Volksagon as it is a play off their hood emblem (I’m still going back and forth on that one). 3D logos can be very illegible at small sizes and be quite unimpressive in greyscale. Also, what about low-end printing devices like fax machines? Do you think those gradients are going to look even remotely presentable then? Think again.

Though Illustrator CS and up has a new effect to apply 3D styles (revolve, bevel and extrude,rotate) too and are easier to implement opposite to the heavy 3D software I mentioned before . And designers in the realm of web and graphic use Illustrator a lot.

This could be partly a explanation to the appearing of logos alike.

My view is that the designers of these logos are thinking fresh. They have moved the brand on into the 21st centaury with ought compromising on the brands existing prestige or recognition. To say that a brand is timeless is, I feel a little ignorant (no offence). A brand is set to appeal to a target audience. An audience from the early 90’s would have been proud of the UPS logo for example. However times change and now audiences want to feel that they are buying into slick modern companies - not ones that look like they haven’t moved with the times. This is of course my view but it opens up a nice little debate me thinks…

I do have to disagree with the Fax issue, my wife works at a very large company and they use faxes continually on a daily basis. However, let’s assume that said company is an anomaly. Take the example of a company such as UPS once again that deals with large volumes of shipping with endless amounts of printed material that are associated with what is shipped. All those boxes and printed material needs to have its identity attached to it for various purposes and most likely are going to be run through high-speed/low qu a post web devef you have a log welcome since, shadows and deb designer’s asng to need a higut none so very tout for it to look halfway decent. The other choice is to have a very poor-quality print out of your logo. My thinking is, a good logo should be able to look just as good in one color at one inch by one inch. The logos above just cannot hang as well as the old-school philosophy logos under those circumstances - unless you want to pay a significant amount more for printing.

Obviously, these are just my opinions. I agree, we are headed away from fax machines and we will eventually have less printed collateral. That being said, I do not think we are there yet. Fun discussion by the way, I’m really enjoying it. :)

Continue, Matt!

Scalibility, Cost, Design time, and the fact that a lot of publications are black and white eg a newspaper.

I’m not saying a full colour shiney logo is wrong, i love the way they look, but you have to consider your clients needs. Do they want it printed in a want ad for instance? food for thought

A flag designer once said that a countries’ flag should be easily redrawn by a 5 year old from memory, and you should still be able to recognize it if it is reversed. I tend to believe the same thing for logos.

This tutorial shows a way to add a hidden print version for a logo:

http://www.easy-designs.net/articles/iIR/ (make this a link)

What do you think about serving up different logos for different media (print/web etc.) ?

Does it hinder or help the brand in any way?

My personal view is that just because the brand will be printed in one colour does not mean that the brand has to be 1 colour. I don’t think that we should let these things hold us down. Designing for a fax machine would mean that we would get extremely boring brands. I think however that if a brand is developed it should be able to work on a fax machine.

In regards to the above article I believe that having a variety of styles that fit into one consistent brand image is the most practical way of doing things. This way you can get a brand which is “3D” but that can also be printed in 2 colour, or even 1 colour. Lets not let old technology hold us back. I take my hat off to these new style brands.

However I think its worth pointing out that a brand is not simply a logo but the whole perception of a company. By having a modern brand this builds up the prestige of the company in their target markets mind and in my view this is definitely a good thing.

Instead, things that communicate precise messages that don’t reference time or era can do a great job of looking as powerful ten years from now as they do today. That’s tough, but, as has been pointed out already, we have a number of high-profile logos that have done exactly that.

I’m reminded of Shell, which has moved to simpler and simpler designs as a way of improving its logo. Hard to believe the word “Shell” was ever actually part of its logo, isn’t it? Similarly, I can’t imagine the 3D element to ANY of the logos you pointed out being viewed as anything but the most superfluous element of the logo whenever the next designer steps in to update the look.

I’d be curious to find out if anyone has any examples of a logo where the 3D aspect seems to be an integral element of the logo’s communication.

In terms of looking modern I take your point that it could be a negative thing. I would like to add here that I do not think that ALL logos should go into this style but only ones that will benefit from looking modern. This has to be judged on a case by case basis in regards to target audience etc.

You say that things (and in context I assume you are referring to Logos) that “communicate precise messages” can do a great job of communicating powerfully ten years from now. I agree but surely the way that this precise message is communicated is as important, if not more important, than the message itself. I say this because the whole style of a brand, its message, its typeface, its wording, etc all create its persona - its message. Even the people who work for that company, their internal and external procedures all make up a companies brand. The logo hangs it all together under one banner. I don’t think many logos communicate a precise message - most are very vague and the best most can assume is “professionalism”, “modernism” and “trustworthy”. All of these vague messages can be complimented in the 3D style discussed above.

You mention Shell - they to me are a fantastic example of a company moving with the times - I wouldn’t be surprised to see a re-brand from them coming soon - maybe in the new 3d look! ;-)

So although the 3D aspect is not integral I think the argument could be spun around and the question could be asked - is the flat 2D style integral? Why do we have to design like that? Could you give me an example of a logo that is 2D that HAS to be 2D. Why can’t we go with the times and use technology to our benefit?

My view on this is that this is simply a new way of communicating. I spotted this “Fad” and I’m sure it will grow. You’ve been warned!

Fadtastic discussion by the way - thanks P.J. for your input.

(Unless you are an AT&T wireless phone customer, in which case you’ve been snickering through this whole comment.)

“There is a trend, for example, to design new logos as if they were three-dimensional, rounded and
shaded, in part because computers make it easy to do so. Many traditionally “modern” logos –
strong, flat, one-colored – have been re-drawn to look like a sculptured badge or button of the
same logo. Designers actively debate whether this “3D” or “rasterization” trend is a good thing;
some say “why not?” while most, I think, feel 3D marks are by nature graphically weaker.” - Interview 2005 http://www.identityworks.com/articles/China%20Interview_English.pdf

an example: http://www.aperfectcircle.com/ (band zith singer from TOOL - one om my fav bands actually)

First of all, with your permission: you wrote a great article! Why? Because you present some conclusions which are “in the air” but which had to be presented.

I noticed that as second example you gave the Windows logo. I think that this is very relevant as Windows Vista will have a long term influence on the web and print related mediums.

“…we need to be careful before we all rush off to buy 3D Studio Max or start a Google search for some extreme Photoshop bevel styles.”

Definitely! I work in Adobe Illustrator and I believe that a logo must to be possible to be designed with it. Even the well-known gradient used on the logo’s text can be created in Illustrator. Here’s an example, one of my works: www.ewebice.com The effect from the text was designed without any Photoshop intervention or without any Illustrator effect. Just layers…

“…brands are giving themselves this subtle third dimension. Incidently these brands can also work in the flat 2 colour traditionally printed styles – any good brand designer would ensure that this is the case. So these guys are getting the best of both worlds.”

This is the best solution. In this way the logo will be a non-trend-dependent branding element.

Thank you for this great writing!

Respiro
www.ReLogoDesign.com

In the past, I’ve always been taught that 3D logos were impractical from a printing standpoint because the cost would be too high or the effectiveness of the logos would be lost when reduced to a miniscule size.

But I’ve always believed that designers can and should have a little forethought in creating a logo. If you look at the full array of logos that a company like Microsoft possesses, you’ll find that while they employ a 3D rendering of a logo, they will also have the same logo in color without gradations, in Pantone spot and 4-color process, grayscale, black, and white. In short, if you’re going to do a 3D logo, you should also create 2D versions as well and give your client a logotype library that can be compatible with any media (i.e. web, print, fax, etc.).

I do respectfully disagree with P.J. Onori’s assessment of the rebranding of UPS’ logo. They have not taken a step back in my opinion. In fact, I think it is a very successful rebranding for a company that has become global. They’ve taken a color synonymous with shipping and the least used color in logo design and turned it into a distinct identity. “What can brown do for YOU?” How many other companies use brown as their identity in such a manner?