So, I chose five logos I thought would be good to critique. My fifth one is actually a logo I don't think went well (in my opinion), so this should be interesting...
Here they are:
Walt Disney Pictures is absolutely incredible. In fact, his company is one of the "big 6" that own over 95% of the media industry today (talk about your big legacy). When I see this logo, I immediately smile. I'm taken back to me as a little girl sitting in front of the T.V. getting ready to watch a magical Disney movie. I'm sure that's something a lot of people can relate to; when we see this logo, we reminisce on the incredible movies we watched produced by Walt Disney Pictures. The fact that this logo is so well thought out to portray the Magic Kingdom in the background makes it quickly identifiable, making the audience automatically associate it with Disney.
Disney's Magic Kingdom won't be going anywhere anytime soon and will most likely always have the same structure, so this logo is timeless; it can be used for years to come and people will still easily identify it as a magical place full of childlike excitement and wonder. I've also seen this logo with a blue background and the castle and Walt Disney Pictures text in white, and in the more recent years, with a camera zooming up to the magic kingdom with the themed music and fireworks exploding in the background and the name appears (shown before a movie). So, its presentation has basically remained the same, except it has moved from basic color (plain blue background and white text and castle) to more visually appealing and livelier, which makes it more pleasing to more audiences.
We can immediately recognize this glossy, shiny, silver, 3-pointed star. Mercedes-Benz vehicles are some of the most expensive, classy, and high profile rides around. They're associated with those who are "elite" or wealthy. As the history of Mercedes-Benz shows, the 3-pointed star meant prosperity to one of the creators of the vehicle, and so would be used as the logo for all time. I feel important (high status), and wealthy just by looking at this logo. It makes me imagine owning one of these cars, and I know I would feel important and wealthy if I owned one. Its shiny/glossy look makes it look flawless/perfect. I'm sure that it looking that way was purposely done to evoke feelings of wealth, importance and prosperity.
To me, this logo evokes feelings of "manliness" or being a "handy-man". Maybe it's the font style. Usually, I see this type of font on signs used around sites where men are working (construction, road jobs, etc.), so that's probably why I feel that way. The logo has always been the same, with the exception of the orange being darkened over recent years, so its timelessness is great. The logo itself just looks like it's hardcore, durable, tough, and the real deal. Psychologically, I get that vibe when I see this logo. I'm sure, obviously, that's on purpose. I feel that because of it being so simple (the dark orange background being the only true color here), it catches the attention of those who are fairly simple--like men (I'm being way stereotypical here, I know. However, there is some truth in the fact that a logo for this type of company that deals with home supplies/tools, etc. would be appealing to the people who are usually in charge of that--the men).
In my opinion, LEGO®'s logo (ha, tongue twister) is very vibrant and bright, which appeals to children. The font is fun, fatter and looks like a cartoonish style of writing; again, appealing to children. The fact that it is red, not your usual girlish color, makes it even more appealing to young boys. If you ever take a look at some of the lego toys made, you see that almost all of them are centered towards action figures, targeting younger boys' attention. The logo definitely says it's for a children's product and evokes feelings of fun and imagination.
As you can see, the image to the left was Payless' logo from the start, but eventually evolved to look like the image on the right. Personally, I think it's too much of a dramatic change of the logo. The font style is different, the background is different, the color of the font is different, a symbol is now added that wasn't there before (in the new logo)...it's too much of a change. One of the key things I always thought of whenever I thought of Payless Shoe Source was, infact, their logo. I remember on different vacations my family and I would be on and we would be on the lookout for a Payless (we don't have good, cheap shoes like Payless back home), and one of the things I would look out for, specifically, was the black background and big golden letters. However, I now have to look twice if I see the new logo on a building. I guess I've been a customer for so long that I'm not used to the new logo, but I personally don't think such a dramatic change in the logo was exactly a good move, since it makes people be like, "Oh. *confused face* I guess they redid their logo...?"
No comments:
Post a Comment