By contrast, many small companies with limited budgets manage to obtain logos with intricate colour blending, detail, shading and highlight, and even 3D rendering.
By comparison, the IBM logo looks as dull as dishwater.
So who got the better deal?
That depends on how much a business wants to expand in the future while retaining the same logo, but here's a hint: The big corporations aren't stupid. There are a few good reasons to strive for an uncomplicated logo, including the merits of multimedia compatibility and immediate brand recognition/association.
It usually takes an experienced designer to deconstruct what may begin as a grand concept and pare it down to its simplest, most functional form while retaining an aesthetic quality.
That takes talent, and talent is a good investment. You don't need a budget equal to that of the big guns to get an equally effective logo, but you should be prepared to spend a little more for the sake of longterm peace of mind.
Cheap logos are just that. They have their place, but you need to think carefully about whether your brand presence is that place.
so simple blog but nice thank you.Communication logos
ReplyDelete