Design is a world with few players on the field but millions out to observe and judge. In general, there is nothing wrong with this. Criticizing and being criticized is good and right. It’s the way to make the difference. In fact, the goal should be to find a common idea of ​​what makes a good or bad logo. In a few they really succeed. Usually, those who remain silent to observe.

A logo is a visual piece of a larger image system. Rarely is in itself the meaning of a brand but embodies it and conveys it.

The sign of a logo, alone, has very little value. It is almost impossible to judge the emotional burden of a neutral element. If Apple and Nike did not exist and the logos were shown, emotional involvement would be close to zero. The only way you can judge the Apple logo is through the personal relationship with the products it represents. For example, in Apple’s case, the logo would probably be judged by hate or love for apples or by the fact that apples have little to do with technology. Naturally this works only with logos and pictorial signs like those of Apple, Starbucks or Twitter. These signs are generally well-known symbols that have been simplified to represent something new in a different context. You can draw a good logo as long as there is a strong brand to support it or that set of everything the company has ever said or done. The logo is just a representative symbol that echoes the brand. However, there is a difference between a good logo and a big logo. Difference of functionality and practicality.

Here, according to us, what makes a logo great:


It must be simple enough to embody the meaning of the brand without cluttering or adding too much detail. Unless details are an important part of the brand’s history. An example in this sense is the re-brand of Guinness, where details and ornaments play an important role in the history of the brand and, therefore, add a fundamental part to its symbol. Hyper-simplifying the Guinness logo would mean undressing his story.



This means that any logo you design must have a recognizable shape in a moment. In this sense, Instagram has hit the mark with its glyph. On the one hand it seems somewhat generic, on the other hand, it is recognizable even at a distance. Or, for example, being able to take a pen and paper and draw the Nike one in less than 10 seconds is a good quality for a logo.


The logo is likely to be used in different situations, from digital to print, to motion, to design objects and so on. The logo will be used by many different people and will have to “stand” over time on every possible design. The more complex it is, the more difficult it will be to work and the more it will be possible for others to make mistakes, ruining it. If the logo must necessarily be accompanied by 150 pages of style manual, it is probably better to rethink it. A large logo is flexible in its applications and must be able to be applied by anyone, even if it is not a designer.


A great logo, ideally, must reflect the times in which it lives, alwaysremain fresh and up-to-date. A logo can grow and evolve over time as a human being. That’s why design should be rethought periodically: the brand and the character that support that logo change and the logo must reflect that change. GWC-WORLD_HOW-TO-MAKE-A-LOGO_20171018_linkedin-nike2 The evolution of the nike logo is just one example where changes are not so radical as to annoy the reader.