When the site first appeared and all the cool kids were using it, I could forgive the logo. I thought, hmm, ugly and dumb but they're just starting out and they'll see the error of their ways and do something about that soon enough, get someone who knows a little about design and logos and suchlike to touch that sucker up, tighten the screws, slap a new coat of paint on the thing. I'm sure it's like a temporary deal, something maybe that the owner drew on the back of a napkin or something.
I think I agree with everything Lance says about Google having an embarrassingly amateurish logo. I'm all for the charm of something being homemade, but after the first, I dunno, five billion dollars in valuation, somebody should take the time to make a proper logo.
You could probably extrapolate some big-picture "Are the geeks going to suffer long term because they don't have a proper respect for marketing, branding and communications?" think-piece out of this, but for now I'd just settle for something more attractive on the Google homepage.
I don't think the Google logo is particularly ugly, it's not a work of art but it is reasonably simple and easy to remember.
Either way, the Google brand has become internationally recognized and they (seemingly) haven't had any marketing trouble because of it, why change?
If you look at the Internet Archive the logo for Google has changed quite a lot since their Beta - similar concept but very different implementation. The other versions of the logo, however are blocked by robot.txt file exclusions.
See http://www.google.com/intl/en/holidaylogos.html for Google's own archive of one-off holiday logo specials.
Shannon
Part of any technology's success is dependent upon an inevitable ensuing discussion of whether what it provides us is greater or less than what it takes away of our own perceived authenticity. This may seem like mere philosophical hoo-hah, but when you observe people's uneasiness about something like online dating, you quickly learn that it's not that they don't acknowledge that finding a possible mate with similar interests is made easier by the web. Instead it's an interesting uneasiness about the authenticity of the relationship, were it to occur.
There is a certain authenticity that comes from something like a poorly drawn logo or simple, uncomplicated design that, to other professional eyes, might seem rushed. It's more authentic, perhaps, because people, I think, have an inner sense for distinguishing work which comes out from the grind of marketing machines and focus groups and, conversely, from the work of a single person or small group of people.
Without doubt, this has been a factor in the building momentum of personal publishing vis-a-vis traditional media giants on the web. Sure, CNN.com has plenty of professional designers who spend all their time thinking about what CSS works in what browser. But why is it then that more people seem to be talking about what's written on DailyKos or the atrociously designed DrudgeReport?
The same applies to the success of myspace. Instead of shipping in branding experts to find out the best corporate colors of the 18-25 demographic, they just allowed every user to design their own template with their own fonts, colors, and animations -- never worrying about how inscrutable or illegible the pages get (as many are). Does this reduce their brand recognition? Maybe. But a lot of people sure are using it.
I think the same principle applies to Google and their general marketing strategy (or non-marketing strategy, if you will). Even though they are slowly growing into an empire, they have maintained an image of a small company with a sense of humor and an authentic 'personality'. I'm not saying that an ugly logo can be equated with a sort of authenticity -- surely this isn't true. And I'm certainly not saying the converse, either. Instead, it's the nonchalance about the logo which has allowed them to maintain their image as a group of guys who are truiy and deeply interested in the problem they are attempting to solve -- and not a bunch of used car salesmen trying to make a buck.
A "me too" post seems kind of odd from you, Anil. While Lance may be working as a creative director, he has not to my limited knowledge worked in branding, which is a very, very different thing, and especially when you're talking about a company of Google's scope. Regardless, you should both already know that, "I don't like the logo." doesn't mean all that much. And from a designer, even(or maybe especially). It certainly doesn't equal, "The logo needs to be changed." That Google's all growed up now is hardly a valid argument, and is actually pretty counterintuitive if you really think about it. I seriously doubt Lance is unaware of the fact that people love the logo. How many logos do you know of that have fan sites and mod generators? Talk to branding people: audiences react violently to changing logos that even they themselves find dated/corny/etc. Changing it will piss a lot of people off, with no particular promise that the people who hate the current will like the new. How's that for getting it both ways?
All the actually direct comments are so subjective, they're almost tossable. Yes, the logo's colorful, but the colors themselves seem to me pretty carefully modulated so as not to be actually garish. I'm not sure what's so weird about the kerning, but as far as drawing a G based on someone else's memory, well, that sort of defines a font. "Amateurish" is a dangerous word to throw around. This page shows a surprising amount of care not explained away by just saying that a mother loves her ugly baby. Most companies this large don't even bother giving their fans(because that's what they are) official versions of their logo to use. If you muck about at the pixel level in those images, you'll find that the colors in each of the background versions have been subtly changed to preserve the perceived colors of the logo. The dropshadow goes away at 25%. The "powered by" button – not quite as small as 25% – still has the shadow, but it's actually been redrawn. And there's more. This is not amateur work. One of Debbie Millman's early appearances at Speak Up might provide some perspective, as well as her thoughts on the UPS rebranding,
Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought the Google logo was pretty much genius. It's simple, which expresses what they do for the user of their services, it's 'text', which is EVERYTHING their services are about, and its got a fun twist to it (particularly with their revoloving themed logos), which most corporate branding completely fails to acheive.
Got any brighter ideas?
Anil,
What do you mean by "proper logo"? Google's logo I think looks just fine.The logo is so hugely recognized and popular that it is here to stay.Also I dont see a reason why Google folks would want to change it.
cheers,
Badrinath.V.S :-)
I don't agree. Well, I agree that it's ugly, but I don't agree they should change it. I'm sick of companies redesigning themselves every five years with whatever swoopy arrow or wireframe planet is in fashion this year. In forty years I want to be riding a Google brand space elevator and think "heh, Lance and Anil sure were right but at least Google didn't change".
Branding and marketing isn't always about how things look, and blogs are proof of that. Many blogs have very little distinguishing visual elements; they certainly do not have a logo. The world of GNU/Linux and open source is abound with ghastly logos, but look how open source has grown. In a world where markets are conversations, where reputation is everything, and where consumers are in control, logos seem a little less important to me.
Ugly? I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. I've always loved Google's logo. It's cheerful; it's simple; it makes me happy to see it. I wouldn't want it any other way.
Google will not change their logo (or at least, I'd be very surprised if they did). I personally feel that their logo is "outdated", if I can use that term, primarily because we're used to design changes and developments over the years. A logo is the face of a company, and while there are many comments that provide reasoning for why Google's logo has remained as is, I feel that there really is no reason as to why it needs changing ever.
Internet is about reinventing the world. The traditional world of business is so stupid and so dull. Most executive pay lip talks to excellence but are mediocre and afraid of creativity. They are covering their ass by acting professional, that is uncreatively.
So what is the problem with the google logo? Too many colours? I feel it makes it alive where most company logos are bland and boring.
Another example:
O'Reilly succeeded partly because he did not know the rules of the
business he was entering so he had to be creative. In the www.pbs.org/neighborhoods/science/feature/redir/cringely/nerdtv/ NerdTv interview, Tim is modest and call that "dumb luck". The fact is that with the aninal covers, he created a "brand" that other editors have tried to imitate wihtout success. If he had worked in the edition business,
this idea of animals for computer books would not have gone thru.
Just because a company has been successful and their butt-ugly mark is now recognized doesn't change the fact it's a very weak mark. You can still retain the equity established all the while updating it's appearance to be more professional looking rather then a hack job using Photoshop layer effects which it is now.
A logotype like this needs to be custom letterforms not an established typeface anyone can buy off the shelf and type out. The specific typeface is called 'Catull'. This is problematic for many legal reasons and is an tell tale sign that the mark was executed by someone not familiar with proper branding methods.
It's not so much the visual appearance that establishes the equity, it has more to do with the name itself which btw they are being sued by the scientist who coined that phrase they spun off of for the name. Yet one more tell tale sign it was executed by someone not fully understanding what needs to be done upfront before the company grows.
Ravinder Gaur