*Please pardon the un-styled mess why I am rethinking and re-designing my blog!*
The estimated time to read this article is 3 minutes
While watching the news the other nice I heard a little blurb about a new logo’s to brand projects that are financed by Obama’s stimulus package. At first, I’m not quite sure what to think of the logos…but after viewing them for a while I found some things I like and some things that need to be critiqued.
A bit of background info
Lets start with a little bit of background information. These logos were designed by Mode Project, a chicago based design firm that designed Obama’s (immaculate IMO) campaign identity. Props to designers Aaron Draplin and Chris Glass for their hard work on such a visible public project.
What I like about the stimulus logo
- Color Scheme – I definitely like the color scheme of the Recovery.gov logo. Not to dull and corporate, but not to bright but still exciting. It’s serious, but its also fresh…sort of.
- Symbology – Stars, Leaves, The Red Cross, and Cogs. Stars symbolize our flag, patriotism and national pride. Leaves symbolize growth and renewal and green energy. Cogs symbolize work and cooperation. The red cross symbolizes health care. Lots of symbols, lots of meaning packed into a somewhat simple logo.
What I like about the DOT Recovery logo
- Color Scheme – Orange is a color that is almost universally associated with construction. It also gets your attention. The black is a strong color that balances with the orange nicely. Orange also means action to me – something is going to be done, or something is going to happen.
- T.I.G.E.R. – I like that this logo uses an acronym (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) This makes it much easier to remember, and it spells and ACTUAL WORD!!!! How often does this happen with government agencies?
Things I DON’T like about the logos…
- Visual Tension – The logos seems to have some problems with the way the stars are cut off on the edge of the stimulus logo and also with the stripes on the tiger logo. The stripes probably need to be thicker, and maybe the stars need to be bigger, maybe only use 3 or 4 stars.
- Text Placement – I think that the Recovery.gov is awkwardly placed and probably needs to be more prominent. Perhaps the text could be placed outside the symbol?
- Plant Illustration - The right leaf of the plant illustration feels a bit awkward. I think the right leaf needs to be a separate shape from the stem. Another option would be to make one leaf bigger and one smaller.
What do YOU think?
Sound off in the comments and let me know what you think of these two logos! I want to engage you guys in a discussion so let’s give it a go!
[16] Comments
Posted in color, design, design ethics, Graphic Design, illustration, type, Web 2.OH
Share This Article
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Other Popular Posts:
16 Responses to “Stimulating Logos? A Short Critique”
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
Steph Adamo says:
i don’t see the red cross in that logo at all. I see a white T…
I rather like them, personally. There’s something about the negative & positive borders on the recovery logo that i’m not sure about, but generally i think they’re quite nice & modern-looking.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Steph Adamo says:
OHH i just found the red cross. I would not have noticed that if you hadn’t had me looking for it.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Lillian Davenport-Partac says:
I think the different plant illustration you suggested makes sense because it looks more like a seedling.. which indicates change and starting over. On the same token, it also seems kind of fragile. Good call about the stars being cut off at an awkward point. The Tiger logo is visually jarring to me with the stripes.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Tony Leo says:
I like the recovery one. I think larger stars could have fixed the problem, but the placement of the recovery text is fine as is. It carries the implied quadrants.
I’d ditch the outer blue border – I think it’d be more interesting without – but it’s all around a very solid design.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Bryan L says:
I think you made some great points, except for the leaf argument. That’s the one solid point on there I wouldn’t change. It take a standard leaf illustration & spins it just enough to be visually interesting without compromising its identifiability (I know, it’s not a real word) as a stylized plant. I also think that it’s funny that the cogs don’t mesh, is this a symbol of how we are all different people & we don’t all work the same way most of the time? Just a thought. Also, Recovery.gov is placed perfectly, but in my experience, I’ve had the same problem, perfect placement, too small place for the text. Outside the symbol it should probably go IMO.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Snookerman says:
I reckon the leaf looks good as it is. The first one you proposed is regular and boring, the second one is too unbalanced. My $0.02
March 5th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Mike says:
Your critique makes a lot of good points.
TIGER I believe that the tiger stripes would work better in the letterforms if they were a bit organic. Might solve some of the tension/weird color break issues. Also, it doesn’t seem like a logo – it strikes me as type. I think that adding a border around the word TIGER (or around the whole thing) could solve this problem.
Recovery.gov Yes, the positioning of the type is fine visually, but it’s way too small. So I don’t think it works in many situations. If it gets much smaller than it is on this page, the type will become a blurry line. Best to remove it. Or, get rid of the bottom row of stars, run Recovery.gov across the bottom of the blue field (non-condensed font), and fill the rest of the blue field with stars. Might look better in my head than in actuality.
I don’t have any problem with the plant as it is, or the gears. The stars do look strange and conspicuous bleeding off the edge like that, though. I think they are too small to bleed effectively.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Cody Thompson says:
So I was at Ross today after reading your blog and found this
Pretty ridiculous eh? I couldn’t believe it myself. Now obviously if something is at Ross it’s not new and you can clearly see that there is a vein in the logo that the Aaron Draplin and Chris Glass traced.
What a disgrace, and for it to get past the US GOVERNMENT. Props.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Cody Thompson says:
http://img7.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kdk0371.jpg
The picture didnt post before
March 5th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Niki says:
@Cody that lead image is probably part of a stock illustration. Probably why it’s so common. I would not accuse them of stealing
March 6th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Cody Thompson says:
In my opinion even a stock illustration should not have been used.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Aetoric Design says:
The font for the Tiger logo is pretty classy, but otherwise I think it’s a bit shabby. I agree that the recovery font could be a lot more prominent, but I disagree with the plant illustration completely. I think the disconnect with 2 leaves and the connection with the other one is very stimulating. Cool post on our government (never thought I’d say that!).
March 6th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Patrick says:
I personally like the recovery one with the exception of the font which I agree should be bigger or more in your face. Right now it’s really lost in the stars and other art they used.
Personally I hate the tiger logo. Pretty cliche.
March 11th, 2009 at 6:07 am
youssef sarhan says:
There are just so many things about these logos that shout… “I can use photoshop” … There looks as if there’s absolutely no solid awareness of logo design.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:28 am
sloane says:
I like the look of the Tiger logo a lot…although I read a critique of it somewhere else that pointed out that it plays off of the colors of a Tiger…which doesn’t do anything to help communicate what it actually stands for.
It’s easy to criticize rather than to give better ideas (but I’m not a designer..) – but the stimulus logo..disappointing. Not horrible, but the gears: not interlocking. And manufacturing? Still an important part of our economy? Yes. A major area of growth (where we want to focus?) I don’t think so…
It’s generous of you to see a cross in there, but I don’t think that’s what was intended…
A fair criticism I read was “This logo says: government, agriculture, industry, not: education, health care, energy.”
Dr. Tantillo, who blogs from a branding perspective, published a post back in November about the difficulty–and importance–of Obama staying true to his brand.
I feel like this logo is at least slightly off track…
March 18th, 2009 at 11:44 pm