The Line Between Simplicity and Commonality
A tweet from Jacob Cass (@justcreative) tweaked my interest earlier today. He was linking to this post on his Logo of The Day blog (a great place to see some fresh ideas), remarking upon the low rating and the many generally snarky comments.
The new logo (above) is for a series of shops selling Kate Spade branded apparel and other items. Jacob mentions in a follow up post that people have criticised the new logo for being “too simple”, “not creative” and “boring”, but maintains that:
“[...]A logo does not always have to be creative or fancy to do its job. A logo is there to identify.”
To identify. To distinguish between. Two similar concepts linked by purpose. Why I have a logo? To identify with a specific company. Why identify with a company? So you can buy their goods again. Why is it important to buy their goods rather than another companies? Why is it important to distinguish between company A and company B? Preference. Why do you prefer company X over company Y? Quality/experience/availability/image. Yeah that’s it. One wants to buy from a company that fits one’s self. One wants to promote this company because it aligns with one’s values. Whether one consciously knows this or not is irrelevant, one just knows whether one likes something or doesn’t.
So surely then: a logo’s purpose is not only to help buyers/users to identify with a company, but to also distinguish between many companies. There in lies the problem that many have criticised the new Kate Spade logo for. The symbol is too common, it isn’t unique. You cannot discern that Kate Spade are a series of shops that sell Kate Spade branded apparel and other items from this logo.
Taken by Steven Depolo
P.S. Commonality is a word, right?