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?
5 Responses to ‘The Line Between Simplicity and Commonality’
I agree with your opinions. A logo doesn’t need to be creative or fancy, it just needs to be something that symbolizes you. It can be achieved by branding, but not in this case i think, because I think she never will be able to make this symbol her own due to people already have other strong connotations to it.
No one would argue that logos are meant to identify and differentiate businesses. And to do that, a logo should be instantly recognizable and associated with the said business. Generic symbols are associated with so many other things, that it become really hard to establish the desired association between the logo and the business. Now I am not saying that it’s impossible, but it requires a long-term, heavy marketing spending o establish such an association in consumer minds.
I commented on this at the LOTD site. I want to know who the designer is and read what the justification for this design is. I would like to know what the designer’s process was to come to the decision to use this symbol. I know it may be none of my business, but I think it would shed a lot of light on this issue one way or another.
Yeah, I think it would be interesting to see the process of ideas behind it as well as the reasoning from the designer and Kate Spade itself.
I know this is late, but I just read the JCD article.
Basically, I agree in principle. But for whatever reason, I have no problem with this particular case.
I know absolutely nothing about the brand, but I can’t think of another clothing brand I would confuse it with. Basically, by having such a neutral brand, their product does all the talking. I’m assuming it’s quite good, in which case this is a potential home run.
“Oh, that’s amazing… what is it?” “Spade.”
Try competing with that.