What I thought was fascinating about this film was that it felt like a visual trivia game, where the viewer is watching and simultaneously guessing what all of the companies’ brands are. A brief synopsis: Police (Michelin men) chase an armed criminal (Ronald McDonald) in the cityscape of Los Angeles. During the chase, mascots from dozens of other companies (ie. Pringles, Pillsbury, Mr. Clean) make up the conversational characters as dozens of logos and brand icons literally fly by. There is a lot of subtle humor in it and it moves fast. So fast in fact, you want to watch it again.

After watching the movie, I felt conflicted. I loved it because it was well done and unexpected. I found the landscape of logos overwhelming, which I would guess is the point. As a designer, I loved seeing all the logos and can appreciate the talent and energy that went into creating them, but at the same time, at what point do we reach a brand saturation point? Is the world that designers are helping to create, becoming unnecessarily obtrusive to our everyday life? Let me know what you think, I would like to hear your thoughts.

The 2010 logo is simple, colorful and representative of the history and culture of the country. For centuries, the Inuit people of Canada’s Arctic stacked rock in human form to create the inukshuk, a stone landmark that provided direction for food and navigation. Over time, the inukshuk has become a symbol of hope and friendship, an expression of hospitality that welcomes people with open arms every day. This inukshuk tradition was transformed to create the iconography of the 2010 Olympic logo, the contemporary interpretation of the stone formation is paired with clean san serif typography. There is a nice choice of using all lowercase letters which compliments the stout and boxy shape of the icon.

What I think I like the most of this brand is the color palette. The choice of the acidic green and cerulean blue were brilliant, the colors really stand out on the wintery white slopes of Vancouver. The color blue represents water in its many forms (ocean, lakes, ice, snow), while the green represents the growth of vegetation and natural resources of the area. These colors bring to life the dynamic illustrations, which are representative of each sport. They are sleek and have a modern superhero feel to them. With each one of them, you can feel the action of the event and can see the power and spirit of the athlete in beautiful detail. The background of each of these is surrounded by swirling waves that include detailed aspect of both the environment and canadian culture.

I am already looking to see what will be done with the branding of the 2012 London Summer Olympics. They are off to an interesting start with the logo, we will see what happens with the rest of the brand.

Anyway, this same model is now being used on designers instead of photographers. This of course, is part of a continuing trend to undervalue the good work of designers. As I have talked about before, there are plenty of websites out there that offer logo work for less then $100, so this is not exactly a new idea. This particular offer from iStockphoto gives designers an outlet to send in all of their rejected and unused logos from their portfolios, and get a whopping $5 for them.

Part of the problem with this is that professional designers are paid by clients to use their talent, degree, and training to create logos. The work that the client pays for is essentially their work, they paid for it and it would be unethical to re-sell that work. Sure, it is a disappointment to let unfeatured work go to waste but part of being creative is producing multiple ideas that fit a specific strategy. I would liken it to a tailor selling tailored clothing to the public, they are never going to fit the buyer quite right.

iStockphoto is definitely a product of the culture that we live in. People want as much as they can get for the lowest price possible (Hello! Big Box stores). The marketplace is evolving, the average person is probably not going to be able to see the difference or the value between a cheap logo and a strategic one, but you pay for what you get. A logo is just a logo and not a brand. Smart companies still need designers and strategists to successfully market.

I would like to think that it is not going to hurt the industry too much, it’s hard to say. If I were to guess I’d say it is going to be the mediocre and amateur designers that will take the most advantage of this kind of opportunity. I don’t think any designer worth their salt is going to think $5 is an acceptable price for logo work. Here’s to hoping. In the meantime, if you are looking for a logo, or better yet a brand, that is thoughtful and strategically driven, give us a call.