The Underscore Archives

On 5 Jun 2007, at 17:08, Chris Kaminski wrote:
>>
>> That's kinda my point.  The "swoosh" logo was the easy bit.
>
> I disagree. The shape itself is evocative, and at the time it was
> fairly unique (could be proved wrong here, but I don't recall many
> 'swooshy' logos that predate the Nike logo). It's not easy to develop
> something like that.

Sorry, I meant "comparatively easy", although perhaps "easy" is the  
wrong word.  ie. if inspiration strikes, it *can* be done very  
quickly.  If inspiration *doesn't* strike, it really isn't going to  
happen and no number of committees, focus groups, etc. is going to  
help that.  Refining a basic idea takes time, but still, I reckon  
more time's spent with all the peripheral crap.

What I mean is that by comparison, all the other work of turning it  
into a functioning brand is the long, drawn-out, expensive bit.

With regards to the Nike logo, while I think it's inspired, great  
work, I doubt it took *that* long to come up with the logo itself.   
You see enough photos of old, yellowed bits of paper with twenty or  
so pencil-scribbled variations on a theme to know that some big-name  
logos were the result of directed doodling. (for example, the Exxon  
logo)

I also *think* such swooshy-type things were clearly in the offing,  
partly as a progression from Sixties automobile design.  If I  
remember correctly, Coke's "dynamic contour ribbon" predates the Nike  
swoosh.  Nike's swoosh is a particularly elegant rendering of the  
theme, though.


I wouldn't belittle the efforts of those designers for a second, but  
I think the real skill isn't coming up with the logo concept... it's  
the ability to see the qualities in that concept, refine it well, and  
know how to use it well.  Anyone can come up with a sheet of a  
hundred vaguely-anthropomorphic technicolor daubings, but it takes a  
genius to pick the right one and know what to do with it.


Tom

-- 
Tom Gidden
http://gidden.net/tom/