Adventures in logo development (2 of 3)

So, though we explored many examples of blending the two logos, we had to be aware of the actual existing colophons, and ensuring that we maintained that resonant identity into the new Below are some early studies of the logo development.

For giggles, here is one of the sheets With some very early sketches, with some of the notes I got from phone conference critiques from the head of Corporate Communciations. Such scattershot approach is essential early on when you;re working on tight deadline and in multiple directions at once. You need to see what they like about A and B and C, when all three choices are radically different, so that you can see which of the three directions you should move forward into. More often than not, it will merely be an elimination of one of the several directions (which still means a ton of work in different directions. But sometimes its about getting to what you want, by crossing out other directions.





















This series was built off the existing colopon, the dolphin. There is a story behind the boy riding the dolphin with the flute, but the fact is that 99% of the public out there does not know it. The dolphin colophon IS recognizable though, and so it was important early on to explore how much it could change, and yet remain. The foal with this series was also to play with bits of the Harcourt logo that could be incorporated into the dolphin colophon. Could talk for hours about the intent of each of the following, but the reality of logo communication is how you react to it in the first few seconds. How you react to it the next day is also important (that is, which logos stayed in your mind) but the truth is that neither instance requires a long monologue accompanyment. I will say, I especially liked the simplicity of the bottom three.

This group tried to bridge the strength of the Harcourt logo with the light elegance of the identity of the existing Houghton Mifflin logo. The direction is decidedly different from either pre-existing logo, and for that reason these were the least likely to be considered. Nevertheless, I do see some strengths in the identity and direction.














In the end, where we ended up was not so very different from where we started, which is often the case with corporate development. Here is the final logo, from the usage document I created:






































This logo, arguably, is merely an extrapolation of the existing Houghton Mifflin logo, with the addition of the Harcourt name. The decision was made at the top corporate level—though I never was part of the discussion, I had the feedback funneled back to me from the head of the company himself. My own choice, had I been able to express an opinion at that level, would have been different. But then, I rooted for the Red Sox for a lot of years that they lost, too.

On redesigning an existing logo (Part 1 of 2)

From a design perspective, my understanding of logo design goals are to communicate uniqueness and speak to how a particular product is not only different from other products, but better. There was a piece recently on NPR's Morning Edition that captured this goal in a nutshell, which I have been unable to uncover since, but was highly relevant. It discussed the purpose of logos in terms of recognizability, and what a logo is intended to communicate in that recognition.

Logos highlight a company name and the services it has to offer to it customers, and most importantly, creates recognition of its goods among the consumer and client community. Companies and purchasers visually associate logos with a brand identity, much as we associate a picture of our house as the place we live, our office as the place we work, without having to read the address every time. Logos create identity, and at the core of identity is the idea of specificity and uniqueness; I live here and not there, I work here and not there, and I want this product and not that one, because this one is better. And all that is communicated not in the text, but in the context and subtext, and completely visually.

So, it’s a unique opportunity, to say the least, to develop an existing logo in a new direction. As with all major design projects, the most important question to answer is, what do you want to accomplish. It’s not to make a cool logo. At least, not that alone. The answer lies in answering, what is the purpose of the redesigned identity? What is it trying to present?

If the logo is to create an identity that says "this product is the same as these other products, just with another name," then the purpose of the logos, and the communication, might be served through mimicry. But that’s seldom a worthwhile design goal. A better way to think about echoing an existing logo is to define why it’s supposed to be like something else. Pepsi is like Coke-look at the logos side-by-side and you’ll see the similarities-but different. The similarity is in that they are selling the same idea, smooth cool refreshment, good taste, good times. But it’s the distinguishing differences that make all the difference—the how they present those ideas-that creates identity and specificity.