Here's why it doesn't matter if Google's logo sucks
Saw this link about the Google logo on Kottke.org and it was interesting to see what others had to say about it. Here's my comment:
Logos (and branding/design in general) do matter, but it's not everything.
But I believe Shmuel said it best:
Maybe branding is what we do everyday. Maybe it's what we say, how we act - the process of accumulating social equity (read: whuffie). Maybe by claiming that everyone should have the best logos, names, and graphics standards manuals we are putting the cart before the horse.Logos are powerful - they are the visual equivalent of words and as such they invoke meaning. The question then is where does the meaning come from - who we say we are or who we show we are? I think that Google captured our imaginations by doing what they said they would and doing it better than anyone else. I think they have continued to hold our loyalty by being attentive to their users and evolving to meet our needs.
We could look back in hindsight and say, "Wow was I wrong about that logo - look at how they've succeeded" but I think that would miss the point. Google didn't succeed because they have the best logo (in fact personally, I have to agree with Jason, it could use some TLC) - Google has succeeded because they did what they said they would: stay out of the way and provide good search results.
In 2000 we were still formulating an opinion about Google. Today, three years later, we have seen the company grow and stay true to their promises so far. In the future Google may change the way they act and if they do, that logo that looks quaint and charming today will loose it's luster. A logo has equity only because a company gives it meaning and because of this logos, like words, are alive. They change with time and culture.
I agree 100%.
ps. I think Kottke was ripping Google's UI/logo because he wanted to get hired for some redesign work :)
update: Here's another story on the (unintentional?) branding of Google

Recent Comments