Over eighty-five entries from all over the world were received for the Ledger Paper logo contest — the last one coming in minutes under the midnight deadline. The quality of work ranged from 'I am a designer who would love to win an iPod' to 'I can't design for crap but hope no one else enters so I can win the iPod'. Pretty much what I expected but I was surprised by the number of entries.
By the way, apologies for the tardiness in this announcement. I've had the fever for the last few days and writing an entry was the furtherest thing from my mind. Thank you for your patience.
This competition was about two things: having some fun and helping a friend. However the announcement of this contest kicked off a huge comment thread where-in the ethics of such competitions was called into question and I ended up being accused of devaluing an entire design service market. Awesome!
For my next act I shall challenge the sovereignty of Canada by moving to Vancouver.
Gladly I can say that this did end well. Great work was presented, a winner was selected, prizes mailed out, and my friend is happy — as happy as an accountant during tax time can be. As for the design contest ethics discussion, it's time to move on.
As you will recall there were five judges for this competition. I sought people who I believe had a good eye for good design. With so many entries I thought there might be a problem trying to get an early majority from five people but I was shocked that 4 out of 5 chose the winning entry in the first round. You could say the victor was chosen hands down.
Congratulations goes to Arturo Rodriguez who is 'one half' of Twinsparc, a web-development company located in Decatur, Georgia. He had this to say about his work:
The response from some of the judges testifies to the strength of Arturo's design:
— Tom Dolan
— Jason Santa Maria
Runner up entries can be seen here, please keep in mind they are in no particular order. Thanks to everyone who entered it was your entries that made this contest interesting and fun.
Once again congratulations to Arturo who will also receive one years supply of Rice-A-Roni that San Francisco Treat.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Wow. I really like the runner up entries a bit better, just visually speaking, but I think the winner addresses the client's concerns a little more. Congrats to the winner.
Will we get to see the names/websites of the runner-up people on top of their logos?
Also, for anyone who did enter, I'd like to know how much resources/time/effort they put into this in comparison to for-pay work. More? Less? Same? Monkey? Not trying to stir the pot again, just genuinely curious.
Show some of the bad ones!
The winning entry is good but I liked the last entry in runner up entries the best.
And yes, even I wondered how much time/effort did people put in.
I put about three hours into mine. I knew I wouldn't win (I never do), but I hadn't done a logo in awhile, so I thought I'd give i a shot.
To answer some questions, from one entrants perspective:
I spent a fairly minimal amount of time working on the project. I basically came up with a concept and executed it and made only minor alterations to the original idea. (Mine is the squarish abstract "L" and "P" with LEDGERPAPER written into it.) (Though, I came up with several weights of the same design for scaling purposes
I co-own ISDLAB with Jeff Croft. (We're currently preparing a relaunch of our website.)
For an actual client, I would have come up with a few concepts, and then when those were narrowed down, a great deal of time would have been spent perfecting the chosen direction. I would have also spent more time learning about the client and would have made a better assessment as to their needs.
Fortunately, I was really pretty happy with what I came up with (and am very pleased to be a runner-up) but had a concept hit a dead-end, I probably wouldn't have spent much time on a different concept. I would have cut my losses and sent them a font that I wasn't quite pleased with. As it was, the idea came to me fairly easily, and the design kinda evolved naturally. It's interesting to see that several people used a similar color palette (based, I would guess, on a Google search for the term "Ledger Paper.")
Basically, this logo was no different from any other logo project, just with LESS of everything. (Time, Research, Revisions... etc.)
I agree that I like several of the other entries better than the winner, but can see why the winner won. It's an honor just to be nominated.
Total time spent? Maybe 5-7 hours over a two or three day period?
One regret: I wish I had sent more of a "designer's statement" with my entry. Actually, I'm not sure I remember what I sent with it now that I think about it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't full of confidence and explanation.
"the fever" ?!!?
Disco Fever? Gold Fever? Jim Lefebvre?
We've been worried sick, and we deserve a proper explanation.
Congratulations to all the runners-up and to Arturo!
I personally really like all of the posted logo and think that the owner of LedgerPaper is one lucy guy to have so much sweet work done for him for almost no cost. I think any of the posted entries would have worked just fine...
Great job, everyone.
Agreed, congrats!
I just have to know, though. Was it a 512Mb or the 1Gb player?
Disco Fever? Gold Fever?
Well I'm pretty sure it wasn't the bird flu but it could have been the General Chicken from Pick Up Stix.
LedgerPaper is the business name, but it will be followed by a "business unit" name (e.g. LedgerPaper - Financial Accounting Services). In the future, if all goes well, other business units will come into play (e.g. LedgerPaper - Financial Staffing, etc).
Are there samples of the winning entry with a business unit name incorporated?
Ahh...General Chicken. The leader of the victorious army at the Siege of Salmonella.
Very usable and versatile logo winner.
Congratulations to the owner of an iPod, Arturo!
I'd love to see more or all of the entries listed (even the crap ones). No names necessary on the rest of them, really. It is fun to see how people's different thought processes work...there are some quality ones in the runner ups.
Hope you're feeling better, Greg. Being sick sucks.
Congrats to the winner and to all the runner-ups, I think it was a great experience for all.
I'm conflicted. On the one hand, I'd like to see exmples of bad design with advice on how it could have been improved, but I'm afraid that next to mine, I'd see "Don't give up your day job down at the slaughterhouse..."
I wouldn't worry about it too much. I look back at a lot of the work I've done and ask myself why I didn't pursue another line of work. Most of my early work falls into this category, and I still get questionable work from time to time. I wouldn't be where I am today without having been a crappy beginner willing to learn from mistakes. You seem eager to learn, and therefore will eventually probably be far beyond 90% of the rest of the design community. Keep entering (and working) and you'll be there in no time.
Nice job Arturo. Compared to the //ahem-iwanttoseemoredesignseventhebadones// few runners-up shown, I think Arturo's was the correct choice. A good logo translates well to straight black-and-white (no greys) and can still be functional, recognizable and articulate in a range of colors, as shown.
I think, considering the avalanche of good, healthy discussion this contest stirred up, seeing the anonymous bad ones would bring this to a jovial close, and maybe we could have a cyber goup hug and move on. Waddaya say?
Although Rian Murnen brought up the point of the business unit, I was also curious how it scaled down to a favicon as also mentioned in the contest instructions.
A good logo translates well to straight black-and-white (no greys) and can still be functional, recognizable and articulate in a range of colors, as shown.
I don't really think that a logo has to follow those rules to be "a good logo." As a designer, the first thing I want to do when I'm told "design has to be this" is to do something other than "this." (Whatever this happens to be.)
Probably the rule that I'm most bored with is the one dealing with what is acceptable in a logo. The only thing a "good logo" has to do is satisfy the needs of a particular client.
I'll be the first to say that I see no point in posting the entries that weren't chosen as runners up. I know I'd feel pretty shitty if my logo that didn't get any recognition was suddenly thrown to the opinions of those who didn't see fit to enter the contest in the first place.
A lot of people weren't interested in the contest at all, so I really hope those same people aren't now wanting to mock the efforts of those who tried. Your time would be better spent designing something yourself. (And I realize that some of you are merely interested in seeing the work entered for reasons other than mockery.)
(And I'm sure those of you who are interested about a critique of your entry could probably get feedback by emailing Greg. Though, as Im not Greg, maybe not.)
I had the urge to use Clarendon as well, but then I wanted to apply the Wicked Worn Look. I couldn't resisit the urge, so no Clarendon. Comic Sans it was. :)
"Rules" is perhaps not the best word to use, but there *are* definite circumstances under which a logo has to work (black and white reproduction being one of them). Brian F—if you're so 'when I hear this I want to do that' it sounds like you're more interested in alleviating your own boredom than serving the client. Aesthetics are a matter of taste, but functionality is functionality—and if a logo doesn't work in black and white then it's a limited and/or hard to work with design that is going to have issues over its life span, guaranteed.
Well, I certainly didn't mean to imply that my disdain for the status quo would affect interaction with a customer. In fact, I specifically said that "the only thing a "good logo" has to do is satisfy the needs of a particular client."
And, I won't withdraw my belief that most of the design I like (and is certainly well regarded in general) knows the rules and how to bend them to suit a need. Similarly, I'm pretty sure I'm never going to be astounded by any design firm that has a strict "logos must conform to THIS criteria or else they're not a logo" mentality. In every field the best of the best push the boundaries of what one can or should do.
Let's face it: most of the rules concerning logo creation were drawn up at a time when printing in color was an expensive luxury, and reproducing color was by no means easy. "Digital" wasn't even in the vocabulary. Technology has improved vastly, and I think needs have evolved as well. I won't go so far as to suggest abandoning the rules, but I will say that the world would be pretty dull if we didn't on occassion.
My main point wasn't so much "do what I want, even if it means the logo suffers" as "I dislike when people say something HAS to conform to a certain 'idea' of what is right."
Being told something can only be done in one way is, to me, a challenge to do it in another. Design wouldn't be much fun, otherwise. Dylan was told that migrating to electric guitar was a huge mistake. Imagine if Picasso and Braques had never decided that reality didn't have to be portrayed in a realistic way. Similarly, tell me that something shouldn't be done, and I'll just want to find a way to make it work. It's not really about alleviating boredom as it is making the work I love interesting.
Design doesn't have to be safe to be good.
Also, I should mention that I'm not trying to start an argument, and I realize that my initial response came off as somewhat of an attack. I apologize for that, at least.
In place of "rules" I would say "guidelines" and as in any other craft, you can't break them unless you understand them. I just worry that a lot of good design is dismissed by people who are "stuck" on the guildelines.
Man, I don't know Brian, that's a pretty weak argument for just ignoring what are pretty widely regarded best practices. Yes, you do say that your idea of a "good logo" satisfies the needs of a particular client, but as a commercial designer its your JOB to direct and inform the client along the way. I use a CPA for my taxes and rely on him for expert knowledge of his job to get me the best possible results - just as my CPA would rely on me to inform him of possible downfalls in his logo design, like it won't fax well or it really only looks good in 4-color with a spot varnish but you won't mind that it's just quadrupled your print costs, right?
Whether you agree with it or not, if a logo you design doesn't render well in all formats, then it has failed and you've done your client a disservice.
And Picasso and Braques were fine (Fine) artists - they didn't have clients to answer to when their paintings looked like crap on a fax.
I too would like to see all of the entries. It is helpful to see what worked and what didn't and how different people interpret the same information.
BTW, a lot of companies no longer fax documents, so strict black and white work is not so much of an issue anymore. With a financial company though, it is most likely important. It all depends, as it has been said, on the needs of the client.
I have to jump on the I want to see the others bandwagon too. Although Arturo's design was excellent, I really think I preferred some of the others (Billy's, Erica's or Jason's to be precise), but I am not the client, and I have my own thoughts on logos so... I wonder how others have approached the challenge.
Being a self taught designer (can I be self-taught and still call myself a designer?) I would also like to hear more thoughts on logo design. I feel, and maybe it shows in my work (d'oh), that opinions on what is good/bad are just as important as what the 'book' says is good or bad. Many of us have probably done excellent work that don't meet all the rules, but I digress.
If the others are posted, I also agree that 'if you can't say something nice...'. I only wish I had known about the contest earlier so I could have come up with a design that you would all be asking to see now ;). I think everyone who entered deserves kudos!
The big issue I have with posting the other logos are that they've already been made fun of. No sense in deepening the wound. I'm sure there are a few of you who would offer constructive criticism, but still.
Did I miss something? Who made fun of them? Man, I miss everything.
Mike/Brian, more thoughts as requested: First, I'd encourage a shift in vocabulary here. The B&W issue is not about whether a logo is "good" or "bad"—as Mike describes above. It's about whether a design is well-engineered and made easy to worth with. I'd call this how well the logo 'works'—an issue that is distinct from the concept and style inherent in it's design.
Style is style, and what's appropriate to one client is wrong for another (although certainly there is style well-executed and not so well-executed), but let's leave that aside for the moment. What the B&W issue discussed above raises is the issue of how well a logo works under all circumstances.
Brian and Joe, sorry, but you're wrong if you think that a logo needing to work well in B&W is unimportant in 2005. I wish it were so, and certainly technology has altered the technical considerations the designer needs to consider, but a one-color master is still a crucial thing for most real commercial entities. Just a few examples: Faxing and one-color copying (still exists, sorry), signage (often a hybrid of metals, plastics, or an etch onto glass or stone), budget printing (for materials like manuals, invoices, user guides, hang-tags), silkscreen and embroidery (try making a four-color RGB blur look good on a baseball cap), and honestly ... the list goes on and on. Jeff K is correct above when he says if a logo doesn't stand up and work well in circumstances such as these then it's crippled and you've done a disservice to the client.
The list of media that a logo has to work well across isn't shrinking, it's growing. Today's best marks have all of the best qualities of great makes of the past, but also look good on your cell phone screen, in your system tray, in the finder. It's the designer's job to make sure they provide the client with a design that addresses these problems proactively, if they want their creation to have a long and beloved life.
Well, they've been called "bad" and "crap" in an assortment of posts. That'd be enough for me to not want mine posted after-the-fact.
Jeff Kenny:
it wasn't really an argument. It was an opinion that I happen to hold and everyone else is free to hold a different opinion. I merely state what works for me.
(And, leaps in technology, changes in the way we market ourselves, and working outside the status quo seem to be fairly reasonable reasons to be comfortable with my opinion. Especially since I've said in several comments that I realize there are clients who will need a Logo that conforms to the guidelines that have been listed. I counter that there are also clients that some designers might never impress if they ONLY stick to those guidelines.)
I don't agree with it, and I think I have valid reasons for not doing so. Nothing is aboslute. Guidelines for what makes a logo usable and/or functional least of all.
Also, I'm pretty certain that I'm going to remain in the minority, and I don't feel that I have much else to add, so I won't beat the dead horse. I will however, be happy to read any further posts on the subject.
Tom,
Admittedly, 'good/bad' was too simplistic to describe the intent of my message, and some of your points, more eloquently stated, have made me consider a review of some of my logo work. I tend to focus on web graphics and at least for me, other media are not at the top of my mind and therefore missed, which is wrong, and is something I need to work on.
My point, to try to express it more clearly, is that I would like to see the designs so I can see what other designers are doing. Then, I could draw my own opinions on there designs, whether they 'work' or not.
To address Brian's concerns of designs being labeled 'bad' and 'crap', there are always Simons in the crowd but it doesn't stop the William Hungs from continuing to try.
In the second paragaraph, I meant to say "I could draw my own opinions on there designs, without being concerened whether they 'work' or not."
Brian, your confidence in your own opinion is clear, and you're certainly right that there are exceptions to every rule, and every rule sets up interesting opportunities to be broken or bent. That said, identity design is something that has gone on for thousands of years, and which has gone through many technological evolutions. There are essentials and truisms that remain and are as real today as they were for the Romans and the feudal clans of Japan.
Unfortunately, it's often self-sure designer opinion (some would use the word 'ego' here) such as yours—usually uniformed by the harsh realities of deep experience—that saddles organizations with identity systems that are a management hassle from day one. It's usually only a matter of time before these organizations redesign, so day-to-day management of the idenity system is more workable. The original designer goes off in a huff, insulted by [what they perceive as] the organization's inevitable bow to the status quo—when really all the organization is desperate for is a logo that works. I've seen it [sadly] many, many, many times.
Tom
I realize I haven't had the groin-kick of deep experience, and I certainly respect your thoughts as I consider what I've seen of your work (from your website) to be excellent.
I will also agree that because I value my opinions I will fight for them, but I'm not a "go down with the ship" kind of guy. As soon as I realize there is nothing to be done, I'll join the rest of the crew on the lifeboat. (I simply see no point in having an opinion if I'm not willing to stick with it until there is no possible chance of defending it.)
It's not ego, of which I have very little. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I nurse my wounds and I learn. I suppose one of my failings is that I see "can't" as a challenge.
For what it's worth, I think "digital" has ushered in the biggest change in design and will have the most impact on "the guidelines" since the invention of the printing press. "What is possible" is evolving much faster year-to-year than in any previous period of time.
The irony, of course, is that much of my logo work fits what would be expected of a logo.
Brian, like all good designers, I can argue both sides of most arguments :). I've done what I'd imagine is just what you're talking about, and argued to clients that they need to consider an identities as designs well-suited to motion and pixels first, and business cards and fax cover sheets second (if at all). Thanks for the kind words on my work—over almost more than a few years of professional work I've designed (perhaps) hundreds of identities, and learned many lessons the hard and painful way.
What I still see to be a bit of a disconnect is your insistence that established guidelines or accepted characteristics of a great mark are limitations. I see them simply as aids and shortcuts that ensure design work works. It's a balance of course. One might think the architect who knows too much about structural engineering might never attempt bold and innovative suspension bridges or Gehry-esque alloy wraps. It might be true. A canon can constrict and intimidate and discourage innovation in many.
But in the end, I don't buy it. It's the creative professional's responsibility to not ignore rules and best practices, but understand *exactly* where and when it's smart to push and bend them. Gehry of course knows structural engineering all too well—and it's an impressively assembled combination of creativity, pragmatism, and problem-solving that gets his insanely innovative buildings built.
Designers too often start with two strikes against us because clients think we're more concerned with our portfolio than their customers. Everyday we have to fight the perception that we care more about making things cool than making things work. Our job is to do both—with equal vigor.
I'm up for seeing all the logos as well. There is no doubt in my mind that among those that didn't make the cut are some good logos, and one could get some good inspiration from them. Just because LedgerPaper and the judges didn't think they met the needs, doesn't mean they are bad logos or that their concepts wouldn't work elsewhere.
We're not going to get into questioning the judges opinions and ruling by displaying all the entries, get over it. This was a design contest, not an exhibition.
As the original contest post said nothing about a public review, I think it only fair not to have one. Someone might have dashed off a design in 2 minutes just for fun with the understanding that it was for the judges eyes only and the guidelines of the original post should be respected.
For the record there were many fine designs, and Kim is correct, just because a logo didn't win or isn't a runner up vote-getter it does not mean it wasn't well-executed or well conceived. There were a lot of entries. There were many good ones.
I'll pipe down after a few reasons on why I liked Arturo's solution most, just for the record:
1) As mentioned above—and debated at length in the original thread—the name of the client is an issue to work around. I felt strongly that any design that might contribute to a misperception that Ledger Paper is a paper company wasn't addressing a key component of the design challenge.
2) The design has to 'work' well across mixed media, and within very limited budgets. The client needs a identity that will work well online and off, and which won't suffer unduly if reproduced under bargain priced circumstances. Ideally, the successful design could turn this limitation into an advantage, and embrace a style that looks great when rubber-stamped or printed at Kinkos.
3) The personality of the design should be both distinctive and appropriate. It's a conservative industry, but it doesn't mean the design can't have some flair and wit. You want an accountant who pays attention to detail, and who fastidiously crosses the t's and dots the i's. A logo that communicates and embodies this personality is ideal, while simultaneously being different and distinctive. As a young business it shouldn't look too old school or stuffy.
Of the designs presented, I simply thought Arturo's scored best when viewed from these three perspectives.
Greg,
You should have said that in the first place, but if you had, we would have missed all this truly enlightening repartee.
Whew! That was fun....
Tom Dolan, I agree with your assessments to the B&W issues. I never said that was a "rule" to creating a good logo. Even corrected to "guidelines", how I create a logo and present to a client is what works for me.
I don't even present a logo in color until it has been approved in black and white first. I choose to do this so the client can focus on the logo only (message, composition, balance, image or typography, etc.), and not be distracted by tints of colors, etc. Once a logo is approved in black, then I introduce the color scheme(s). Believe it or not, there is still such a thing as the yellow pages that may still require black and white art, as well as one color printed pieces and so on.
If one has designed a logo without considering how it looks in straight black, one hasn't explored every conceivable placement of a client's mark (yes, it may get used in ways you may not have thought of 3 1/2 years down the road), and the client has not been served fully. Relying on color to make a logo is not the best way, IN MY OPINION. This is how I've worked, and it has worked incredibly well, and I've had many happy clients who appreciate traveling this route.
Bottom line, logos are incredibly subjective. Also, in my earlier request to see more of the runners-up, (even the bad ones) was not so we could bash those. I never would do that. I was just curious to see how others think things through and problem solve. Even the not-so-good ones might be that way in execution, but one might still be able to draw different concepts and ideas from them. Some may feel the need to point and giggle, so it's just as well they aren't shown.
Reading this reminded me of a quote by Matt Groening
"I think the great, memorable characters in cartoons in the 20th century are characters you can identify in silhouette..."
A good logo translates well to straight black-and-white (no greys) and can still be functional, recognizable and articulate in a range of colors, as shown.
Orange's logo and brand is based apon the fact that it's always orange.
I definitely think the best logo was chosen. Many people have said some of the others are their favorites, but I think Tom points out quite nicely above that whether a logo is your favorite isn't really the most important. Does it serve the client's needs.
This winner does, and very well. Many of the runner's up don't. Heck, most of them are just logotypes, which aren't bad in themselves, but in this instance, lend nothing to defining the client. (which is a very important aspect of this particular logo, again re: Tom above... maybe an already well-known client could get away with one of the runner's up, but not a newcomer to the market, I think.)
Sharp work, Arturo. I like it. Enjoy your tunes.
I think Arturo's logo is the best of all show here, it's the only one that you will see even without the text and say "Oh that does look like ledgerpaper".
On a sidenote I have the feeling I belong to the "I can't design for crap but hope no one else enters so I can win the iPod" category ^^
Arturo's logo is very nice, I must say
Hilarious. OK, so I din't win - but I never expected to and Arturo's logo is by far the best of those displayed. Heck, I'm glad I made the losers... um, sorry, runners up list. ;D
You don't think that the kerning between the "L" and the "e" looks right, do you? I'd question several of the pairs, actually.
es el peor logo que he visto en vida y tengo 5 años!!!!