
Startup Logos from 2010 - davidedicillo
http://blog.designcrowd.com/article/243/50-startup-logos-from-2010
======
dasil003
Github Octocat is not a logo, it's a mascot, and a damn awesome one at that.

------
wmwong
For non-designers, telling whether something is designed well or not usually
is a feeling. It would be very helpful if it could be put into words why each
logo was in each category. That usually turns a feeling into substance that
can be reused.

~~~
periferral
i agree. cant really tell what is great about groupon and what is terrible
about the echo logo.

~~~
awj
Also, SimpleGeo and StockTwits seem to be using about the same concept: use
the company name as the logo, replace a letter with a symbol representing the
business. The former is "good" while the latter is "average", and without an
indication as to _why_ it looks like this list is entirely arbitrary.

~~~
mynameisraj
I'm a designer…

StockTwits has a lot of small issues with its logotype which contributes to
its 'average' label. The type is not kerned correctly, uses an awkward
typeface (look at, for example, the w), and has that odd messages icon on top
of the i.

SimpleGeo, on the other hand, has a beautifully kerned typeface, contains a
more recognizable logo (note the compass; this is something that can
eventually become instantly recognizable), and is overall simpler- by that, I
mean that it can be used in a large variety of mediums (note the color in
StockTwits' logo).

Overall, the main difference is in the type itself- tall, awkward, and lanky
type versus medium, large, and overall more visually clear type.

------
guywithabike
Ask yourself: If she didn't have the headers, could you tell what order the
list was in (good to bad or bad to good) or where the line was drawn?

I sure couldn't.

~~~
dhimes
I agree. I can see that the fonts in Yinzcam and meesocial don't work, but I
can't see why, for example, Crowdrise is worse than Boxee.

------
calbear81
I would knock off some points for the "web 2.0" style logos that incorporate
elements that don't translate well to black/white print form or cannot be
easily recognizable when constrained such as on embroidery.

~~~
Semiapies
That _seems_ obvious, but for a company that interacts with customers
online...why?

~~~
Periodic
You want customers to think about your brand, and to do that you want to give
them every exposure you can. You might end up with magazine adds, outdoor
adds, or t-shirts, all of which can be strong marketing tools.

Putting your logo offline makes your brand seem more concrete, it helps pull
you out of the pure virtual realm so that customers can relate to you better.

~~~
Semiapies
But which of these logos are going to look bad on a full-color ad or a decent-
quality t-shirt?

------
tomdeal
Aside from the subjective Good/Average/Bad this is a very nice list of how
logos in 2010 looked. Most of them are simple and clean. If I remember
correctly, in 2008/2009 we had a lot of shiny logos with shadows (the typical
web2.0 look) which has been abandoned almost entirely. This years logos are
more designed than just made, they invlove more of the product they represent.

------
to
yeah why is the octocat under ugly? i mean i get 4square, that thing looks
like someone colored a volleyball poster from the 60ies...

