interesting. So, is a ugly (but unique, and closely matched to the brand) logo better or worse than a pretty (but not so closely matched to the brand) logo?
ugly is in the eye of the beholder :-) A logo well suited to the brand is better than something not well suited to the brand. I would argue, however, that a great designer could come up with a unique and closely matched logo, and you wouldn't have to settle for one or the other.
ah. the 'pretty' logo was what a friend came up with who is trained as a designer. Now, I have no taste, so if 'tasteful' was my goal, I'd pretty much just do what he said, but besides that, he seems to think a logo that looks like other logos is a good thing, while I think a generic looking logo, while you are smaller than everyone else, works against your brand building efforts. My theory is that something that is unique (and thus ugly... isn't that what ugly means? honestly, I wouldn't know) would be much better suited to building a strong brand organically.