Startup Logos from 2010 | Hacker News Reader

Startup Logos from 2010

blog.designcrowd.com

25 pointsdavidedicillo18 comments

Github Octocat is not a logo, it's a mascot, and a damn awesome one at that.

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.

I agree too... Categorizing these based on subjective gut reaction from a single person takes away any credibility from the author.

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

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.

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.

It seems that logos with rounded fonts are worse than logos with more 'squary' letters (I realize I lack some appropriate terminology). Could that be because squary fonts are more serious looking, more trustworthy?

Same here... I think a lot of the ugly ones are great, and the great ones are ugly.

Why are you posting here, and not the actual website? It's less likely that the author of the post will read it.

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.

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.

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.

That seems obvious, but for a company that interacts with customers online...why?

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.

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

Look at other examples of a purely online company. I'm not saying not to be innovative, but logo branding is similar offline and online.

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com