It seems that brand identities have tipped the scales towards what is termed as 2.0 design.
Perhaps I am aging myself again, but “back in my day” certain restrictions and processes had to be factored in when creating logos. How does it look on 2 colour printing? How does it work in reverse applications? Can it Fax? – remember that technology??
With the surge of affordable digital printing, and online web content, it seems that the rules have changed. Now, the inclusion of gradient, rainbow fills, drop shadows and subtle bevels are running rampant in the branding world.
Even Xerox – the inventors of xerographic copiers (black or white only) has made the leap.
While these design additions can certainly benefit brands, be fearful of a new flood of “I have Photoshop, so I can build a logo” designers. Just because you have a copious amount of filter/drop shadow/texture options at your fingertips does not mean they all need to be tossed into the logo. Consideration of where the brand lives, scalability, and application are now more important than ever. If you are building a 2.0 logo, take the time to ensure that it can be replicated into some of the traditional restrictions. Stick with the tried-and-true approach to branding: Build in Black & White first. If it works there, it can work with any filters or rainbows you throw at it.
While their new designs are built 2.0, the following examples below, have factored in, and broken down to work with flat, single colour applications. Ideal for t-shirts, SWAG and low-cost printing materials.
nice write-up Brad. I’d add that size matters too. With a digital environment there’s the likelihood that your logo will be displayed at a lot smaller size than on a business card; more importantly you can’t control when that happens.
The multitude of combinations of platform, device size, user behavior, orientation, operating system defaults could all conspire to reduce the branding element in your content to a handful of pixels. Is it still recognizable?