Startale Changes their logo - Page 28

On August 09 2011 04:36 TheHova wrote:
I'm a graphic designer, and although it's quite a long and complicated process (or atleast it should be). For the people who maybe don't share an interest in the subject but wonder why we do the things we do or how, there's pretty much 5 rules that you should follow when you are designing a new logo or when you're doing a rebranding. 5 rules i feel like StarTale have not took into consideration.

1. Appropriate - It has to be appropriate for its intended purpose. So for example, you wouldn't use comic sans for a big accountancy firm. (Or ever for that particular font.) So straight away, i feel like they've designed this pretty badly. It doesn't look appropriate at all. When i look at their logo, i feel like it should be for a nursery or a creche. It's definitely aimed at the younger generation but even so, this looks way too young and doesn't reflect what it should. Also, you don't have to show what your company does in a logo or use part of the word for it to be a good logo. Just because they are called StarTale, doesn't mean they have to have a fucking happy star as their main logo -.-. It's quite lazy actually. For example, look at TL's logo. I personally love it and think it's really well designed. But it's a fucking horse that has no relevance to the name or what TL as a website do whatsoever.

2. Memorable - People have to look at your logo and instantly be about to identify who you are. I guess they've kinda done this, but for all the wrong reasons. You should try and make it have a memorability about it from it being simple and distinctive. Not because it makes you laugh every time you see it.

3. Simple - Most good logo's are quite simple, for example the MacDonald's logo or the Apple logo. They all feature something unique but at the same, it's not overdone. I feel like maybe that's what StarTale have tried to do but it doesn't feel like it's very simple at all and there's definitely nothing unique about it. Everything is quite generic. It has no style.

4. Timeless - Ideally, although this is not always possible. You want your logo to be timeless. Another words, in 50years time you still have the exact same logo. The example always used for this is Coca Cola who still have their logo that they made in the fricking 19th century. It gives you a very strong identity which is very important. This logo is definitely not timeless, and it will look much worse in a few years time than it does now (if they keep it, which tbh i don't think they will). This is why i personally don't like the web 2.0 trend. It'll just go out of fashion and it also makes your logo look quite generic.

5. Versatility - It has be effective in a variety of formats (this is why it being simple is important too, all the points kinda blend together) So you have to take into consideration what your logo is gonna look like on documents, in books, on websites, as a banner, in black and white, will it look good small? will it look good blown up? There's a ton of questions you've gotta ask yourself when designing something. I feel like they've not taken this into consideration at all, because their logo just isn't versatile.

All in all, i'm glad they tried to change their logo, because just a few weeks ago i was talking to a friend and commented on how generic it was compared to some of the other team logo's. But they've gone the wrong way about it. In my opinion at least anyway.

On August 09 2011 06:09 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:
Does that star have a tiny hitler stache?