|
|
| 2. |
enron
i was shocked when i learned that one of the great american graphic designers had designed one of the worst logos ever. the designer of such instantly classical logos as the ibm and ups logos, paul rand, also designed an instant stinker, the enron tilted 'e' logo. the logo looks like a kindergartner put it together. it's amazing that it's so basic yet so horrifically awkward. the wire image could have been pushed more in which case it could have been good, but there are inconsistencies with the font and icon as well as uneasy juxtapositions of color. the logo seems like more of a cruel joke for a company led by cruel people than a logo designed by a legend.
|
|
| 3. |
verizon
another brand that demonstrates the lack of early marketing planning is one of the nation's leading cell phone service providers. this beastly logo throws a silly and awkward v-shaped icon that doesn't match any other angles in the logo and it and is forced on top of a bland font that is graced with a repulsive red 'z' that extends below the logo and ends in a pathetic fade, which is evidently meant to demonstrate a horizon of some sort and reflect the icon that teeters above the logotype like a company about to collapse. verizon has a good name and really catchy marketing to work for its quality service, but the logo is unbearable.
|
|
| 4. |
google
the world's best search engine is stuck with an average at best logo. this unfortunate result is probably due to a rush to get the brilliant concept to market. another possibility is that it was designed by a programmer, which usually ends up looking like some of the 2s in our critique list. the name, google, is perfect for the concept, though the word was originally spelled googol. it is the word that represents the number 1 followed by 100 zeros. and the way they incorporated the pages of search results into the 'o's is genius, but the logo still suffers. the font is a basic palatino-esque font called catull, which has nothing altered to make it uniquely google. it's just the font. the simplicity matches the website style, but it doesn't say much for the designer. 3d effect is bad t
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9. |
wikipedia
concept is great, but the implementation is lacking!
|
|
|
|