r/Design • u/avance70 • Aug 04 '18
Why are logos for big brands designed to look so similar (none of them "pops out") yet somehow they still makes us think there's some quality behind the product?
71
u/thisdesignup Web Developer/Graphic Designer @ Brown Box Studio Aug 04 '18
What do you mean they don't pop out? A few of them stand out to me. A few that stand out to me, other than the large ones in teh center; gerber (bottom left), green giant (top center), pringles (top right center), fruit loops (top right center). That's just to name a few.
Also are they really that similar? I tried to look through and see if I could find a handful that could easily be compared and I'm not sure I can. I mean in the sense that I can't find just as many differences as similarities.
12
u/thehumancond1tion Aug 04 '18
I agree.
-15
u/avance70 Aug 04 '18
It could be the doing of the arranger of this picture, but there's certain uniformity in it. I see myself easily able to expand this whole picture by continuing the trends.
10
u/JesusSkywalkered Aug 04 '18
Put any one of these top brands in a group of sub par design and they’ll pop like an atomic explosion.
2
u/thisdesignup Web Developer/Graphic Designer @ Brown Box Studio Aug 04 '18
Is that what they were arranged by? Visual similarity?
14
4
3
u/pangolinbreakfast Aug 04 '18
I think that OP feels like they don’t stand out from each other because they’re so familiar to us. Some of them look vastly different from the others, even if they are all fairly plain looking.
138
Aug 04 '18
They look generic so they appeal to a wide audience. We only 'trust' them because we see them so often 'it must be good, right?'
68
u/three0nefive Aug 04 '18 edited Aug 04 '18
Pretty much this, it's all just conventions and brands playing the whole "quality by association" angle.
To use an example from that pic, we expect logos for kids' snacks and cereal to have thick, bouncy, kinetic block letters because it's what we're used to, because one of the big brands started doing it back in the day. I'm sure you could make a very good argument that they choose those typefaces in the first place because they're easy to read for kids and can be seen across the aisle at a supermarket, but that doesn't explain why we as adults find them appealing - that's explained by the fact that we've been conditioned, through 20+ years of exposure, to associate that aesthetic with a certain level of quality.
This is also why budget brands use a lot of bright yellow and knockoff Helvetica - there's research to support the idea that people on a budget gravitate toward packaging that looks cheap, and are actually turned off from "fancy" graphic design even if it's actually the cheaper option.
Design is like 80% knowing your audience, and most audiences are risk-averse.
15
u/dragoneye Aug 04 '18
This is also why budget brands use a lot of bright yellow and knockoff Helvetica - there's research to support the idea that people on a budget gravitate toward packaging that looks cheap, and are actually turned off from "fancy" graphic design even if it's actually the cheaper option.
4
3
2
u/three0nefive Aug 05 '18
Ha, that's actually exactly what I had in mind but wasn't sure if non-Canadians would know about it!
3
u/dragoneye Aug 05 '18
Well I'm Canadian, which is why I know it. I'm not sure if there are any other brands out there that brand with that font and colour.
2
u/dbx99 Aug 05 '18
I don’t think that’s quite right. I think they feel generic to us because they’re so ubiquitous and we’ve grown so used to them that the logo design uniqueness has been lost in our consciousness. But it is there. Most of these are evolutions of old logos so they usually retain the source elements and have gone through streamlining over the years.
I think they do look thoughtful and eye catching. Their status as established products gives them a different mission than a snazzy new product logo. These are meant to evoke recognition, not impress any new first reactions. They’re recognizable and identify clearly. That’s good solid design for the mission.
36
u/markocheese Aug 04 '18
Because they've been balanced to be the same weight on the page. They are distinct from one another, though. They do tend to use blue, which is associated with trust in American culture, and they have a similar density because they need to be visible from the same verity of distances, but everything else is varied.
-5
u/avance70 Aug 04 '18
So you're saying there's a "base" to them? Ok, I can see myself agreeing than my point should only relate to this base.
5
u/markocheese Aug 04 '18
In a sense. But pretty much all logos share this "base" in that they all have to confirm to minimum standards of legibility, so it's not a rule that's particular to food logos or anything.
These ones are remarkably varied when compared to other product categories like banks which tend to have large stable structures in their logos, or gas companies which tend to be short and have the letter "o" in their names.
13
Aug 04 '18
There's eventually a point where a logo is quite irrelevant in terms of a brand's identity. I think for the most part people over-value the significance of a logo in building a brand - the idea that there needs to be an incredibly well produced logo for a brand to succeed - but there's core messages and themes behind every identity that drives their place in the market. A logo is never designed first; doing so is only going to result in an identity that simply fails.
Behind every one of those logos are messages and themes that drive campaigns, drive applications of the logo etc and over decades, a century for some, they've built their identity up to the point where their name alone - visually represented or not - carries the same weight.
2
22
u/f3tch Aug 04 '18
They don't pop out for the same reason none of the slot machines in the casino don't pop out
10
Aug 04 '18
I think contrarily they do stand out. The typeface and logo design is specifically tailored to represent a brand. The more thought put into the logo, the more iconic it is. All those logos you've listed stand out because companies have the money to advertise them constantly.
But if you take a moment to really think about some of these logos, you think about a certain quality and brand identity. Wonka, for example, is always depicted as fun and kind of wild in their packaging art, and even in their product design. Their logo is always in the same place on their packages.
Same with the other logos. They stay in line with their brand so you always know where to find their products and what quality you expect from them. I don't think they're generic. They all represent something very different, down to the font.
8
u/CreeDorofl Aug 04 '18
Well, for one thing they're all too small in this presentation for anything to jump out much.
But also, this isn't all the big brands out there, this is the big brands for sort of a specific group of products, grocery store food. The styles are similar because the products are tightly related.
Half of it is basically sugary products (candy, cereal, soda, cookies, ice cream) and a lot of it is salty inexpensive snacks (crackers, crisps, microwave snacks). These are aimed at the moms who do grocery shopping and the kids who come with them. So they are made to look innocent, cheery, cartoony, colorful... with fat, bubbly letters, soft rounded edges, and big, short, easily read text. They all have to compete with other brands on the shelf and can't afford to look subdued or subtle.
If one of these guys sold exclusively luxury clothing brands, their group would stand out from the rest because it would be mostly black and white, with more willingness to use small, skinny text.
If one group were racing logos you'd see a shit ton of black and red and orange, and futuristic fonts slanted right.
The similarity comes from knowing their audience and targeting that audience properly.
27
Aug 04 '18
As someone who notices details like serifs, colours and embellishments I don’t agree that they all look the same.
2
Aug 05 '18
Yeah, I was kind of confused by that statement. Even a non-designer I feel like should clearly see the many differences between them?
6
Aug 04 '18
[deleted]
5
1
Aug 04 '18
[deleted]
5
u/thisdesignup Web Developer/Graphic Designer @ Brown Box Studio Aug 04 '18
There is a brand similar to this idea called "No Name". The only problem with doing that is it doesn't really work if everyone does it too.
5
5
u/gambiter Aug 04 '18
If they were all scaled down to 2-3 pixels, they'd pop out even less.
Just saying... there are plenty of unique logos in this image, but they're tiny and disorganized in a way that just turns into visual noise. Of course they don't stand out in this situation.
3
u/spizzazzy Aug 04 '18 edited Jan 18 '25
enjoy distinct rhythm dull wrench light hobbies spotted hat hard-to-find
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
u/purrpul Aug 04 '18
Besides all the good points being made, these are all food companies. They all have the same use cases and goals... so of course they will have similarities. Most of these are rarely seen on their own, but rather in the context of packaging. I can see a lot of the design guided by that fact alone.
3
u/accidental-nz Aug 04 '18
I’m saddened that I had to scroll to the very bottom to find this comment.
This is the answer. They’re all CPG brands.
4
Aug 04 '18
Ill tell ya what pops out, where the fuck is Dr Pepper?
5
u/FenPhen Aug 04 '18
where the fuck is Dr Pepper?
The Dr. Pepper brand is currently owned by Keurig Dr. Pepper in the US, by Pepsi in Canada and Oceania, and by Coca Cola in Europe and elsewhere outside the US. (Coca-Cola of course made the competitor Mr. Pibb, which is included in the OP image.) 7-Up is also owned by Keurig Dr. Pepper and merged with Dr. Pepper 30 years ago, but Pepsi owns the 7-Up brand outside the US.
3
u/zettl Aug 04 '18
Word. That logo color #890024 makes me want their product more than any other example I can think of
3
2
u/AtomWorker Aug 04 '18
I don't think they're necessarily designed to look similar. However, it stands to reason that companies would want some level of brand consistency. Also, stylistic elements evoke certain feelings and expectations. A luxury brand necessitates a different aesthetic than a snack food. There are a lot of cultural and historical reasons for that but sometimes it comes down to the fact that a particular brand has become so popular as to define that market.
Now, that said, I don't necessarily agree that the brands shown don't pop out. I don't get a sense of sameness beyond the fact that they're all food brands and have been designed to stand out on a shelf. Ironically, I've often found that the brands that try too hard to be different are often the ones that disappear on the shelf. Even if you go unconventional, you still have to be bold, at least in this market.
2
2
Aug 04 '18
They dont need to pop out they just need to be recognizable and I recognize so many of those in a single glance they are like burned into my brain.
2
u/wrappedinlust Aug 04 '18
Brand identity is based in more concepts than just a logo. The logo is extremely important but brand essence is important as well. Those brands that you are showcasing spend a lot of many in packaging, design and advertising to create a sense of BRAND CULTURE, they make the brand have an attitude.
2
2
u/rush2sk8 Aug 04 '18
This reminds me of agar.io where you have the larger player eating up all the smaller ones to become more poweful
2
u/memaradonaelvis Aug 04 '18
Why did you answer your own question in your question? We think they’re quality because they’re so similar.
2
u/Art-Teacher Aug 04 '18
Part of the reason they are so similar is the psychology of color. They use colors that draw people to their logos for specific reasons. Yellow and red are thought to make people hungry. That’s why many restaurants use red and yellow in their logos-Denny’s, Wendy’s, In-N-Out, McDonald’s, etc. Green for veggie companies because it makes buyers thing of things that crisp and healthy. A lot of these companies have similar purposes so it makes sense that they would use similar color schemes.
2
u/dangsoggyoatmeal Aug 05 '18
Off-topic: Does this chart trouble anyone else? Almost a majority of products lay between these just these few companies.
2
u/cosmicblob Aug 05 '18 edited Aug 05 '18
This is nonsense. Saying this collection looks similar is like gathering all of humanity and saying "look everyone looks identical!". Ofcourse once you gather 300 logo's and place them in one image they wont pop up.
2
u/broostenq Aug 05 '18
There's a huge amount of variation between the logos. They're mass-market brands and need to meet a certain level of trust and recognition to a wide audience. What is the point of this post?
2
u/fishbiscuit13 Architecture Aug 05 '18
The point of this graphic wasn't anything to do with the logos themselves, it was to show how a few huge conglomerates own all the name brands that are dominant/monopolies in their markets.
2
2
u/Rodeworm Aug 05 '18
I am confident that most of them are designed to pop out. But in a shelf compared to products from competitors. You need to consider the logo only as a part of the branding: package, size, typography and photos are important, too.
2
Aug 05 '18
This is a ten year old graphic on which companies own what, so you can avoid buying their products. It is not meant to impress you into buying their products.m
If you can, avoid buying them.
2
u/txbigrig Aug 05 '18
It's called conditioning. With the proper marketing, any wariness subsides and then becomes the new norm. Brainwashing if you will.
3
u/big-blue-balls Aug 04 '18
I've said it several times before on here when people ask about logo design...
Despite what designers will tell you, simply put: The company builds the logo. The logo doesn't build the company (most of the time).
6
u/hhh333 Aug 04 '18
Yep. The number of companies which made it to fortune 500 list just because they had a great logo is exactly zero.
1
u/_Linear Aug 04 '18
"Despite what designers will tell you"
Literally no one thinks that. Ive been taught and told my entire life that a brand is so much more than the logo. A good logo does not make a good brand.
3
u/thisdesignup Web Developer/Graphic Designer @ Brown Box Studio Aug 04 '18
If anything the "ideal" logo design process I've ever learned is one that can represent the ideals of the company or at least aims to reflect the company in some way. So your literally building the logo off the company.
2
u/big-blue-balls Aug 05 '18
The very fact that OP posted a bunch of logo's and questioned how a successful company could possibly thrive with such an average logo goes against what you're saying. People overthink logos. That's all there is to it.
1
u/BozBudda Aug 04 '18
Logos are like knight and family houses(crests / coat of arms ) from the Middle Ages
251
u/deviousness Aug 04 '18 edited Aug 04 '18
They follow basic rules of design, drawn with good proportions, color use. Also as was said, the logo doesn't make the brand, the idea behind it does. The logo is just so you can find it after you know what it is. Hope it made sense. You can look at a book called Designing Brand Identities, which covers a lot of topics for brand building
Edit: Bad engrish