Comments on: 2009-09-09 | iCVBook

By: nadir

nadir — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:57:20 +0000

The worst logo ever to actually be chosen! I saw this comment about seeing the actual website to understand it… turns out the website is a virus or Exploit GromSploit to be exact, as reported by my antivirus! Shame!

By: Stalks

Stalks — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:33:47 +0000

It may be simple bit it still needs to be a design.

By: Morgan

Morgan — Fri, 21 May 2010 13:52:04 +0000

I would never recognize this logo. way too plain. black and white makes it almost invisible.

By: Thrixxy

Thrixxy — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:20:43 +0000

The most forgettable logo yet.

By: When is a logo too simple? | meshdairy

When is a logo too simple? | meshdairy — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:16:47 +0000

[...] has been a discussion over on Logo Of The Day about this logo in question, many love it, many hate it. What is your [...]

By: Carlos

Carlos — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:11:56 +0000

The first time I saw this logo, honesty I didn’t like it, but after I saw the context in which it’s used, I changed my mind. Looks great on its website.

By: Andrew Keir

Andrew Keir — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:39:44 +0000

I’m with Alex on this, looks a bit too much like a desktop icon for my liking.

By: Kelley

Kelley — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 20:37:45 +0000

Theo.

You must be one of those typical designers with an ‘everyone else is rubbish’ slant to them…….without ever giving a valid constructive piece of criticism or even elaborating on your rash views. Your comment adds absolutely nothing to this discussion.

It’s people like you that really make me sick.

I like this logo’s simplicity. It does the basics in logo design brilliantly. Well Done!

By: Noha salem

Noha salem — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 08:17:39 +0000

who said it’s perfect doesn’t know that perfect things can not be discussed.. all will agree it’s grear

I DO NOT LIKE IT

By: Remy Francis

Remy Francis — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:43:39 +0000

However…
This logo works great on its website…branded that way.

Rgds

By: Remy Francis

Remy Francis — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:31:11 +0000

This logo completely got me off-guard. I thought it a hyperlink (with a generic icon) to some utility called iCV. The design is misleading…probably because of the page design which looks like an ms-word clipart.

By: Fajri

Fajri — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:14:54 +0000

Maybe this is kinda new style of today logo, but still need a few minutes to understand and get impressed..
I thought that this logo need a lil more touch to show the memorable part..

By: Itsmebrady00

Itsmebrady00 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:26:27 +0000

If this logo was designed in illustrator, Adobe should sue the designer…

By: TRVR

TRVR — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:51:57 +0000

This mark is uninspired. Looks that way at least. Logos can be simple, as long as they still embody some striking quality that excites the observer. Or leaves a visceral impression on them. This is not exciting. Nor memorable. The mark accomplishes little, if anything.

By: Fabian

Fabian — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:42 +0000

Sorry,this is dull and uninspiring. The only thing that could save this is some clever branding.

By: Shegs

Shegs — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:25:13 +0000

I agree with the more of an icon rather than a logo arguments.

too forgettable to be considered a logo.

By: Bruce Colthart (@bccreative)

Bruce Colthart (@bccreative) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:53:25 +0000

Really interesting topic and discussion. Makes me think how [logo] design is seen by many as an aesthetic process/product only. Is a logo a failure if it’s “unattractive” or “not stylish?” Examples certainly abound of stylish “designed” logos that don’t necessarily hit the mark.

I don’t really have an opinion [yet] as I don’t know enough about the mission, the inherent problem(s) and details of the solution. I’d really like to hear much more from Mr. Skipp about this particular assignment. Controversy makes for great PR and a chance to uncover what logo design really is versus what we all might think it is.

Meanwhile I’ll dig a little deeper on my own.

By: Chaz Massey

Chaz Massey — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:13:43 +0000

Memorable? Do you not know how the mind works? The mind is a phonics interpreter, a phonics machine, it needs syllables for it work properly.

When using a sequence of letters to abbreviate you are forcing the brain to do what it is not naturally designed to do. Again I say, Words, make the best Brand Names, hence the words, Brand Name.

When you google icv you get a mere, 2,340,000 hits with innumerable combinations.

A very important thing to take into account is that 15% to 20% of the population is dyslexic, this means, that when naming, branding, or marking anything, it is the words that are most important.

If a designer gets an assignment and it is to brand a sequence of letters, an abbreviation, it is very important to take this into account.

What I would do is to start a Name development and design process with the intent to offer my client an alliterative to strictly using an abbreviation.

If they are to attached to their abbreviation, then I would start a phrase design process, to try and create something that describes and identifies the abbreviation.

Try learning this in college, it is like asking your professor to explain the difference between a line-extension and a sibling brand.

Anyone really interested in what a Brand Name really is check out: The Reis Report on YouTube.

By: Becky

Becky — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:52:02 +0000

To the point simple messaging!
Utterly memorable and fits in with the iCV site perfectly.

By: chazcast

chazcast — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:10:16 +0000

way overly simple, I will never understand why some use letters? do your research, letters don;t work as a brand name. OK, GM you say, well there branding pool was the size of a teaspoon of water, compared to the ocean we swim in now. basically is sucks, it that OK to say.

By: Jp

Jp — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:37:14 +0000

I think that “simplicity” is not the problem. This logo have an aesthetically problem. I find the typography very tight and the “i” doesn’t fit like the “c” with the “v”.. and the other problem is that it looks like a clipart! and that to me is a very serious problem, that make it looks like a very poor logo. The last thing is the logo isn’t strong enough. Is a good idea but i think that could be better…

—
sorry if you find mistakes… my english is very rusty.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:39:20 +0000

after reading their explanation, it fits however why didn’t the designer make it more individual and less like clipart? he could have kept the concept but make it look like it was somewhat styled.

By: Keane

Keane — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:18:42 +0000

I’m a fan of simple and straightforward logo designs. However, this one doesn’t have “it”. They’re right. It looks pretty much like a desktop icon. Next logo please!

By: Habtamu Nigusse

Habtamu Nigusse — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:58:29 +0000

I love simplicity but not simple like this one. I don’t like it!

By: Graham

Graham — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:08:43 +0000

It is very clean, but not attractive at all.
I guess different styles appeal to different people.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:28:20 +0000

You need to see the bigger version with a dash of color. Cool work. Also the context of the designer’s other work gives some context – he’s no slouch!

http://www.tomskipp.com/index.php?/project/icvbook/

By: MWD

MWD — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:35:39 +0000

Is this really a logo??? I have to agree it looks more like a desktop icon than anything else….. blegh

By: GRoY

GRoY — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:27:43 +0000

Simple is great as long as it has style. This has no style. It’s bland, boring and easily forgetable.

By: Lars

Lars — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:07:38 +0000

Windows 3.11?

By: Efe Buyuran

Efe Buyuran — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:04:42 +0000

Nothing creative. Nothing memorable.