Comments on: 2009-11-03 | Cogent

By: Katie

Katie — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:08:32 +0000

I disagree with QF and Kelvin. While perhaps less readable than “normal” logos, this whole logo is now a mark. The crow and color scheme are extremely memorable and the mark itself, identifiable at all sizes. Once you know the name, you don’t need to read it. When are you expecting that someone would come across this logo and not be able to get the name of the company? On a business card? On the Web site? Nike doesn’t even include its name with its logo – and that logo is constantly thrown out as one of the best logos ever.

A logo is intended to inspire, evoke, suggest. It doesn’t tell the whole story. This piece is certainly evocative, and it is definitely suggestive of something. My only question is whether it totally fits with the exact purpose of their business. They decided, yes, it does. I am not so sure I agree with that part, but as a logo, this is a successful design.

By: Kelvin Farrell

Kelvin Farrell — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:47:46 +0000

Have to agree with QF. Creating a ‘puzzle’ logo is all well and good but I don’t see the point if it leaves people confused by the brand identity. How will people know if they’ve ’solved the puzzle’? Will they try a number of company names and google them all until they discover it’s Cogent?

I don’t mean to come across as rude, I hope I’m not doing so. I think your thinking is very imaginative but perhaps used in the wrong place. In my eyes a logo should clearly identity a brand.

By: QF

QF — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:44:11 +0000

Greg,
With all due respect, and not to be a prick, you intentionally created a logo that is difficult for a person to read? And you expect them to invest precious time in figuring out your “puzzle”? Two questions:

1. Is this good design?
2. Is this reflective of the insight and strategy Cogent provides?

By: Greg Ash

Greg Ash — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:43:50 +0000

Thanks for all of your comments everyone. I just wanted to clarify a few points that have been brought up. The reading difficulty is purposeful. Our intention is to create a simple puzzle that requires more investment for comprehension from the reader. We also believe the mark itself doesn’t have to be read to be remembered. So if you get the puzzle wrong, that is ok, you will still recognize the logo. We realize this goes against many rules of logo building, but it also is a better representation of the company because of that.

Thanks.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:32:21 +0000

I like the colors, however i have to say too that is difficult to figure out the name and the bird would be better not as an illustration.

By: Amal

Amal — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:49:23 +0000

sorry, but i couldn’t even read it !!!!!!!

By: Tolobek

Tolobek — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:16:52 +0000

good color though:)

By: zuluglobe

zuluglobe — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:38:07 +0000

nice sketch or precise illustration but no logo. it doesn’t represent company’s unique selling advantage.

By: nelaii

nelaii — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:21:48 +0000

I really like it, as in how it looks, but I find it too hard to read.

By: TK

TK — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:18:05 +0000

Nice logo with beautiful font and bird. And not difficult to read at all!

By: campuscodi

campuscodi — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:25:29 +0000

Unlike Daniel, I like the colors, it’s a good sketch….but no logo material. The text throws you off completely.

By: Daniel Berumen

Daniel Berumen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:42:41 +0000

I agree with kelvin. When first saw this logo I thought it said “Coen get”, and felt confused for a few seconds.

I do like the choice of color and how the crow interacts with the text.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:39:16 +0000

Have to agree with the above two commentators, I don’t think the average viewer would recognize this logo due to difficulty of reading.

By: Marcel

Marcel — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:32:42 +0000

Not a logo but an illustration. and yes, too difficult to read, looks like an amateur logo a bit.

By: Kelvin Farrell

Kelvin Farrell — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:21:37 +0000

Not a fan of this. I find it too difficult to read. I imagine many people would wrongly pronounce the name of the firm as a result of the logo.