LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TYPO-L Archives


TYPO-L Archives

TYPO-L Archives


TYPO-L@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TYPO-L Home

TYPO-L Home

TYPO-L  November 1996

TYPO-L November 1996

Subject:

Re: FedEx, logos in general, in which I defend myself

From:

John Langdon <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

TYPO-L Discussion of Type and Typographic Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:57:27 -0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (112 lines)

Geez. Whew. OK. One at a time............

Dick Weltz wrote:
>What I find most amazing is all the nit-pocking over a logo which is
>attractive, effective, and excellently executed. It is far superior to those
>of FedEx competitors UPS and Airborne. The logo also holds up in a variety of
>size extremes and on many different surfaces, from the flimsy stock of
>shipping labels to the sides of trucks and the tails of aircraft (for a demo,
>see the large exhibit space given to the FedEx logo in the current show at
>the Cooper-Hewitt Museum. It also does a great job in creating instant
>recognition.

I agree with all your assesments of the logo. - JL

Dick goes on to say:
>I have no connection with Federal Express or their design firm -- but, come
>on guys, with so much real crap around, why are you picking on something
>good?

Because picking on crap isn't quite as challenging and fun as picking on
the big guys.
With crap, where ya gonna start? The FedEx logo has so much going for it,
as you've noted above, it's surprising that there are a few flaws. The
flaws appear to me to be typographic subtleties, NOT aspects of logo
design, corporate identity and marketing. - JL

and Tim Conroy wrote:
>Geeeeeeeeeezzzzzzz! For three days, already! Because, Peter, the essential
>point (that seems to have been missed by those so far who have taken the bait)
>is that when the letters were put together to form FedEx, they ceased being
>letterforms.

Say what? They look a lot like letterforms to me. Use in a logo is
certainly a different role for letterforms than use in text, captions,
subheads, head, titles, etc., and logos have far broader parameters of
what's "right" for a letterform. But the newish FedEx logo does not purport
to have created original letterforms that establish and define new and
separate standards the way some logotypes do. The pieces of the logo
purport to be Futura bold letters. I say they should be held to the same
standard. - JL

and Tim continued:
What is its purpose? Immediate, unforgettable recognition. Is it
>successful? Yes!  What delivery service do you think of first when you want it
>done fast and right? FedEx. Does it work? Yes. Typographic case closed.

No. Logo design case closed. But I agree with every other thing that you
say. - JL

I had written:
>> The client is hardly the appropriate entity to be rendering a critique on
>> the fine points of lettering.

and Pete From F&P Marketing wrote:
>Why not..?

Because I'm talking about critiquing the fine points of letterforms -
typographic letterforms in a logo context. - JL

and, I had continued:
>> A small handful of type experts and lettering artists would be my suggestion.
and Pete From F&P Marketing also wrote:
>Never..! A design or a logotype or anything that is a part of a greater
>marketing plan is NOT to be judged by type experts!

Ummm. Are we to be kept away at a safe distance? Where's the harm? - JL

Pete: >Everyone has a different point of view on what looks good and what
doesnīt.

I think that's more true of logo design than type design. I think that
regarding type design, most people are not aware of the 10,000 subtleties
and couldn't care less about them. We who care a great deal about the
10,000 subtleties probably agree on quite a few of them. Granted, not all.
-JL

Pete: >A logotype should be tested on "normal" people and not the
>"professors" dealing with it daily... What we judge as excellent
>might mean nothing to the man on the street seeing the
>logotype... And: the client ALWAYS has the final say... And then
>you can say whatever you want... Iīve done things for several
>heavy clients and itīs like a game of chess what you get through
>with and what will be rejected by the board...

I agree. My years of experience designing logos and type for clients in
several weight classes yields the same data. - JL

and TerriGregory wrote:
John Langdon replied. [something haughty and snobbish]

Sorry, Terri. - JL

Terri continued:
>At any rate, I agree mostly with [Pete From F&P Marketing ].
The critique should NOT be part of the
>design process. It's good if it happens afterwards,

I think this is probably the right bottom line. The logo design must please
the client with the ultimate purpose of pleasing the potential customer.
One the logo concept and look has been agreed to between the designer and
client, then a type expert/lettering artist should nitpick the hell out of
it. - JL

Logo design is one thing. Type design is another. Marketing is yet another.
They all overlap greatly these days, probably nowhere more than in a huge
corporation's logotype. But to say that type experts and lettering artists
(isn't that us?) should NEVER have a role in the judgment process seems
incredible. I feel sure that they normally do, and thank goodness.

With all due respect,

John Langdon

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2015
September 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
February 1994
January 1994
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager