Web 2.0 logotypes. Childsplay?
This post was written by Clifford Boobyer on Friday, August 31st, 2007 at 10:37 am and is filed under Design.
Firedog has recently been commissioned by a very dynamic web 2.0 outfit who are poised to send tremors through the online landscape within but a few months. A large deal of the initial branding work centred around research of the web 2.0 landscape and branding online.
I’m afraid to say that I have come to a shocking realisation. The vast majority of web 2.0 logotypes out there feel exactly like the kids product logos we all grew up with. Ok, bar a few colour hue and saturation changes and some very nifty gradient work. Have a look at the image below and gasp, chortle and snigger as you too, come to this heady realisation.
Now, a large deal of brand strategy is geared towards user behaviour, trends and ultimately human psychology. This left me thinking; As a collective industry - What exactly informs web 2.0 companies to render their brands according to this aesthetic?
As sure as dark blue is the chromatic mistress to financial services branding, the online space follows some very interesting set rules which happen to funnily enough overlap with kid’s product branding. Type must be rounded, the colours have to be retina piercingly bright, there needs to be at least 2 different outline casings around the typography and enough soft cloud devices to lull even Tinkerbell into a sense of blissful brand security.
Look, I’m not denying firedog’s tendency to flirt a little with special brand fx and I’m not denying for a minute that the brand we will ultimately launch will be somewhat, ur, “nice and friendly”.
What really fascinates me is what I mentioned above. The shrink’s interpretation; Why do web 2.0 brands look like kids brands? Could it be that they know their companies are non-risk orientated - Not dealing in peoples lives, pensions or life issues? Or is it because most web 2.0 brands are run by very young risky fun individuals. Or is it because actually the web is really, to those of us that truly never grew up, just our 21 century plaything - our virtual playdoh?
I challenge you to add some logic and silence my rhetoric…
web 2.0, web 2.0 brands, web logos, web 2.0 logos
August 31st, 2007 at 11:11 am
I’ve always wondered if it is specific generations that cause sudden trends of ‘retro’ logos, fashion etc. For example, when I (now 28) was young, Lego and Playmobil were the toys of the day, Transformers and A-Team was top TV, and dodgy legwarmers were in fashion (ouch). Roughly 20 years later, when we 80s children are in our 20s and in charge of designing all these brands and fashion must-haves, the 80s style suddenly comes back in (unfortunately, so did the legwarmers and puffball skirts!)
Could we be unconsciously harking back to our childhoods when we design things that mean something to us? Do the current, trendy (and especially social) web 2.0 brands automatically have to be designed in a trendy logo fashion, out of date within a decade when the next trend rolls in?
September 20th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Both:
Companies are non-risk orientated - Not dealing in peoples lives, pensions or life issues….
Because most web 2.0 brands are run by very young risky fun individuals…. (who maybe don’t know better
Good one Cliff!
September 25th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
being frank, i assume it 2b a very boring tendency… for instance i call WEB 2.0 - the design for blind people. Seems like in past 4 years all users of the internet lost their mind and gone into childhood. But unfortuantly web 2.0 sells…