Sunday, February 13, 2011

Sony Ericsson Logo Design Review



T H O U G H T S
Another generic logo merits another generic assessment. All I can say is when you break this down, you get one more futuristic orb design with nothing really distinct or inviting. Looking at a 1-color translation suggests nothing more than a circle wrapped in some sort of abstract shell. This is again my point: no apparent concept most often renders poor form, and poor form leaves you with nothing unique, nothing memorable. And because the primary mark is so dependent on varying tones of color to create the separation and contrast of elements, a 1-color translation does not sync very well with the full color. Sony is a leader in the industry but this logo design puts it in with other knock-off competitors. The only advantage Sony has in keeping this familiar in the minds of it's consumers is the fact that they as a company are so prevalent. If they didn't have such an industry presence, this would just be another plain old shell on the vast beach of uninspired, "effect"-driven technology logos. The 3 tiny circular "bubbles" are the purest and highest contrast element that you can see in the full color version, but in 1-color they seem to make the design appear busier and could be superfluous (meaning they're not needed; they don't add any value). I realize the design is meant to be asymmetrical for a more intriguing appearance, but there are so many variations of width and thickness in that outer shape that it feels weak and indecisive in it's execution---it does not present itself as an established logo.

R A T I N G S  (1-color version)
Scale: Bad, Fair, Good This is all in the context of the 1-color version, not rating the full color version.
- Recognizable: Bad
- Scalable: Fair
- Use of Pos/Neg: Fair
- Form: Bad
- Craftsmanship: Bad
- Functional: Bad

2 comments:

  1. I totally agree with you--wonder if you give a little bit of credit if the shape is "trying" to look like a letter "e" for Ericsson? To me, that's the only redeeming thing that would keep this from being generic. If only it was a little less obscure...or maybe it's just a coincidence--it sure doesn't appear to be intentional...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maralee, I see what you're saying with the potential that there could be an "e" in there for possibly pulling this out of the totally generic bucket, but it does fall on the obscure side like you mentioned. Thanks for the thought.

    ReplyDelete