RSS
Why iStock logos won’t cause cancer
You may or may not have heard the latest about iStockphoto and its intent to sell stock logos. You can read about the discussion here.
There’s all kinds of mixed reviews floating around about this topic. Are logos sacred? Or, should they be mixed into the same photography dip we all snack on daily?
My opinion: both. Just as a designer working for Nike would never be asked to purchase some “generic sneaker” stock photo, that same designer would never have been asked to hit up iStock when Nike needed its original swoosh. It all depends on the needs of the project. To be honest, why shouldn’t there be a cheap and easy outlet for a very small startup nonprofit that wants to look a little more professional?
What we don’t have to worry about with stock logos:
They won’t be incredibly original.
Because they can’t. If any of you have ever designed a really amazing logo, you know it takes hours and hours of research, rendering, client meetings, edits, and revisions to get the right mark. What you can potentially purchase on iStock might look really nice, but it will never add up to the creativity and originality of a “traditionally” designed logo.
There will always be a need for “traditionally” designed logos.
The folks who may purchase from iStock, probably wouldn’t have been interested in a well-considered and well-designed logo to begin with. However, there will always be clients who eagerly pursue designers who have the talent and desire to create well-thought-out and clever solutions to their identifier needs.
This new source may elevate the quality of well-designed, original logos—and attract new clients.
Clients attempting to use iStock may realize it does not provide them with the holistic organization rendering they were looking for, so iStock may actually reinforce the importance of well-designed, original logos.
It may not be successful.
Just to reiterate, good designers know how incredibly challenging logo design work really is. Photography has been a successful stock business because it can often be a two-dimensional challenge. There is a need for a photo of children playing in a park but the park can be anywhere. Solution: searching stock photography sites for the appropriate photo. Logos however must satisfy many, many, MANY needs.
There will always be a need for great problem solvers who bring creativity, intelligence, and originality to projects. And just as true, there will continue to be new tools and new methods of cheating each of these principles.
I’m interested to hear your opinions as many of us seem to be on the fence about the topic. Post some comments, let’s start a discussion.
Categories Design
Twitter
LinkedIn
Unfortunately, there are already many bad logos out there. If you want cheap, you can’t have good. I think that I agree with you… the need for traditionally designed logos will not disappear. If anything, stock logos will only make well designed logos stand out more. And what’s the harm? Someone who purchases a stock logo can’t afford a traditionally designed logo anyway. I think that stock photos will just become a different solution for a different type of client.
And for referrals of clients you know you can’t possibly satisfy for the short cost they need. (It might actually be a blessing!)
How’s this for an arcane metaphor? Logos are like mac and cheese. The stuff that comes in a box is okay. Most folks would probably agree that it’s at least edible. But compared to making it from scratch, melting together three or more kinds of cheese together, seasoning it to taste and cooking the mac to just the right level of al dente, it’s in a completely different league.