Chris Do: Hey everybody, Chris here. We're trying something a little bit different than what we normally do for the podcast. We're doing solo episodes. These are shorter, more contained, built around certain themes and questions I think are very relevant for us to be talking about. So wherever you're listening to this, however, you're seeing this, let us know in the comments and the feedback, what you think, and we'll make some adjustments.
So this is a topic that a lot of designers get really upset about because whenever there's a new logo or rebrand refresh, the internet goes crazy, especially designers who talk about the aesthetics of it. So you know how I feel about that, but I'm actually going to talk about aesthetics on this episode.
One logo that I think is totally garish for a company that knows better, that deserves better, that's, I believe, a multi billion dollar corporation, is okay, the cover here is Under Armour. Okay, let's talk about the Under Armour logo. And if you're not familiar with it, I'll do my best to describe it for those of you that are listening to this.
Under Armour logo is two half ellipses that overlap and intersect and they're flipped upside down. So you can see the X in it. So it's cool to see the letter X. That letter X is super sexy, so good idea there. And it's really a U and an A overlapping. So can you imagine that? Two half ellipses open in the middle.
So one goes up and one goes down. They're inverted Under Armour. So this is one of those logos where you think, okay, great idea. I can imagine being in the board of directors, chief marketing officer, where the branding design firm presents this thing. It's like, there's a U, there's an A, and there's an X in it.
And it's like the X factor of Under Armour. Isn't that cool? What a terrific idea. And everybody applauds and said, let's just adopt that. And this is one of those moments where the idea can be so strong, where you can approve it beyond the aesthetics. For me, the aesthetics of the, this mark is horrific.
Like, I don't know much about the company. I actually own some Under Armour clothing and I almost want to remove the logo. So the first thing is, does it pass the basic aesthetic test? If anything, the simpler your logo is, the easier it is to pass this test. And the more ornate or tricky or clever that you want to make it, this is where it gets really challenging for people. So you can love the idea so much that the aesthetics of it actually takes a second seat. This is one of those ones where there's an idea of form and function. So maybe the function of it is really cool, but the form is just I hate to say it, it's like ass, you guys.
I know I'm being a bit of a design snob here, and I'm not saying that I have a better opinion or taste or aesthetic level than you, but whenever we go out in the world and we're going to wear something where the logo is very prominent and it's part of like the tribe that we join, it's kind of the symbol that we can rally behind, it's gotta look good.
And so there are companies I know nothing about. I don't know the brand story, the founder story or anything like that. And I see it and what draws me in as a, as a visual person, as a person who's really keenly tuned towards the design, I see it and I think this is worth an investigation. And when we're thinking about it, what is the purpose of any marketing or design effort?
It's to bring in new customers and to keep existing customers really happy. So I think here, the job of the logo designer, especially when it comes to apparel merchandising, it's really, really important that it look good, that it follow universal principles of design about harmony, balance ratios, all those kinds of things that it looked good when it's scaled down small, that it's not overly complicated and it's very versatile.
It can be used for a lot of different applications. It can be used for stitching in a car, maybe repeated as a pattern for a shirt or deconstructed for a shoe or a headphone. That's how you know that the logo is really good. And sadly, if you agree or disagree with me, that's why I think the Under Armour logo is butt.
So one thing when you're designing a logo is to try it on multiple applications as a mock up. Put it on a uniform, put it on a truck, a plane, put it as wrapping paper or tape for a box that you're going to ship out. Try to find as many applications for it as possible, and it needs to pass a few things.
Number one, is it still recognizable? Is that iconic? Is it appropriately sized for its use? Some things look really good small, but when scaled up look terrible. So then sometimes you have to design a more responsive logo so it can actually have multiple configurations or slight enhancements or modifications to it so that looks good at all sizes.
But here's the thing, does it feel like it's going to get tiring to like look at, like you're going to get visual fatigue from it? Does it inspire you? And this is the hardest test of it, of them all, which is, does someone who has a good sense of taste and aesthetic, which we're not all born with, and some of us never can find that, you need to bring in the people who have good taste and say like, Johnny, Mary, do you like this?
And tell us what you like or don't like about it. One great way to test whether or not your logo is going to be timeless or it has some timeliness to it, which is to find a bunch of different brands and logos that you love from companies that are no younger than 10 years old, preferably 30 or 50, or even a hundred years old.
Cause we know that it's survived several different shifts in design and trends and tastes. So if it's still good now, it's probably really good. Then place it in there somewhere and then look at it and see it. If it feels like it stands out like a sore thumb, it's time to go back to the drawing board and revisit it.
So you have a bunch of tastemakers and you're not getting consistent feedback across the board. I think you're running the risk here. And unless you're like a really forward bleeding edge kind of company, it's not a risk that you want to take. Ideally when you create a logo, it begins a story that you don't want to change.
It can evolve, but you don't really want to change it because changing it means all the brand equity, all the recognition that's built into it you're going to have to start over. Take for example, this was hot and controversial a while ago, the F1 logo. So the F1 logos existed for a really long time. And then they decided, you know what?
It looks really dated. We're ready to do something different. We want to do something modern and sleek. And then it seems like all the fans of F1, the automotive enthusiasts, the logo geeks and those types they came out of the woodwork to say, this is a terrible logo. But you know, five, six years later, it's quieted down massively.
And now no one complains about it. But you run the risk of alienating a lot of people and having people talk about your company and your logo in not such a good way. That's not good PR.
The Futur: It's time for a quick break, but we'll be right back.
Chris Do: Enjoying the conversation you're listening to right now? You're going to love what we have for you inside The Futur Pro Membership. From live group calls with myself and vetted guest experts to over 600 hours of pro exclusive trainings and monthly networking, you'll have everything you need to fast track your growth. Check it out at thefutur.com/pro.
The Futur: And we're back. Welcome back to our conversation.
Chris Do: So let's talk about trends and should it be ignoring them or embracing trends? When people use the word trend, they misuse it. What they mean is fad. Okay. And we're not quite sure when something pops on the zeitgeist of pop culture, that is it a fad or is it a trend?
You do want to stay with trends. What is trends? Well, trends is like equality, inclusion, those are not fads, but a fad could be using certain elliptical shapes that were on trend for a hot minute and then went out of trend just as quickly, or frozen yogurt, that seems to come in cycles every 10 15 years, so you want to grab that and then realize later on like, oh, those bell bottom pants don't look so good on me now.
Okay, there were trendy, but it's not following trends. And so when you are chasing something, take a step back and ask yourself questions like, why am I doing this? Is it because it just seems like what everybody's doing? And if that's the case, I would just avoid that. Because the worst thing that you want to do is to do what everyone is doing.
The whole point of identity is to be unique and to be different and to be slightly weird if anything else. So following the trends is not a great way to do that. Now here's something that I've learned through years of design and just studying design. The people who have figured out design, the masters of design who were in Switzerland and Germany many, many years ago, decades ago, have figured out what works.
They follow certain golden principles of ratios, harmonies, certain geometric shapes that just work. And when you look back at these marks that were created so many years ago, They withstand the test of time. And so everybody's trying to reinvent the rules. I don't think you need to reinvent them. You just have to find the right application for what it is that you're doing.
So, rather than be so weird and unique, And breaking all the rules be weird and unique in your application of the rules. So if you're listening to this and you're a corporation and you're thinking about starting something or rebranding here's what I would advise that you do. First I would consider looking at two or three companies that do this on the regular that this is their primary focus and What you want to do is look at their body of work, their portfolio, if you will, to see if you see your future in there.
Now, the thing that we confuse a lot of times with creative people is we think, well, you could design anything, so you'll just design me anything. And that's the problem. We tend to think that if you can design something, you can design me anything. And that's the problem. I've made this mistake before to look at gaps in the portfolio and think, of course they can figure this stuff out.
But what I wind up usually getting is more of what they've already done. So this is both good news and bad news, because if they have a long track record of doing something that you like. There's a high probability that they're going to do that thing again for you. So if you don't see it, I would say, you know what, use caution, perhaps look at other firms and then interview these firms and ask them about their creative process.
And the question I like to ask creatives is this, tell me what the ideal client working relationship looks like to you. What has happened? Where does it go wrong? And how does this work in your mind? And then just let them talk themselves in or out of the job. Oftentimes, they reveal that they have no process.
They're approaching every single problem as a brand new thing, and that's not a good thing for you. If you're thinking about using ChatGPT or one of these generative AI engines to make your logo, I would ask you to reconsider what you're getting. A logo isn't just a random collection of marks and shapes put together by a machine.
And although aesthetically can look very pleasing, you're not just buying the mark. Because at the end of the day, if you showed me an award winning logo and asked any capable designer, can you draw this logo? Of course they can draw you the logo. That's not the point. The reason why companies pay creatives a lot of money, we're talking about tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, is because they're making a big decision and they want to do their due diligence. So large agencies and design firms will go and do research. They'll do a competitive analysis. They'll go into the history of your company. They're going to look at things that unless you can prompt an engine to do this, it's not going to happen.
So it's not about the formal qualities, like what it looks like. It's all the research that they do to arrive at a conclusion so that you can feel confident that it's worthwhile for you to now spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, replicating this logo across multiple touch points.
We're a pretty small company. Every time we change one thing, the color palette, or a secondary typeface, it has massive implications across the few applications that we have. And just to think, if a company like ours was a thousand times bigger, what that would mean, what kind of headache that would be?
And so then you're cycling out and rotating out legacy applications and logos to replace it with a new thing. This is an expensive endeavor. So when we sit there and we debate like, oh yeah, we'll just like hire GPT for a dollar to recreate this logo. You can, but you're, you're missing the whole point.
And that's the thing that a lot of creators don't understand. All right. I hope you enjoyed this format, but I'm really honestly looking for your genuine feedback. Let me know. And if you've enjoyed this, Please share it with someone who needs it. Listen to this.
The Futur: Thanks for joining us. If you haven't already subscribed to our show on your favorite podcasting app and get new insightful episodes from us every week. The Futur Podcast is hosted by Chris Do and produced and edited by Rich Cardona Media. Thank you to Adam Sanborn for our intro music. If you enjoyed this episode, then do us a favor by reviewing and rating our show on Apple Podcasts.
It will help us grow the show and make future episodes that much better. If you'd like to support the show and invest in yourself while you're at it, visit thefutur.com you'll find video courses, digital products, and a bunch of helpful resources about design and the creative business. Thanks again for listening and we'll see you next time.

‍