1 Good Logo 1 Bad Logo
Good Logo Design
I know you mentioned this in class, but due to my uncomfortable amount of time working at different burger kings throughout the years, I am particularly excited about this rebrand. I’m not going to go into detail about the entire rebrand, but I will say that I enjoy almost every aspect of it including the new uniforms, cups, bags, etc. I think the new burger king logo, which is technically a cleaner iteration of the even older burger king logo, is an excellent change. It is simple, effective, and in my opinion depicts a burger better than the previous logo. While the origins of this logo is older, I believe it is a more timeless design. The previous logo is very 90s, and with modern design shifting more towards minimalism I believe the rebrand was appropriate for the times, and will be appropriate in the future even as design changes. The new logo is also more versatile, and functions better in different color schemes or black and white compared to the previous. The transition hasn’t made its way to signage for the stores yet, but I believe this new logo is more easily recognizable and memorable, especially from a far. The new logo also functions easier at a variety of sizes. It can be easily read on a large format such as a sign, and a small format such as on a nugget bag or cup. Again moving away from the 90s style, the flatter colors feel more natural and reminiscent of the food they serve compared to the saturated primary colors of the previous logo. Lastly, every element of the new logo could be repurposed into other design elements of their brand. The “bun” and blue stripe of the old logo do not function on their own. With the new logo, both the “burger king” and the bun can function on their own elsewhere.
Bad Logo Design
I drive past the sign for this pin-up place in Edinboro everyday and every time I look at it I wish I could redesign it. The sign itself is actually worse than the logo, but for the sake of this assignment I’ll focus on the logo. This logo is bad for a variety of reasons, for starters it uses 4 fonts in a singular logo. I would say at MOST two logos could be used effectively in a logo, but most commonly you’d only want to include one. This logo is over complicated, with multiple clashing elements all existing together. There are several unnecessary elements, such as the flying heart that doesn’t relate to the business or name in any form, and the camera icon which is very basic and unnecessary to include when it already says photography. I could just write “this logo includes a piece of clipart” and leave it at that but then it wouldn’t be at least 300 words. In fact, the heart, camera, “photography”, website, and name are almost all unnecessary for the logo. The business is called “Pin Up Penny”, and that isn’t even directly communicated in this logo. This logo is barely recognizable up close, and would be almost entirely illegible from a small distance. The execution of the white background is clunky and overcomplicated, and the bright pink outer glow is especially troubling and does nothing good for the design. I think for any business that relates to art, it is especially crucial that they have a quality logo, or else if reflects badly on their ability to design. Even if they just used the pin up element, it would need a lot of work to be a good logo. Overall this logo is bad because it is overcomplicated, hard to read, unrecognizable, and poorly executed.
