Print and HOW Magazines Apologize for Offensive Logo Promotion

I have the privilege of designing logos (among other things) for a living. This puts me in the company of a group of people commonly referred to as “graphic designers.” Unfortunately, there is a perception of people in my profession that isn’t very flattering. While the corporate world is beginning to notice design as a powerful business tool (I challenge you to open a business magazine and not find a discussion about design in some capacity) there is still a stereotype that paints designers as a group of complaining, ego-centric, hard-to-work-with snobs. That bothers me – because that assessment is often accurate. Look no further than this troubling (although really funny) rant called “Please design a logo for me. With pie charts. For free.”

This week I got an email from HOW Magazine (and Print Magazine) apologizing for an earlier email in which they seemingly endorsed the new service of iStockPhoto.com selling stock logos. You can click on the images to the right to read the emails in their entirety, but basically the “trusted design publications” offended nearly every serious designer on Earth by partnering with a company that promotes stock logos. Needless to say, this is Print and HOW’s core audience and they are now distancing themselves from this mailing as best they can. Like most other print publications, Print and HOW are scrambling to find a way to stay relevant in the age of the blog.

When I was writing regularly for Be A Design Group I would have posted this outrage immediately with a fiery rant against stock logos and proclaiming the virtues of custom logo design. But when I read the apology email from HOW it barely registered on my radar. IStockPhoto has all but killed the professional photography industry, and it isn’t a stretch to see designers as the next victim of the digital/DIY revolution.I wasn’t more offended by this email than I am by any of the other junk that HOW sends me.

In the midst of the “stock logo outrage” issue I think there is a sub-story that gets lost. That story is the disconnect between how designers and non-designers view logo design. If you are a designer, you understand the terrible implications that come with a stock logo service. But if you aren’t a designer you are probably wondering “what’s so wrong about saving money on something that is seemingly overpriced?” Rather than being offended by that question and writing letter’s to magazine editors, designers should use this as an opportunity to educate people about the real value that a designer can bring to an identity project. We should calmly point out that the purpose of a logo is to represent the unique qualities of a company. Explain how it is impossible to stand out in a crowd when you are using the same logo as 50+ other organizations. Talk about how importing branding is and the importance of differentiation. Whatever you do don’t pout about the threat of a new competitor in the logo design marketplace. All that will do is promote the negative designer stereotype and put a barrier between you and your potential customers.

So is the age of the designer ending as a result of all the cheap design options available today? No. Their will always be demand for creative people who can communicate clearly and decisively the value of design. I will do whatever I can to discourage people from buying stock logos, but I will never be offended when someone falls for the allure of cheap logo design. I know that eventually it will be obvious that the stock logo purchase was a mistake. At that point I hope they ask themselves, “Remember that articulate designer who tried to sell us an expensive logo? What was his name again? Adrian3 was it? I should give him a call…”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm and is filed under Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.