Logo Talks

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

In the 10 years since I first met Larry Page and Sergei Brin, Google has grown from a tiny start‐up into one of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world, and as a by-product the Google logo has become a ubiquitous presence in our collective consciousness.

It is now an intrinsic part of the lore surrounding this extraordinary journey that started with two people sharing an amazing vision and grew into a global, multibillion dollar enterprise.

Would there be such a strong and vocal reaction to the Google logo had Google not risen to its current heights? Probably not.

Would we be writing so many articles about it had Google remained a smaller enterprise or worse had disappeared in the dotcom bust? I don’t think so.

It is primarily a function of Google becoming such a cultural phenomenon that the interest in the symbol that represents its face to the world has grown to the current proportions and people refer to it in such strong and diametrically opposed terms, but the truth is that in variant strengths and degrees we tend to react in visceral ways to the logos that are part of the fabric of our lives.

When asked to create a new logo design, the designer is faced with the task of distilling myriad complex ideas into a single and unique visual representation that succinctly expresses the many facets of the entity. He needs to synthesize these ideas and funnel them into a powerful image that will become synonymous and interchangeable with the entity it represents.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

Conveying the right message to a broad audience in such a distilled visual form is not a simple or trivial task. From time immemorial, for as long as man has been using symbols to represent ideas, designers have been required to deal with an ever changing visual language grammar, on one hand expanding adhoc the visual lexicon to incorporate new elements, and on the other revisiting and reinterpreting the existing vocabulary. All this in the pursuit of imagery that is both relevant and powerful in the current context. To further complicate matters this imagery is now supposed to span across multi cultural, and multi generational collective consciousness.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

Using the Google logo as an example, we first need to acknowledge that each of us relate to the Google brand in a highly personal way and expect the logo to express all those qualities that Google has come to represent to us. So whether we are drawn to the Google logo’s irreverent interplay of typography and color, or whether we discard it as being simple, naïve or unpolished, we demand of the Google logo or of any logo design for that matter that it be just right. To each of us. To all of us. At this time. At all times.

Not a simple task indeed but let us not forget that design is primarily a utilitarian discipline whose goal is to provide a solution to a specific problem. In the case of logo design, the proposed solution’s purpose is to help define, reinforce and spread the intended message.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

Since the solution is a product of its particular time and place, whether a reflection of or a reaction to the current culture’s moods and trends, its attempt to find a unique, distinct and everlasting voice raising high above the cacophony of sounds may not be an attainable goal.

As opposed to some areas in design where the functionality remains constant through time, like the design of a chair for example, a logo’s function is to represent ideas that by nature are fluid and will change with time as the brand evolves and grows. Therefore while a chair usually has an expected lifespan (primarily based on materials and workmanship), a logo design may easily become obsolete or unusable much sooner than expected because it has ceased to represent the brand’s current values, culture, image, etc.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

And since the logo is an amalgamation of complex ideas represented through visual means it is unrealistic to expect that it will affect all that are exposed to it in the same exact way. But if most people, from those represented by the brand to those exposed to it are able to see their own perceptions being articulated in the logo and or are able to see something in the logo that touches them deeply and in a positive way, then the design can be described as successful. If furthermore the logo is able to maintain its effectiveness through the trials of time, across geographic boundaries and generation gaps than it can be described as very successful.

The Google logo was born out of an open dialogue that took place ten years ago around a small table in a small Palo Alto office.

Larry and Sergei had a clear vision of the product as it fit in the current landscape as well as how it could possibly shape future landscapes. They knew what kind of company and culture they wanted to build, and most importantly they had a clear understanding of who they were and what they could become. They were unapologetic about the scope of their dream. Success was not a question.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

And although none of us really imagined how much bigger the scale and scope of Google’s reach and influence would become, it is the fact that we managed to really touch upon the core elements, the essentials of what made Google Google that allowed me to come up with a visual representation that satisfied all the involved parties.

The brief became clearer as we went through the presentation rounds. From the outset, it was clear to us that the name of company had to stand at the center of the logo and at the time many people were still afraid to use the Internet, so it was important to create something user‐friendly, something simple and inviting, catchy and full of life.

We were not going to use upper‐case fonts which were the rigueur with established and serious companies. We would not use wacky fonts, even though they represented anti‐establishment, because everyone was doing wacky fonts at the time and wacky fonts were themselves becoming the norm, the establishment.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

Google was all about search, which in a way is a bridge between the past (looking for something that already exists) and the future (the action that will follow), so I looked for fonts that would express this idea. I finally set for Catull, a serif but modern looking font with a clean and airy elegance to it that alludes to the continuity that exists throughout the history of type design.

And since in Google’s case it was offering an incredibly simple to use product we played with childhood concepts such as playfulness, optimism, adventurousness, curiosity, impishness, the magic of rainbows and the wonders of Legos, of putting things together in a world full of color.

But Google also delivered fast, comprehensive and above all trustworthy search results through an innovative, algorithmically complex technology so it was important that the irreverence of the founders was not construed as a lack of seriousness. We wanted to convey the wondrous world of childhood but without looking immature.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

After much iteration, we opted for a very distilled and simple treatment that in our minds embodied all the important elements we discussed throughout the process. We refrained from using any familiar symbols that would in a way limit us in their meaning and even the color palette aimed to subtly but categorically disassociate itself from that of a rainbow’s real and set pattern – we purposely repeated colors and changed the color progression. Several typeface elements were slightly modified both as another means to break the mold and also to create a lighter and more elegant space around and between the letters themselves allowing each letterform to breathe and have its own space, and its own identity.

“Google logos (c) Google Inc. Used with permission.”

We wanted to reinforce the concept that this is a new approach to search, not dictated by or influenced by conventional boundaries but one that delivers fast and accurate results through a simple and fun experience.

It is quite fulfilling to me as a designer to see that the Google logo ten years later still looks very different from anything out there, and has managed to continually represent Google’s brand even across broader geographic spans and greater cultural divides especially since the Google of today is in many ways light years away from the Google of ten years ago.

There is a very strong synergy between Google and the Google logo, so much so that whenever the word Google is mentioned, the Google logo comes immediately to mind, and you need to see no more than a sliver of the logo to immediately recognize it and what it represents.

Even though other logos I have designed might be stronger in terms of aesthetics and purity of design, the Google logo stands out as an example of an icon that has transcended the original intent by manifesting a great degree of flexibility and adaptability that continues to serve the brand as it evolves and grows.

So although it is far from being perfect it is just right. To most of us. At most times.