Obvious. Elephant in a living room.

Obvious Solutions for Logos Can be Good

Why it’s okay to use obvious solutions for logos

One of the golden rules of logo design that I hear when designing a logo is not to go with the obvious solution.

My first question is, “Why not”?

I hear things like it’s derivative or a cliché. I don’t see it this way. Sometimes it is okay to go with an obvious solution. If it’s a cliché, that can be a good thing. Clichés are clichés for a reason: because there is some truth to them that resonates with people.

When it comes time to design a logo I’m not advocating using the obvious solution every time. There are times not to, like if a competitor already does so, being the number one reason not to.

A case for obvious logo designs

A few logos that use obvious solutions that everyone adores are Apple, Target, and Under Armour.

These obviously are the easy cliché solutions, but yet still they work.

Why? Because of their execution.

The reason these logos work:

Apple: They refrained from using an apple icon AND saying Apple with a wordmark. They don’t show both together. The bite taken out of the apple also helps create an instant connection. The logo designer, Rob Janoff, said in an interview that the bite was added in to show that it was an apple and not a cherry.

Target: Contradiction Time. What I just said about the Apple logo, Target broke that. Yet it still works. It’s a clean, minimalist execution of a target icon, allowing an immediate connection with the viewer.

Under Armour: The initials UA? Really? But this works because of the execution of the initials. The letterforms are designed to interlock, which creates an unforgettable mark that is instantly recognized. Can any of Under Armor’s competition do so? No.

When should you use an obvious solution for your logo design?

Here’s an example of a logo I’ve designed with an obvious solution that works.

A Light Collection logo.

The reason it works is that the name does not immediately say photography. So the logo needed to convey that visually.

It also works with how I implemented the camera into the wordmark. I didn’t just put an icon of a camera next to it. I integrated the camera into the wordmark in a clean, modern way.

How I unified the elements:

  • Unifying the weight of text stroke with the thickness of the camera lines.
  • The lens of the camera replaced the letter O.

Reasons to use an obvious solution:

There are no hard and fast rules of when it’s okay to go with an obvious solution or not—the consideration to do so needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

  • The competition doesn’t do it.
  • When it can help “tell the story” of your brand.
  • Company History.

When shouldn’t you use an obvious solution for your logo design?

As I mentioned earlier, the number one reason not to do so is if the competition in your market or any market already does so.

Does the obvious solution make sense, or is there a different idea that can be used that is equal or even stronger?

Reasons NOT TO use an obvious solution

  • Your competition already does so
  • Does it make sense to do so? Or are you taking the easy way out?
  • Can you find a better alternative through brainstorming?

Conclusion

There are some questions you should ask yourself when designing a logo, like; Does the logo need to be obvious? How can I improve my logo design? Is an obvious solution good for this particular design?

If you can answer yes to these questions, then it’s okay to consider going the obvious route. Remember, there are no hard and fast rules of when it’s okay to do so or not—the consideration to do so needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Contact me if you need help with your logo design. I’d love to talk and see how we could work together to create something great.