Insta-logos: the trail of Instagram copycat logos

You may hate or love Instagram's new logo — there's definitely enough commentary out there from every level of expertise imaginable — or you might not care about it at all. While there is much debate as to whether it is a great, modern logo or a total design fail, one thing is for certain: Instagram is so big that it really doesn't matter. No one is going to stop using Instagram because they hate the garish, childish icon. Conversely, I doubt Instagram is picking up any new users who fell in love with the simplistic, flat, colorful bauble.

Instagram is a giant owned by the landlord of the entire land of giants, Facebook. No matter what the logo looks like, the app is already an indispensable tool for the masses. This kind of power is inevitably trend-setting and creates followers who jump on board hoping it will gain them some of the riches that flow in the wake. While imitation is a form of flattery, I say it's just unoriginal. Photo Collage Editor and Life360 followed Instagram's unveil with copycat logos. Even if they are all under the same corporate umbrella (which as far as I see, they are separate companies) they are still completely different brands.

I've spotted these "flattering imitations" because I use the apps... maybe there are more out there. Have you seen any? Post in the comments if you have!

Trendspotting: retro-ish logo fonts

How much do you believe in coincidence?  The following logos have recently cropped up independently of each other:

These companies are not connected by ownership, so it's just a total "coincidence" that they are retro script words. They are similar though — all three are photo/video sharing sites, each with a twist of their own. To be fair, the above Instagram logo is not their latest. They have since redesigned their logo. It's Soooo different now, see:

Of these three, I'd say the Instagram one has the least longevity. Somehow they went backward into future of the 90's with the redesign. It's not as clean and mod as the first and it's not far back enough to be cool. At least the other two have customized to indicate their product — Pinterest with the pinpoint on the P and Vine being one connected vine. 

I don't know exactly what it is that causes creative industries seem to come up with multiples of one theme at the same time,  but I wouldn't call it coincidence.

Brainwashing 101: Graphic Design, or Logo Parody Fun!

Graphic design shapes the world so much more than most people realize. Think visual communication. Think propaganda. Think of symbols and the archetypal images and meaning we attach to them. We're being brainwashed constantly.

When BP unveiled their new logo in 2000, I was impressed and dumbfounded. I was impressed because they used such powerfully clear imagery to evoke an image of "Green."  I was dumbfounded because the image was almost the opposite of what the company actually is. 

Graphic designers are powerful commentators, too. The current oil spill nightmare in the Gulf inspired an AdFed-mate of mine, Joe Vinson, to create this logo parody:

Here are some other logo parodies lurking around the net. Poignant , humorous, whatever emotion the designer is after, isn't it amazing what one single image can do?

('’)

Designer Cannibalism?

Tiredly checking my email late last night, I came across an invitation to sell my logos on iStockphoto. I couldn't really process it mentally, so I left it open and gave it a second look this morning. I honestly don't think I processed it any better. WTF is this?

Confused, I read everything and then went onto the website to check the forum. I sent an email to a few esteemed designer friends to see if there was something I was missing, some positive angle that I hadn't seen right away. Because to me it looked horrible and I couldn't understand it.

Quick catch up:
In case you're not familiar with iStockphoto, they are an internet-based "member-generated image and design community." Translation: they sell people's photographs, illustrations, videos, audio tracks and Flash files as royalty-free files. They sell to designers. RIght, back to this logo thing they're doing.

The nuttyshell:

A designer submits a logo they have sitting around or a new one they come up with to iStockphoto. If iStockphoto approves it, for a limited time only, the designer receives $5. Woo hoo! iStockphoto now owns it outright. This logo goes up on the site for an asking price of 100 to 750 credits (value of each logo suggested by designer but determined by iStockphoto). If I've done my math right, this puts the logo dollar amount somewhere between $24 and $847.50. Upon sale of said logo it comes down (one-time sale), iStockphoto gives 50% in royalties. The designer walks away with $12 to $423.75 for their original logo design.

Issues that I see straight away:

One, copyright. iStockphoto is putting the burden of checking for trademarkability on the client. Dangerous, plus don't you just want to know that you are spending money on original art?

Two, branding value. Talented, professional designers have enough of a struggle trying to prove their worth without companies like this establishing "bulk pricing" for something as custom as a logo. How can one $50 piece of art tell the story of your company when it wasn't even made for you?

Three, designer cannibalism. Paying slave-labor prices to designers in order to turn around and sell to designers who then have to turn around and sell to their client. What is this saying?

On iStockphoto's forum, designers sound happier than pigs in mud and are rolling their sleeves up to start mass-designing logos for mystery companies. I am so confused! Here are comments from this morning's email that went between a few of my professional designer friends:

"Isn't it time to stop using Istock and other "stock companies" (it's not even really stock, it's really cheap royalty free)? I hope none of you all take part in this. Likewise with crowdsourcing. You can't expect everyone to understand the value of real design in the business environment, but there is no excuse for industry suppliers. Hopefully this logo thing will end up the same place the stock layouts did, nowhere."

Kip Williams [www.kipcreative.com]

"I agree Kip. I have a hotline set up for anyone who is contemplating Spec Work. I will talk you off that ledge. Remember, you are loved, so are your talents and design. Dont throw it all away and make a mess for the rest of us."

Andy Stracuzzi [www.zedzedeye.com]

So, is iStockphoto helping designers in a rough economy by offering them the opportunity to put work on a site that might or might not yield them at most a few hundred dollars? Or is this yet another pin in the design industry voo-doo doll that someone out there is wickedly poking in? There are no rules for this, we have to police ourselves. If you agree with me that this sounds horrible, please, don't do it and tell your designer friends the same.

Whores don't put their goods up on spec, let's not jump on this new, designer, pimp ride either.