Sunday, November 16, 2008
It reports some research on the effects brands have on us. Among other findings, people who saw photos that included a bottle of Dasani were more likely to choose that brand when given a choice of four brands, even though they didn't consciously notice the bottle when looking at the photograph (they were asked to focus on the expressions of the people, not other things in the photo).
The article concludes with a discussion of Ralph Lauren's many lines. The Polo logo is widespread, but the logo "is completely absent from Lauren's high-end subbrands, presumably on the theory that the discerning self-identities of such status-conscious consumers clash with flashing an emblem worn by the masses."
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
"So what is this American Apparel? A company of basics built upon a foundation of simple, plain-colored T-shirts. Tees were the first items Charney produced when he set up shop in 1997 and still account for the lion's share of the business--but the line is spreading like a rash. Today American Apparel makes socks, underwear, sweatshirts, jackets, dresses, tank tops, polo shirts, baby clothes, dog clothes, and, as of this summer, swimwear. The clothes have no logos, no ornamentation, not a single flourish or bauble; differentiation comes from an array of colors that now includes fluorescents and from slim and sexy cuts that attract young buyers and allow the simple cotton garments to serve as something larger--core elements of a fashionable wardrobe."
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The first I noted was the History Channel's vivid red and gold logo:
The Discovery Channel made theirs more vivid as well, adding a rotating globe, which is not evident in this still, to further distract the viewer's attention from the programming:
The Learning Channel still wants to be in the running for impossible-to-ignore logos too, having made their previously obnoxious logo even more so:
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Limar is a little better:
Bell at least keeps its logos small, but puts one on the front as well as the sides.
Trek looks to be the least obnoxious.
I need to do some more looking, but Trek so far seems to be the choice.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
At least corporate sponsors have paid big bucks for the right to have their name displayed, unlike clothing or automobile manufacturers who ask us to pay to display their logos. I'm waiting for the day, however, when highways, trees, natural landmarks, and sidewalks will begin to sport paid advertising.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
It is a polite reminder that Apple made the thing. Since Apple's products are visually distinctive, in an attractive way, a subtle logo is fine. Imagine a big APPLE in place of the logo. Does anyone think that would be an improvement?
Other computer manufacturers are less pleasant. Here's the bottom of the monitor from a Dell machine, for example:
In silver against black, the logo stands out obtrusively.
That's one more reason why I've been a Mac user since 1985.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
TV manufacturers, too, don't want me to forget whose brand I own. They prefer to put their logo in a way that contrasts with what is around it. Phillips, Toshiba, and Sharp, for example, put their logos either in white or silver against a black background, or in black against a silver background:
Panasonic, at least, offers some sets with a silver logo against a silver background, which makes it a tad less obtrusive.
Monday, February 18, 2008
A little later, I bought a Marmot rain jacket. It had the Marmot "M" in an acceptable size. Unfortunately, I lost it. I replaced it with the new version, but now logo creep had struck. It had a white Marmot logo against a black background on the front:
And another on the right shoulder:
And yet a third on the back:
Now I'm a walking advertisement for Marmot, a firm whose clothing I appreciate, but whose unpaid billboard I am not happy to be. Is it my imagination, or are logos becoming more frequent as well as more obnoxious?
Friday, January 18, 2008
The worse example is Voom. At various points, a rainbow loco flashes in the corner of the screen. The last time this happened, I was watching a program on Italian art. Suddenly, the Voom logo appeared over a Carravaggio painting:
This hardly adds to one's appreciation.
Or take BBC America, which sometimes insists
not only on advertising coming shows on the bottom left, but thinks I need to be reminded what program I am watching on the lower left:
The Documentary Channel is a particular offender, with at least four different logos, among them:
The Learning Channel has its own vivid addition to my viewing pleasure:
Then there is the Discovery Channel:
Over time, one tunes these obnoxious logos out, at which point some channels change the logo, or add vivid color to make sure viewers don't forget what channel they are watching.
Am I the only one annoyed by these things?
Monday, January 7, 2008
A few months back, I bought a Columbia jacket. Its logo was a little bigger than I like, but what was even more annoying was that there were six zipper tags, each with a prominent Columbia logo.
On the other hand, discreet logos like those of Apple, Nike, or Mercedes are appropriately unobtrusive. I can tolerate them, though I still prefer not to become an unpaid advertising agent for products I buy.
In this blog, which may take a while to get going, I plan to include photographs of what I think to be obnoxious and obtrusive logos. I welcome digital photographs of your "favorites" as well.