Kwong: “Logos, Flags, and Escutcheons”

1. The author, Paul Rand, of the article, “Logos, Flags, and Escutcheons”, defined that, “A logo is a flag, a signature, an escutcheon” (McQuade, 564). It has nothing to do with its look or the relation between the logo and the product it signifies. What it means and what does it reminds you of is more important. As the author wrote, a well design logo should be distinctive, visible, useable, memorable, universal, durable, and timeless.

2. Logo is a symbol of a product. It get the meaning from the product, not the other way around, so, it can be anything; it does not need to be related to the product, as a signature does not have to be the person’s name. As long as the logo is distinctive, visible, useable, memorable, universal, durable, and timeless, it is well designed. Sometime, a well designed logo can still be irrelevant, however, that is not the logo’s problem; it is the quality of the product itself. The author used some examples to prove his argument. He first introduces the Mercedes-Benz symbol. He wrote, “The Mercedes symbol, for example, has nothing to do with automobiles; yet it is a great symbol, not because its design is great, but because it stands for a great product” (McQuade, 565). He then introduces the Lacoste symbol. He wrote “Lacoste sportswear, for example, has nothing to do with alligators (or crocodiles), and yet the little green reptile is a memorable and profitable symbol” (McQuade, 565). From the example he gave, he concluded that the quality of the product is far more important than its logo. Yet, a well designed logo is a plus, but it is useless for bad quality product.

3. When you buy a product, do you focus on the quality of the product or just base on the beauty of its logo? Tell us about you experiments.