Do you agree with these quote?


"the famous logo is not because of the designer who created it, but who chose it"

  • YES, I am agree
  • NO, I am not agree

0 voters


Agreed. A logo can only be so good. For example, the Apple logo is literally just a bitten apple. It’s iconic because the brand is iconic, not because of the logo itself. Jon Ranoff could have used his awesome talent to design a tree stump or a big toe and it would still be super famous.


Neither, It is famous because of the marketing and promotion dollars that have bought it exposure. Anything or anyone can be famous with a good budget for promotion.


In my opinion, is not it before doing a promotion you have to choose the logo first? :slight_smile:


This is like a logo version of the chicken and the egg isn’t it? :wink:

There’s no ‘right’ answer.


I suppose I read that literally. The best logo in the world will not be famous until it is exposed. Choosing the right one is important, but has little to do with making it famous.


I agree with this. A good logo designer has a gift, an ability to put something into a simple design that people respond to. It cannot be overstated that the right logo is incredibly important.

Right now we have the designer of the Apple logo available on fiverr. How many designers in the world would have thought to take a bite out of the apple?

The importance of this seemingly simple thing is that it is not just an apple but one that everyone knows and recognizes, and means the same thing to everyone who sees it, subliminally. Adam and Eve. It reaches right into the depths of our animal brains.

Do you see what I mean? This is a world class logo designer.


Not necessarily.

I think of Alan Turing, and so do many others.


Yes, you think you do, but your animal brain thinks something you are not aware of.

Did you ever read any of Carl Jung’s writings? We all have a set of universal symbols that a primitive part of our brains respond to.


Really? It looks like a half eaten apple to me - nothing more at all! :sunny:


Yes I know but I am talking about subliminal advertising and the way certain symbols make certain primitive parts of our brains fire neurons. A good deal of advertising uses symbols in this way. The Nike swoosh is another good example.

An apple with a bite out of it makes something measurable happen in the brain that is in a hidden part of it.


Why would the animal brain of someone who was brought up in a communist country and was never religious think about characters from Bible?


He said in either a video or blog post that he took the bite out of it to give the apple some size perspective. Without the bite, it may not be completely recognizable as an apple; with the bite it is absolutely clear.


I would have to explain Carl Jung’s writings here and that’s a big subject.

For them it might be something equally primitive such as getting hunger fed.


I recognize something else in it.


Eoin nailed it. Janoff himself said he added the bite so that his design wouldn’t be mistaken for a cherry.

Allusions to Adam and Eve, computer bytes and Turing are just incidental. The human brain always tries to create links where there aren’t any. While that’s easy to do in hindsight, it doesn’t mean it’s what the designer was thinking when he created his work.


You guys need to realize the kind of marketing research that can go into something as seemingly simple as a logo, complete with a hundred people hooked up to electroencephalograms as they are flashed images on a screen to see how their brains respond to certain images, in ways they are unaware of.

Much of our buying motivations are not due to something we are aware of. Sure, you think you are making a logical rational buying decision.

But you are not.


You can always say that the designer subconsciously thought about a certain idea (of course, it would be the same idea that you have, not an idea that someone else might have). :smile_cat:

It’s similar with writing (the link contains a bit of swearing):


Oh, of course. But Janoff has explained his reasoning, and I’m inclined to believe him.

The Apple logo has been printed on to gadgets the size of my thumb. It’s much more likely it was designed with practicality in mind.

Edit: I do really like the Turing theory, though. The apple bite, the stripes to signal his homosexuality, etc. Would be kind of cool if it were true.


Just about everyone has an opinion on the new Gap logo (now hastily withdrawn by the firm), and NeuroFocus has jumped on the bandwagon by conducting EEG and eye-tracking studies of consumer response to the design. Overall, they found the revamped design didn’t light up their subjects’ brains the way an exciting new logo should.