In my honest opinion, those are not logos; those are illustrations with a particular style that are sold as logos — which don't make them a design work, but a illustration work.
You can't design a logo for a brand without a proper research and lots of basis to support and defend your proposed design.
Hi! I saw this on Hacker News and I thought it would be nice to discuss. What do you think about this? Do you like the bussiness model? (the price seems to increase with each sale, which doesn't make sense to me...).
That's actually the fun part of it. It make this project different. It reminds me highscore.money.
If you like one of his logos you better hurry up :)
Yeah, for the designer is fun, but is it for the buyer? In the end, you're buying a logo for using in a project, and the people who will see it doesn't care how you bought it.
But my true question, since we're designers is: is it good to a business to buy a logo that wasn't specifically made for it?
I don't think it's good for anyone's business. It endorses the concept that design is about commodities and not an involved service. If he sold these as stock illustrations and people decided to use them as logos that would be different, but a logo ought to be considered based on the needs of the business, their consumers, and the market. He's not necessarily harming design by doing this, but this type of enterprise does enable businesses to skip the design process and thereby eliminate the actual value design has to offer business. What you'll likely find on the other end of these transactions are a bunch of businesses who've implemented a logo without much consideration beyond "I like that", which is where a designer would typically offer guidance on branding and implementation.
I don't think it's as simple as good vs bad.
If you're small, can't afford much, and just need some kind of mark to represent your horse-selling business, get the freakin' horse image if that fits you.
If you're a big spender, and you need something that perfectly fits your product(s) and is future/growth-proof, yeah sure, this will probably be a pretty crappy solution.
In business, perfect != the best. Perfect = the most efficient.
I agree, and although I would think it would be wise to allocate appropriate resources to design from the get-go, that's not very realistic for the smallest businesses. One consideration is that for the costs highlighted here (and even more so once the prices grow) one could likely hire an affordable designer or student, which may not offer as polished of a result, but at least the result would be considered to the needs of their business, and in that case it would be the most perfect and efficient by your suggestion. As a side note: I was careful not to say it was "bad" because I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I did say I personally don't believe it to be "good" because in my mind for it to equate to the value of a personalized and considered logo it would require a large amount of luck or expertise on the part of the purchaser.
It's not just the $500 though - it's also time spent managing and time spent waiting to get the end result. Especially with inexperienced designers :)
That is very true, but I do think dedicating a little time and focus on branding from the beginning should help even the smallest, stretched company! Plus, with the assistance of even an inexperienced designer implementation should be more efficient than something which is off-the-shelf, especially if the customer doesn't have much technical know-how.
I absolutely love this.
It's almost unfair how talented Dave DeSandro is.
Yes, and such a pity he decides to de-value his own skillset.
I don't think he's devaluing his skillset! This strikes me as very different to something like 99Designs – it's more akin, perhaps, to an outlet mall that offloads surplus stock. My guess is that he's already received at least a few requests for custom logo work out of this, too.
If he sells all 50 logos, he'll net something in the area of $30k. He's not selling branding here, or making grand claims. He's selling simple-but-striking icons that one could conceivably use as a piece of branding. Not seeing any devaluation here.
If he was selling illustrations / icons I wouldn't have a problem but the site specifically says he's selling logos. Pre-made logos. For cheap. In reality brands need more than a random logo. Someone pays $460 or whatever for a logo that they don't know how to implement and that probably isn't the best solution for their company anyway.
It's the short game. GOOD Design solves specific problems for specific businesses. It's not about a cool looking graphic.
This type of work devalues design and design thinking in the long term. When your prices drop it'll be because of projects like this. If you don't have respect for your own craft how can you expect clients to have respect for it.
Right, but logos != branding. For many organizations, yes, a more extensive, thought-out, robust branding is necessary. However, for some organizations, a simple icon logo to add to existing work or to use as a cornerstone to build off of is not inconceivable. For example, you could plug that pug logo into the PugJS site and it would immediately improve (give them?) their identity.
If someone wanted to give me $500 - $1200 for some icon/hypothetical logo I made for fun or practice or whatever, I'd sell it to them. That's very different from someone coming to me asking for branding, or asking me to design a logo specifically for their company. It's at that point that you begin to put tremendous thought and effort into creating a logo, palette, guidelines, etc. into place for that specific brand. And for that, you should charge. You should charge a lot.
I love DeSandro, but he's unlikely to sell them all. The more desirable logos will go for cheap, and those less so will stick around longer, making themselves more expensive.
There will be a point when it hits equilibrium between the better pieces at a low price and less desirable pieces at a high price.
I can't believe this got attraction in HN and DN. I can spot spam from miles away. I just read logo + $20 and I instantly know this is crap.
I agree with @Bruno Abatti, these are not really logos but more of icons and illustrations and the price system is flawed as good icons will be sold first for cheap and crap ones will be left with higher price tag.
those are obviously not logos (yet). but damn, i wish i had this idea.
Kinda cool. The pricing creates a sense of urgency. Can't hate. He also made use of a .pizza domain name.
At least it's not https://www.brandbucket.com/. This site is a glorified domain squatter ripping people off.
omg the prices on this site sickens me!
I can't believe people are paying hundreds for one single basic illustration.. Price is currently at $560.. that's crazy - someone paid $540 for a single basic illustration.. I understand that this guy is talented, but damn.. it's one small illustration?...
If he can charge $560 so can you. And in the right context this pricing is appropriate, perhaps even quite moderate depending on use and licensing. I would prefer a model which responds to a brief or client-needs (as mentioned above) but the pricing could be appropriate in the "stock" logo/image/icon market if given full license.
What a fun little project!