10 comments

  • Cosmin BadeaCosmin Badea, 5 years ago

    One of the two better logos (version D) is clearly a rip off of this: https://www.behance.net/gallery/4496723/Light-Climate

    I'm pretty sure I've seen version E somewhere else too, but I don't remember where.

    9 points
  • Sacha Greif, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

    Whoops, just saw this was already submitted here: https://news.layervault.com/stories/25875-the-5-logo

    Feel free to delete this one :)

    EDIT: ok, so I guess this thread is the right one then ;)

    4 points
  • Josh OlsenJosh Olsen, 5 years ago (edited 5 years ago )

    If what you want is the cheap burger, then get that. As long as you know what you’re getting for that price, then I don’t have a problem with it.

    I agree with what you said above, but I still believe sites like this do devalue design because they don't advertise "cheap logos". Fiverr advertises "The world's greatest creative talents" on their design page. People paying for a $2 hamburger know it's a cheap hamburger, but I'm sure people who get $5 logo here (or elsewhere) don't know it's a cheap logo. That type of marketing sells design as something worth very little, and that hurts design as whole.

    3 points
    • Sacha GreifSacha Greif, 5 years ago

      While I see where you're coming from, I disagree with the idea of “design as a whole”.

      Do cheap Walmart t-shirts hurt "fashion as a whole"? Does McDonalds hurt "food as a whole"?

      If we believe that regular customers are smart enough to differentiate between cheap and luxury items in everyday life, why do we always seem to assume they can't do it when it comes to design?

      2 points
      • Josh OlsenJosh Olsen, 5 years ago

        That's a good point, but I don't think these metaphors with food and fashion and other universally well known industries are comparable. If you tell the average person you're a cook they'll know what you mean, but tell them you're a graphic designer and they may well say "Oh so you draw pictures?". The tides are certainly shifting, but many people still don't know enough about design to know that a $5 or even $100 logo isn't the norm.

        It's a totally different story when someone doesn't care about the difference in quality, but I still think sites advertising "highest quality design" for next to nothing (or 99designs "design now and maybe you'll get paid later" model) are a detriment to "regular customers" understanding the value of design.

        0 points
  • Surjith S MSurjith S M, 5 years ago

    Great article. No need of Table of contents. It was like reading a story. Never get bored :-)

    1 point
  • John FlynnJohn Flynn, 5 years ago

    Good article, but it really devalues the point to include your own work in the poll at the end. What point does this serve other than to stroke your own ego? It's a little ridiculous to put the logos in there if you weren't the one offering your services at $5 a pop (and I sense you bill at a slightly higher rate than that).

    0 points
    • Sacha Greif, 5 years ago

      The reason I included my own work is to give people a point of reference.

      Given what I was able to create in 25 minutes, people can try to estimate how long it took the other designers to produce their own logos. That's all :)

      2 points
  • Tyler Finck, 5 years ago

    This is pretty fascinating. I remember creating work for sites like this when I was JUST starting out (in my spare time, at night, with a beer). It was fun, and surprisingly rewarding.

    0 points