For those of you who enjoyed this submission, David Pache (Dache) has a section of his portfolio dedicated to such articles. For example, here's the design process for the Directed Edge (YC '09) logo: http://www.dache.ch/thedacheboard/article/directededge_logo/.
So, in my opinion a good logo is totally overrated. Sure, Pepsi and Coke are well established brands and maybe this won't apply to a startup but I wouldn't say either of the logos are particularly outstanding, especially the most recent Pepsi one but if I prefer Pepsi over Coke, the logo ain't stopping me.
Edit: Just to add, really liked the article just thought the above was an interesting thought.
Remember, Coca-cola tried to rebrand the product as "Coke," then rebranded it as "Coca-Cola Classic" when that failed, and then rebranded it again as just "Coca-Cola" recently. That's three names for the product. Pepsi has only used two (Pepsi and Pepsi-Cola).
Very interesting, I feel kinda stupid now. However after docmach's comment below I believe this reenforces the point about logo design being overrated.
However, I think it is more down to an overall brand rather than a specific logo.
Of course visual design always comes second to the quality of the actual product/experience, but that doesn't mean design isn't important.
A company's brand is a reflection of their user experience. The main contributer to Coca-Cola's brand, then, is in the actual drink itself. Graphic design, logo design, or identity design is important not because it can really alter the branding or make a bad product look good, but because they can make that branding more apparent to someone before they even take a sip, and guide them towards whatever decisions happen to be the most profitable for Coca-Cola.
So for example, a good Coca-Cola logo would give people the idea that coke is more refined/sophisticated, and is made to be appealing throughout the entire drink, instead of sacrificing total experience for a short rush of sugar flavor. That would get the attention of people who are looking for that sort of drink, and filter out the people who might be better served by pepsi. Whereas, if they had a logo that lead to a greater feeling of spectacle than sophistication, it would be more likely that people who wouldn't appreciate coke would try it (deciding they don't like it and going back to pepsi), and the people who would buy coke would be less likely to consider it.
That's why logo design is important. You may have a great product, but if your visual identity doesn't reflect that, your marketing efforts will be spent fighting against your image rather than running alongside it.
How does Coke have the better product? Maybe Coke's dominance is due to choosing the right logo and sticking with it instead of constantly changing their visual identity.
Coke's product is less sweet than Pepsi. What that means is that if you're drinking a lot of soda, Coke takes much longer to start tasting repulsive than Pepsi does, even though at first sip Pepsi might taste more delicious for some.
That was what led to the New Coke disaster. In taste tests, five out of seven people tested preferred the New Coke taste, because it was sweeter. But when rolled out, people found it got old fast. And while now New Coke is seen as a branding disaster, the truth is if it had been a more appealing product, the brand would have caught on and it might have led to a rout of Pepsi. While most of a brand is perception, the product does matter somewhat.
I actually find Coke a lot more sweet than Pepsi, which is why I've always preferred drinking Pepsi. To me, Pepsi is a lot more clean and crisp, while Coke is sweet and foamy.
Of course, I'm sure you'll find people fiercely arguing either of the products that have been competing for ages now, so trying to come up with a rubric based on your taste preference is pretty useless.
"Of course, I'm sure you'll find people fiercely arguing either of the products that have been competing for ages now, so trying to come up with a rubric based on your taste preference is pretty useless."
The only people still arguing are those who have not experienced the cola-nirvana that is RC cola. Interestingly enough even RC had it's own can label redesign recently, getting rid of its classy old-school look for a more modern one. The armchair designer in me preferred the old one, it seemed to fit the brand name better.
I remember back when it first hit me how perfect the logo design for the Nike swoosh was, it blew my mind. Ever since then I've tried to pay more attention to what companies are trying to portray through the images, fonts, and colors they use in their advertising and logo's.
You know, now I think more about it, I would very much doubt it does have a better product but that it is down to branding, so maybe logo is important. Not really so sure anymore :).
I imagine the author of the article actually knows the difference but doesn't clearly distinguish this in the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo
"A logo is a graphical element (ideogram, symbol, emblem, icon, sign) that, together with its logotype (a uniquely set and arranged typeface) form a trademark or commercial brand."
So the logo would be the leafy V and the rest of the word combined with it would be the "logotype". That distinction doesn't seem to be made in the article and I think that's a little confusing. I'm sure it's best to design the two things together as they go hand-in-hand, but, strictly speaking, "logotype" is not the logo. I mention it because if you are a start-up trying to do your own logo, that detail might be helpful information.
RE: Remarks that the word looks like "ero" on the vertical design. I think it would be more obvious that the leafy V was also a letter if the "V" part of it (in white) was in the same color as the rest of the text. I would also think it would be possible to find a typeface that more closely resembles the style of the "V" in the leaves and this would likely make it more apparent that it's part of the word.
Also: I'm reminded of a passage in some book (by Heinlein?) that mocks advertising with "subliminal" sexual suggestions. In the book, a woman proclaims "There's a purple cock in my kitchen!" (The imaginary brand involved a purple rooster as the symbol of a cleaning product, if I recall correctly.) It makes me kind of wonder if the appearance that it says "ero" is some subconscious effort to "sex up" the product. Sex sells and all that.
Vero. Now there's a name not suitable for the Finnish market. Vero = tax. Then again, selling water to Finland would be like selling freezers to Inuits.
But does anyone else find the finished design (the vertical shown on the bottle with the leafy 'V' then the letters 'ero') just looks like the product is called 'Ero'? It's certainly the first thing I saw.
Article "As you can see, I had the idea of creating a “V” from two “leaves” of water."
I don't like the concept, it doesn't say high fashion to me (though the bottle possible does but not in a water-y way) and in no way suggests water - it's more like a lotion bottle to me.
I liked the Vero as a logo but the vertical doesn't work as the v is too separated and undefined. "ero" suggests it might be a sex aid, perhaps "cooling lotion". The bottle shape reminds me of "salad cream" - http://greenpasturesint.com/cannedbottledboxed/HeinzSaladCre...
Nothing particularly unusual about the methodology though I might change my mind once I've seen the questionnaire.
