Logo Design Trends 2011 from @logolounge

Back to the Blog

The 2011 logo design trends report has just been released courtesy of the fine people at LogoLounge.

It’s always interesting to peruse the report for recent logo fads – if not at least to see whether oneself has been guilty of following any.



I found this comment from the report summary particularly interesting:

It feels like what people believe a logo to be is also becoming more transcendent. A logo is no longer a single piece of flat art. It can be a favicon, an icon, or an entire set of marks that work together to support the team. Its boundaries have become less strict as well. There was a time when most logos could be enclosed in a simple hand-drawn square, circle or similar geometric shape, but now many logos drag outside those outlines. They just don’t want to fit the old mold.

As a brand identity designer this makes complete sense. Increasingly clients are requiring a more complex approach to defining their brand than a traditional flat logo can offer. Dynamic identity systems are becoming much more prevalent, and as the demand for them grows, the notion of what a logo ‘should’ look like will continue to shift.

What do you think? Do you recognize any of the logo trends in the report?

  • Although I haven’t had a chance to play into the “Earth” trend yet, I am really loving that style right now.

  • I see no report about 2011 trend on logolounge website. what’s this?

    • The source is Graphic Design USA’s website as per the first link in the article. Not sure why it hasn’t been posted on Logolounge yet. That’s a little strange I must admit.

  • I feel like because the boundaries of “what a logo is” are fading there are good and bad things.

    Good things : you can act more playful and you can do really cool things with digital technologies, esp. for web. (for example, the new myspace “logo” and it’s interactivity, or the brilliant new AOL identity that works so perfect with moving images)

    Bad things : the playfulness can not work on printed matter, say t-shirts, car prints, and normal paper prints.

    also, i’ve seen a few people using bitmaps (or even photo’s!) into their logo’s and i feel like their logo’s sometimes lean to heavily on the photographic side, which will obviously cause problems with printing and cutting out decals/vinyl. But that’s just the practical side of the story.

  • “Increasingly clients are requiring a more complex approach to defining their brand than a traditional flat logo can offer.”

    Do clients really need something more complex, or simply more comprehensive? What I mean is, rather than a flat logo, companies are waking up and realizing it takes more to be a brand (I suppose this does mean they want something more complex mind you… I just mean that the logo doesn’t have to me more complex, but perhaps more versatile).

    They also seem to want a logo to do more than just be there, as I seem to be seeing logos used in more non-traditional ways now (images inside it, or using elements from the logo as recurring elements within a design or ad or what have you).

    • Your choice of words is better than mine Kevin. I agree, comprehensive is a more appropriate description than complex.

      A logo does not make a brand, and indeed more business owners are waking up to that fact.

  • SonOfaBeech

    care to opine on the tsunami of click and drag desktop “designers” who are willing to design a logo for 25 bucks?!?

Back to the Blog