Smashing Magazine - we smash you with the information that will make your life easier. really.

Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Advertisement

Logotypes stand for Corporate Identity. The better a logo is designed, the greater is the probability that your potential clients will remember your CI and get back to you once your service is needed. Consequence: designers have to be creative and put many efforts in designing beautiful, unique and catchy logos. And the results they come out with are sometimes stunning and spectacular. Both in graphic design and web design.

This isn’t just another collection of logotypes. These are 58 creative logos you can inspire yourself from. Nevermind how different the logos are – they show the current trend in modern logo design. The logos we’ve selected below have been created and optimized for Web. Links checked: August/19 2008 – meanwhile some sites are dead, their logos are not linked.

Aurea in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Arc90logo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Fabra in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Vivap in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Fygo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Phpzen in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Pathf in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Zillowlogo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

P9cay in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Digo-logo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Eyplogo Hp in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Dropsend Com in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Favoor Logo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Revolution in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Logo Searchles Notag in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Iloggo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Logo-squidoo19 in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Soflow Com in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Grepr in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Netstudio Gr in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Ranklab in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Listlogo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Divshare in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Opmom in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Podc in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Quest in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Webshots in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Knexus in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Adesus in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Dotoni in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Ideabox in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Alltunes Com in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Tickspot Com in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Crashplan in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Logo Intervals in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Logo Xing Top in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Bottle in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Jaman in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Motive in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Jott in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Jamglue in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Visionmedia in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Big in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Mojiti in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Askerus in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Roisure in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Buddy in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Feedpile Com in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Pairup in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Widgetp in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Acopic in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Techdirt in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Texicate in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

Tqlo in Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos

The Co-Founder of Smashing Magazine. Former writer, web designer, freelancer and webworker. Author of several books. Runs the business.

Post Rating
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: , ,

Advertising
  1. 1
    Brian
    March 13th, 2007 10:43 pm

    Whaaat? These are some of the /least/ creative logos I’ve ever seen. I can’t even tell most of them apart.

  2. 2
    John
    March 13th, 2007 11:10 pm

    Some of these are really bad and yes, they all look too alike. Some of the fonts on these logos look like low quality free fonts. Too many betas as well – it’s almost as if they’ve built the ‘beta’ right into their logo.. like they’re never going to actually finish their product.

    Awful…

  3. 3
    firman firdaus
    March 13th, 2007 11:34 pm

    some pieces at the top is just mediocre. yet, another stunning post from you guys. thanks.

  4. 4
    Greg
    March 14th, 2007 12:17 am

    I agree … they look much alike.

    Now, if the title was “58 logos that say ‘I’m a Web 2.0 Company and I fit in’ …

  5. 5
    Ralf Schmid
    March 14th, 2007 12:17 am

    Most of these logos are neither creative nor do they show a current trend in logo design. I would rather call them desperate attempts to paint me-too-logo-bullshit for web 2.0 companies. Anyway, it doesn’t really matter—the majority of them will disappear as fast as they popped up.

  6. 6
    taoski
    March 14th, 2007 12:17 am

    Some nice.. some poor – Skyblog=awful!

    As always… very inspirational post!

  7. 7
    Web 2.0
    March 14th, 2007 12:20 am

    paaaathetic.

  8. 8
    mat
    March 14th, 2007 12:31 am

    seriously?
    please retitle this post to ‘58 things to avoid in logo design’

    to be fair, some are good, but the majority are plain nasty.

  9. 9
    William Stewart
    March 14th, 2007 12:36 am

    With the exception of a few, these logos are horrid and very cliched.

  10. 10
    Chaaban
    March 14th, 2007 12:50 am

    Thank’s A lot , keep insipiring us :)

    great work .

  11. 11
    add
    March 14th, 2007 12:51 am

    some of them are good. stop bitching!!!

  12. 12
    add
    March 14th, 2007 12:53 am

    some of them are good, STOP b’itchin

  13. 13
    CSS Layouts
    March 14th, 2007 1:26 am

    Dropsend’s is the best by far

  14. 14
    Kris Gosser
    March 14th, 2007 1:29 am

    A couple things:

    1) I enjoyed alltunes a lot; ideabox, dropsend, quest, and netvibes only some. All others were pretty bad.

    2) Logo critiquers need to remember sometimes that a logo for a website (where the business is nothing but a web site) can be different than normal identity. They aren’t going to have delivery trucks, lots of letterheads, etc. most of the time. They can be fun and not have to conform to normal identity standards.

    With that said, all of these were pretty big copycat logos. And they have the same tactics:
    - Ariel Rounded MT
    - awkward colors
    - signal lines (RSS style)
    - some sort of flowery thing
    - reflections

    3) The one to me that truly just doesn’t get it is “Texticate”. Hahaha.

    4) This post sucked, but I thoroughly enjoy all your other posts. One of the few aggregate sites I check regularly.

  15. 15
    Taote
    March 14th, 2007 1:42 am

    It is simply a collection with a very ephemere feeling. Only created for work a few years on the Internet, on the “web 2.0″.

    Not really nice collection. Sorry.

  16. 16
    arley
    March 14th, 2007 1:50 am

    worst… logos… evar

  17. 17
    nick
    March 14th, 2007 3:21 am

    you guys are doing a really nice job but i’d rather you put 8 truely great logos rather than 58 arguably-creative-and-certainly-web-2.0 ones. quality over quantity, what do you think? :)

    still, i appreciate your work and effort!

  18. 18
    Carlos Eduardo
    March 14th, 2007 3:58 am

    I think these icons are good examples to use on Internet… Offline, in some cases, they have to be modified.

  19. 19
    Jeff
    March 14th, 2007 4:02 am

    Sorry, no dice.

    Many of these logos aren’t even logos–they’re basic type treatments.

    Bottletalk has a strong idea, lacking execution.

    DropSend is great.

    ALL THE OTHERS are crap. The only message they convey is “I’m Web 2.0. Give me VC money!”

  20. 20
    Richard
    March 14th, 2007 4:21 am

    Yeah, what they said…

    On the other hand, your scrolling list of Web 2.0 blah-ness helped me finally to name my feelings regarding this pervasive styling: “mushy”. They are all rounded edges and blue-plus-a-bright-accent and… mushy. I didn’t bother following any of the links, because frankly, I’ve seen enough Web 2.0 to know that Web 2.0 is to the Internet as Oakland was to Miss Stein: there’s no THERE there.

  21. 21
    calenti
    March 14th, 2007 4:30 am

    Gods. Grow up. If you’re going to criticize, why not offer a positive counter-example?

    Why can’t any of you turn snark mode off for five minutes and say “I don’t agree, but here are some I think are creative” instead of turning into a bunch of YouTube-surfing middle schoolers?

    “worst…logo…ever!!! ur log0Rehz hax0rs eth sux0Rz!111111!!!”

  22. 22
    Jon
    March 14th, 2007 4:31 am

    Some of these are nice but they all have that web 2.blow look. “I’m a wicked cool Graphic Designer, watch me design…”

  23. 23
    Tim
    March 14th, 2007 5:20 am

    My Punch Bowl, Quest, and Bottletalk are notable for being clever and communicating clearly, the rest are simply somwhere lower down on the cleverness and clearness scale. The most important consideration with a new website identity though, is if the clients were happy and they fit the mental identity of the site(business). I’ll grant you, if they are just pretty font treatments they don’t belong in a list of traditional logo design “Best Of…” but these weren’t created to win awards, these were probably just created to win contracts and get payed.

  24. 24
    Pedr
    March 14th, 2007 5:23 am

    Got to say, what a weak selection. Conspicuous only by the abscence of real quality. Works brilliantly as a way of highlighting how hard it is to come up with a really nice logo.

  25. 25
    matto
    March 14th, 2007 5:24 am

    sry for off topic but old design of this site was better then now :(

  26. 26
    Christian Watson
    March 14th, 2007 6:01 am

    I have to agree with the critics, I’m afraid. Most of these logos are completely uninspiring. They follow the ‘web 2.0′ trend and are average at best.

    None of them will stand the test of time – where’s the Cingular, the Fedex, the Apple, the Coke in this bunch?

  27. 27
    thirstyrobot
    March 14th, 2007 6:31 am

    Some of these are interesting but the point that most commenters are making is quite valid. Most of these logos follow a particular aesthetic and well…they kinda have the dull sameness to them especially when viewed together. And that doesn’t even begin to address that many of these tell the reader squat about the benefit or even function of the company they are supposed to be branding.

  28. 28
    3stripe
    March 14th, 2007 7:19 am

    This link is typical of the same-old same-old “inspiration” thrown up by delicious. Web design is eating itself :(

  29. 29
    DangGirl
    March 14th, 2007 8:39 am

    Awful, no originality….they all look like they were created by a logo template with all of that glossiness and odd(but not interesting) shapes/icons that do nothing to suggest what the company does…The one I thought was decent was “Pathfinder” near the top. At least they took time to incorporate a “path” between the words ‘path’ and ‘finder’.

    Nothing personal, I love your articles. Everyone has their own style, but I just don’t see these lasting more than 6 months before the trend fades.

  30. 30
    digitalmonkey
    March 14th, 2007 9:06 am

    these could all be sketches for one logo. you need to work on the concept of the mark and look at type as a part of the mark. having two colors in your type only works in a few cases. You have the ability to draw and put together a concept, you just need to take a few more risks and push the envelope. many small companies would probably love to get these for free. But in all they are not thought out or pushed and refined. hey at least you had the guts to put your work out there, now take the next step, take the feedback and head back to the drawing board. The closest to becoming something but still far from being finished is the bottletalk. you have yet to incorporate anything about talking/speaking/communicating. pick up a copy of communication arts magazine and look at some of the logos presented there. you’ll find that they all work in black and white and each mark is there for a reason.

  31. 31
    S.
    March 14th, 2007 9:10 am

    Wow, all of these seemed to be designed by non designers with zero education/background in real design, yet somehow downloaded photoshop.

  32. 32
    grfx303
    March 14th, 2007 9:57 am

    One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.

  33. 33
    Honza
    March 14th, 2007 10:13 am

    really worst i’ve read seeen here… bad & sad :(

  34. 34
    Dan
    March 14th, 2007 10:31 am

    Imagine if this article had been written 10 years ago. There would be nothing but swooshes!

    The logos are nice, but … well, just that. Maybe they seem monotonous because they’re all from generic Web 2.0 startups. It would be interesting to see new, innovative logos from non-tech or non-Web 2.0 companies.

  35. 35
    kamy
    March 14th, 2007 4:47 pm

    They are nice but corporate identity means so much more than a logo. You’re only about 5% done with the logo.

  36. 36
    Neil Turner
    March 14th, 2007 5:03 pm

    How critical you all are. Quickly labelling everything web 2.0 just by looking at the logo is plain dumb. If you took the time to visit some of the sites you’ll see they aren’t web 2.0 at all. Granted – some are, but some aren’t. Nobody has really offered any good alternatives – apart from the highly original Coke, so get of your high horses and be constructive. Or are you all a bit jealous because your work ain’t up here?

  37. 37
    Will
    March 14th, 2007 5:55 pm

    Nice collection. Its pretty easy to see that lots of these logos are for companies with primarily online products and an online presence.

    80% of those wouldn’t work outside of the web (ie on a letterhead). The difference between logos for web and print is huge :P. Just my thoughts.

  38. 38
    Ivan Minic
    March 14th, 2007 6:39 pm

    wow :)

  39. 39
    Aidan Jalali
    March 14th, 2007 7:35 pm

    So many f****ng ‘beta’s…….argh!

  40. 40
    Terinea Tech Tips
    March 14th, 2007 8:57 pm

    Fantastic resource, I feel inspired to just to start up a Web 2.0 for no reason, hang on a minute most of them have no reason for there existence!

  41. 41
    Athena
    March 14th, 2007 9:23 pm

    They are a bit samey…

    however, to the bashers, who are numerous in number, how about you post a link to something you do like instead…

  42. 42
    phplemon.com
    March 14th, 2007 10:26 pm

    great stuff, thanks.

    – Phil

  43. 43
    LightandFire
    March 14th, 2007 10:26 pm

    Absolutely average!

  44. 44
    a180
    March 14th, 2007 10:28 pm

    just because they are web 2.0, does not make them good.

    the only ones i liked were: bottletalk, mypunchbowl, and quest.

  45. 45
    Josch Raff
    March 14th, 2007 10:35 pm

    I agree with most people here, that these are … just polished fonts. In fact most are just logotypes with a trendy fontface. The added icon doesn’t communicate much (even the praised dropsend thing). But they do communicate: I belong to the web 2.0. That may be enough!

    I hope you smashingmagazine makers don’t expect some sort of this for your website.

  46. 46
    Brian R.
    March 14th, 2007 10:35 pm

    I am a designer. I charge 2500$ for identity design, including a style guide.

  47. 47
    jimmy
    March 14th, 2007 10:46 pm

    typography certainly takes a leap on most of these logos. what ever happened to making sure the viewer could tell what letters they were looking at? diigo, digo, dngo… what the heck does it say? jarnon, jamon, jaman? podchairs? rqnkqo? rqnxqb? are these code or something?

  48. 48
    Edward
    March 15th, 2007 12:04 am

    Wow. That’s pretty bleak. Another list of trendy crap.

    A “great” logo:

    1: Needs to have no name next to it
    2: Can be recognized on something as small as a shoelace
    3: Does not just come from good design, but great branding, advertising and consumer involvement
    4: Should say something about the brand
    5: Should have life past design trends 2.0

    http://apple.com
    http://nike.com
    http://bahamas.com
    http://www.laist.com/images/glaser.jpg

  49. 49
    tobto
    March 15th, 2007 12:14 am

    primitive logos which have nothing close to Design, besides bright children colorish.

  50. 50
    Michael Müller
    March 15th, 2007 2:15 am

    Indeed inspiring. Bottletalk, awesome!

  51. 51
    meizopan
    March 15th, 2007 2:38 am

    again great list

  52. 52
    inspirationbit
    March 15th, 2007 9:04 am

    Only a couple of these logos were creative, the rest are standard Web 2.0 style decorated Company names rather than logos.

    Want to be inspired, check out these 8 clever logos and compare them with this list.

  53. 53
    BittBox
    March 15th, 2007 12:24 pm

    Ignore all of these negative comments. Most people don’t even know the first thing about making a logo, yet they can comment and act like a professional designer.

    This is a very nice, focused, list of logos and it has a theme or topic, so to say.

    Some very nice type treatment that the rest of the idiots failed to notice.

    I enjoyed it. Keep up the good work.

  54. 54
    annoxero
    March 16th, 2007 12:43 am

    Squiddo looks the best. The Motive interactive logo looks cool too. There’s a lot of crap in here though. Like say the Skyblog logo, which looks very ugly to be frank.

  55. 55
    Ep
    March 16th, 2007 8:52 am

    Worst logo list ever.

  56. 56
    Han
    March 17th, 2007 12:45 am

    I just wanted to thank you for posting our website logo and back link. We’re a very small site and were surprised that someone back linked’ to us. It sounds like not everyone agrees that the logos here are nice – but the fact you thought our logo was nice and posted a link has helped us generate traffic and we really appreciate that.

    Thank you!

    Han
    (founder buddystumbler.com)

  57. 57
    Jon
    March 17th, 2007 7:04 am

    All are beautiful, but creative is another thing… is the same style in the 58… almost the same type.

  58. 58
    OverZero.it
    March 19th, 2007 3:17 am

    WOW! Great list.
    Some of them are very nice!
    Thank you.

  59. 59
    Spiros Denaxas
    March 20th, 2007 7:03 am

    Shame you took off the pathfinder.gr logo, I really liked it. I think the logo is the only thing worth about that site in the first place :-)

  60. 60
    Johannes Reevius
    March 20th, 2007 10:52 am

    Great logos! My favorites are the Intervals and BottleTalk logos. They’ve both managed to go beyond the Web 2.0 stylings and created a timeless logo. Great choice of typography on both and good use of tying in the logomark to the logotype. Thanks for the inspiring post!

  61. 61
    Loughlin
    March 22nd, 2007 12:19 am

    The Bottletalk logo is pretty clever but the rest are a bit rubbishy in my opinion

  62. 62
    Frank
    March 26th, 2007 3:46 am

    Well well well…

    I think there are 2 angles from which you can look at these logos:

    1) From a professional designer’s point of view most of these logos suck bigtime.They won’t print well or only at significant costs, most of them don’t give you the slightest idea about what the company’s core business is and they all shout “web 2.0 !” which might hurt when the 2.0 hype is over and rebranding is on the shedule.

    2) Then again, if you take off the pro designers glasses you’ll see that indeed most of above listed businesses are completely web based, meaning their products are digital, they’re intended to go with the web 2.0 hype and they’re not meant to be there forever.And it’s in the nature of these businesses that some functions a “normal”/Print logo has to have like a hint on what they do or that the logo will work in b/w don’t apply here.Simply because these functions are not needed in this environment because they are replaced by viral marketing, blog mentions, digg.com and whatnot.Meaning those companies don’t have to rely on their logo to say *anything* because the “spread the word” is done by literally word of mouth on blogs etc.

    As i consider myself a professional freelance (logo) designer i do say these logos suck from a creative point of view as well as seen from a strategic angle but honestly they’re probably not meant as “real world” logos and most of them won’t ever see the light og a print house.

    Now, as some people here have asked for money where your mouth is feel free to head over to my little portfolio site:

    http://logo-design.info

    Far away from being completed but i do think you might find a few samples there that indeed could be considered “creative” as i always spend lots of time to implement a little twist here and there when designing logos.

    As said, probably most above listed companies don’t need that twist though as long as they’re fully web-based.

  63. 63
    Ben Parsons
    April 3rd, 2007 4:09 am

    The buddystumbler logo looks a lot like the Gnome foot, just the other way around.

  64. 64
    clem
    April 3rd, 2007 5:02 pm

    Rubbish all absolute tosh, if they aren’t already similar to another with the usual san serif ‘modern’ font – they borrow, steal, plagiarise from other logos. No originality or thought went into any of these that I can see. Dropsend is the only one that I’d class as half decent, it does what it says on the tin (great app by the way Mr Ryan Carson).

    The rest are half designed by ‘designers’ (i use the term of a person with a craft there quite loosely) who have obviously no desire to make something unique and different from the rest of these stylistically sick, bland and half-arsed web 2.0 logo sets.

    Go back to your design history books and take a look at Paul Rand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_rand

  65. 65
    Mario
    April 10th, 2007 9:00 am

    I like DropSend, Quest, AllTunes and Vision Media (hey, can we do that? ;-) ) logos.
    Listible and Skyblog logos truly sucks, eeeggghh.
    Other ones are good intentioned but boring and unmeaning at all, and worst of all, most of them lack on font, drawings, colors or I-didn’t-need-you-at-all effects (or all at the same time) and even on the realization.
    Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos
    Inspire Yourself: 4 Creative Logos ant 54 things not to do on deign.

  66. 66
    Malcolm
    April 19th, 2007 11:37 pm

    Too Good

  67. 67
    DesignGuy50
    May 11th, 2007 4:33 am

    These are HORRIBLE. What makes you think these are creative? These kids have no design education, experience and are powered by CS and a Adobe Type account.

  68. 68
    Kevin
    May 18th, 2007 5:40 am

    i love that there is so much passion on this site.

    here is my deak:

    i am about to start building a new online business, i know. I know.how novel right?

    what i need is a new logo for deign purposes before i start the build. i need the look and feel of the logo’s design to reflect in the entire site.

    i would love to start a logo design contest.

    does anyone know of a site that would aid me with this?

    and who would up for the challenge?

    thanks,

    kev

  69. 69
    Sick
    May 21st, 2007 3:16 pm

    don’t mind the remarks… some are good and some are bad.. sometime is the client fault … sometime lack of inspiration… but keep going – is the only way to get somewhere :)

  70. 70
    Jeremy
    May 21st, 2007 11:28 pm

    Kev,

    If you want a good logo, you should hire someone to make it for you. Good designers won’t waste their time on a contest, especially for a company they know nothing about.

  71. 71
    gabriela
    May 22nd, 2007 9:50 pm

    KNEXUS logo already exists, since several years ago.
    Check it:

    artnexus.com

    .

  72. 72
    Tom
    May 23rd, 2007 2:05 am

    They remind me of the late ’90s, when every logo had a “swoosh.”

  73. 73
    Fernando
    June 8th, 2007 7:57 am

    What?! Creative logos? Dude, please… What the hell? These are terrible. C’mon!

  74. 74
    Steve
    June 8th, 2007 9:45 pm

    Unbelievable, everyone is complaining “Web 2.0 logos” and yet if someone clicks on your comment’s username link it goes to sites with terrible or no logo at all! Be responsible. The logos designs above follow the trend.

    Steve

  75. 75
    Penguin Pete
    June 9th, 2007 4:42 am

    Always, without fail, without exception, any posting of logos will draw 100 people complaining about them. Surely, for a blog this popular, the author must have *some* good taste!

    Here’s a new idea: since obviously any blogger who posts something as an example of an art form will get clawed up by the catty queens, why doesn’t Smashing post a logo beauty contest? Vote for a week on your favorite logo, and post the best ten at the end of the week.

    Then, more importantly than what a blog considers best, we’ll have what the public considers best.

  76. 76
    tom
    June 28th, 2007 7:46 am

    just terrible. I’m so pleased I thought they were all completely lacklustre before read to other negative comments. Who selected them?

  77. 77
    Webee
    August 3rd, 2007 9:29 pm

    Good web 2.0 logos

  78. 78
    Hernan
    August 31st, 2007 10:41 am

    wow!! This is exactly what I was looking for! thanks for this page! beatiful logos!

  79. 79
    Jason
    September 22nd, 2007 4:44 am

    I love the amount of web 2.0 logos there are here!

  80. 80
    Jake Fields
    September 29th, 2007 5:40 am

    Thanks for including the Motive Interactive logo in your collection, while it was hard to stay away from the shadows, reflections and shades these days we think we developed something that can help extend our brand.

  81. 81
    Jeetlo
    October 16th, 2007 2:02 am

    This great!

    This is what for which I was looking. Thanks!

  82. 82
    SURESH
    October 26th, 2007 12:36 pm

    Creative Logos…Only Pathfinder and Bottle Talk…..all others are crap…….

  83. 83
    Joefrey Mahusay
    October 26th, 2007 4:30 pm

    Very nice logos. Thanks!

  84. 84
    stretx
    October 26th, 2007 10:41 pm

    I don’t you upload your own logos? bet that you can’t do better than those who designed that ‘horrible’ logos. Some are good some are not so good, some suck – criticism does mean nothing untili you prove you can do best. ;) And if so you can upload to imageshare or stuff like that for the community to judge it… Bet most of them won’t like it…
    Why? Free quality fonts… Why a Free Quality Font’ed Logo has to be cheesy fishy? You couldn’t paint a DaVinci even if you’d had the best quality inks of the universe… Shut up and upload your logos…

  85. 85
    Kypp
    November 23rd, 2007 3:18 am

    The first couple are ok, the rest are very uncreative and semi professional.

  86. 86
    Stuart
    January 2nd, 2008 2:35 am

    Even I, a 14 year old boy can see those are some of the most uncreative logos I have ever seen! Not to say that they are that bad, just not creative, although I do like the path finder logo.

  87. 87
    amber mabe
    January 12th, 2008 12:07 pm

    I have to concur with stuart – these are pretty bland logos. Not bad logos per se, just not very creative. They look like they have been designed by the same person. Also, being trendy is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to logo design.

    -amber

  88. 88
    dan
    January 26th, 2008 3:19 pm

    quite a sad collection.

    2.0 should not be a “look”, that’s the problem in my view. 2.0 should be a new way to make the web WORK a certain way…not LOOK a certain way. Many seem to have forgotten that.

  89. 89
    Mike
    January 30th, 2008 4:53 pm

    BottleTalk is actually the only one here thats creative and interesting. The rest are so, so and all get lost , I actually have forgotten about them. too web2.0ish. many more creative logos out there.. keep looking.

  90. 90
    jmart
    February 13th, 2008 4:54 pm

    damn.
    id like to see what all of you haters have come up with…
    a few were clean, a few that weren’t.
    but it seems like if you keep bustin em out, your only gonna get better. (well i hope)

    ha

    peac.e

  91. 91
    Supernova Studio - Logotypes
    February 16th, 2008 7:47 am

    I liked very, always is good for having sources of inspiration to work, parabens and debtor

  92. 92
    Logoblink.com
    March 22nd, 2008 5:08 am

    “Inspire Yourself: 58 Creative Logos, FOR NON-DESIGNERS ” ? ;)

    excuse me, but most of these are pity samples.

  93. 93
    denker
    April 6th, 2008 7:05 pm

    excellent, collection of logos.

  94. 94
    s_k_design
    April 15th, 2008 8:09 pm

    These logos are lame. Very few of them would actually print well and all of them look like they came out of some logo generator or some free vector shape website.

    Knexus logo is a complete rip off from artnexus.com

  95. 95
    Ananya Roy
    April 19th, 2008 6:04 am

    Excellent!!! Just too good.

  96. 96
    Purpletrail.com
    May 13th, 2008 8:44 pm

    this is a great collection of logos… Thanks For sharing… Squidoo logo definitely stands out

  97. 97
    destroyer
    May 21st, 2008 6:01 am

    I don’t like it.. at all

  98. 98
    PRAKASH KOTHANDARAMAN
    June 20th, 2008 8:43 pm

    very nice, and very usefull to creative idea and good collection

  99. 99
    jameslh
    July 9th, 2008 12:21 am

    yes, some good some bad – but all inspiring. Could you make another list to keep everyone happy, as this was useful?

  100. 100
    ameha
    July 15th, 2008 12:01 pm

    Most of these logos look very derivative….few of them are trully original

  101. 101
    jon
    August 16th, 2008 12:34 am

    Does anyone know if there is a font I can download/buy that will produce similar results to the 3rd logo text – ‘fabra’?

    Thanks

  102. 102
    Prabhath
    September 4th, 2008 9:03 pm

    I think all the logos are very creative and eye catching.
    Nice work mate.

    Cheers!
    Prabhath

  103. 103
    scott
    September 10th, 2008 9:21 pm

    I love how everyone jumped on the “omgz worst ever” bandwagon. Yes some are bad, but others are good FOR THEIR PURPOSE. They are simple logos, not corporate identities.

    And as for people saying “it doesn’t express what the company is”.. well the identity logos for fedex, mcdonalds, walmart, coca cola, nike, yahoo, google, microsoft, etc etc etc do not have anything to with what they are representing yet they are the some of the most well known in the world (because of the marketing team, not the design team)..

    Some of the biggest companies in america have crappy logos… I always found it hilarious that someone actually got paid for “designing” the fedex logo. If you guys want to attack poor designing, call up fedex and bitch lol

    BTW, for those of you throwing a fit, how about posting some examples of the work youve done, or at least some logos you do find creative. Theres not a whole lot out there that goes beyond simple font polishing/customizing.

  104. 104
    555
    September 11th, 2008 7:31 am

    I have to agree with the masses on this one, this is a pretty weak selection, there are maybe 5-10 worth showcasing.

  105. 105
    Demetris
    September 24th, 2008 2:17 am

    Very Nice to see 2 Greek companies logos here.

  106. 106
    Andre
    December 11th, 2008 5:08 am

    Thanks, great article :)

  107. 107
    Dan
    December 27th, 2008 4:21 pm

    Scott, you’ve missed something on the Fed Ex logo

    ->

  108. 108
    Lynn
    January 14th, 2009 2:03 pm

    I like the logo from Pacific Timesheet. It reflect the company’s name perfectly with the sun over the rippling ocean. On the mean time the sun above the ocean has the hands in them, and it feels like clock. So it ties back to what they do: online timesheet. Just some silly thoughts.

    Lynn

  109. 109
    isaak
    February 11th, 2009 11:55 am

    cool i like the net

  110. 110
    jojo
    February 13th, 2009 12:32 pm

    Wow so most of you are just butt hurt designers grinding an axe, Lets see your logos. Bunch of babies.

  111. 111
    tim
    February 17th, 2009 10:42 pm

    horrible article. most of these logos are horrendous.

  112. 112
    jojo
    February 18th, 2009 6:56 pm

    Tim,

    Does your butt hurt? lets see your logos.

  113. 113
    vijay
    March 30th, 2009 4:06 pm

    Hi,

    i like that logos color combination,
    Thanks

    vijaypal

  114. 114
    Anton
    March 31st, 2009 2:16 pm

    Lets face it, some of these logos are pretty good and fit in with their respective websites very well, at least in most cases. What is it with this world? People love to get on a bandwagon. It reminds me a little bit about the brainwashed teenage girls who follow celebrities and try to copy what they do. When the first couple of people criticised these slections here, everyone started doing the same without offering an example of their own that they is better. Please offer a counterselection that is better so at least you can show that you know something and not just simply following the herd.

    In any case, I think everyone will agree you can have the greatest logo, but if your content or service or whatever the site provides is not good, it won’t matter much.

  115. 115
    Sanjay
    April 19th, 2009 11:13 pm

    Thank you for these good references of web 2 logos.

  116. 116
    vaibhav
    April 28th, 2009 3:32 am

    wots beta???
    cn n plz xplain???
    nt a taunt…serious query…

  117. 117
    Jason
    May 28th, 2009 8:50 am

    These logos all look like they’ve been created by the same designer… not inspiring at all… kinda boring to say the least.

  118. 118
    Armaan Ahluwalia
    July 28th, 2009 2:51 pm

    Ummm …

    a) How

    b) Why??

    Smashing magazine standards just dropped.

  119. 119
    ajith
    August 4th, 2009 9:55 pm

    hai it’s very good and creatively i learn lot off ideas

  120. 120
    joyoge
    August 31st, 2009 4:16 pm

    nice web 2.0 logos, I like “CrashPlan logo” you can also see my logos too http://www.joyoge.com
    http://www.joyolog.com
    http://www.ciobox.com
    http://www.arwox.com
    http://www.joyogi.com
    thanks..

  1. 00

    There are no trackbacks at this time. If you are interested in leaving a trackback, please use this URL.

Leave a Comment

Make sure you enter the * required information where indicated. Please also rate the article as it will help us decide future content and posts. Comments are moderated – and rel="nofollow" is in use. Please no link dropping, no keywords or domains as names; do not spam, and do not advertise!



Advertisement Advertise with us!
Join in Smashing Forum
Post your job