I had just graduated in Graphic Design, when an acquaintance bluntly articulated what most people think – How can a design firm justify charging 250k for a simple logo and a few coloured folders? – a business major herself, she was at the time working for a major bluechip company that had undergone a full brand revamp by Wolf Ollins.

I’ve been asked the same question often (just replace the 250k with any amount). It implies a kind of devaluation, but also highlights an important point. Design solutions often look simple and effortless, making designers appear to be some kind of con artist.

Well, the fact that it looks simple and effortless is probably what makes it effective. The logo has to be applied to all sorts of media, and associations made appropriately and memorably. It has to be kept long enough for the association to build up over time and ultimately help shape the brand (which is the sum of perception/emotions/value and judgements made on a product or service and exist solely in the mind of people who see it and experience it).

There are no hard or fast rules, it really does boil down to the designer’s sensibility/talent/training and the search for the right composition, form, colour, which is what designers spend a considerable time exploring before settling for the one and only, whilst factoring in all its possible applications.

So, to sum up, the answer to the original question is: a logo is a long-term commitment, and the designer will add value to the brand, a long term value. When the Designer in question has a particularly good track record, and they take the endeavour seriously, they will request serious payment. On another note, Wolf Ollins (the very firm the question was raised around), went on to rebrand a whole country, Liechtenstein, in a very royal way – follow the above link to read the case study.

Edward Tufte, a champion of information graphics, uses the term ‘visual pollution’ to describe irrelevant graphic devices that get in the way.

He prescribes cutting out the superflous, and ‘escaping’ the two dimensional flatland – as we think, process and learn in 3D. He also advocates that content is the most important driver. The information should integrate words, numbers, and visual illustration in a way that is self-evident. A perfect example of this is argued in Mapped pictures: image annotation.

The result is usually and surprisingly simple, purposeful, and ultimately good for the soul. Enabling the viewer to engage, learn, and be genuinely ‘influenced’.

One person I met recently remarked that ‘people like me’ were responsible for those attractive Brochures of Apartment Developments that turn out to be small and horrible when you visit them in person, wasting time and disappointing expectations.

Designers too, at times, feel like their talents are being pimped. Their principles for clarity, simplicity and beauty used to entice and titillate for all the wrong reasons.

Designers fantasise about changing the system. Here’s one attempt, a book entitled, How to be a graphic designer, without losing your soul, by Adrian Shaughnessy. A collection of advice from eminent and successful Graphic Designers that managed to ‘circumvent’ such a predicament.

I recall watching a video interview of Graphic Designer Paul Rand describing a key time in his career (please note my recollection might not be 100% accurate). He had commanded $1mil (early ‘70s) for the IBM logo redesign. When the logo was unveiled, the then CEO of IBM hated it. Paul Rand described how his fee approach gave him the strong negotiating position to stand his ground, and have the logo adopted. The logo redesign became an instant success, it was groundbreaking for its time, catapulting IBM (eye bee M) into the new business culture of work and play, and is still a favourite for many today (including Steve Jobs – see below).

Here’s a video interview of Steve Jobs in 1993 (heading NeXT Computer Corp. at the time) describing how Paul Rand laid the foundation for establishing the relationship between designer and client.