Every designer has heard it at one time or another; a rude, angry response to their presentation of initial logo concepts: “These concepts are horrible! they look like clipart! My 7 year old could have done a better job!”, and in a small percentage of cases this is probably correct,
I’m sure there are designers out there who DO use clipart, and who take 10 minutes to slap a design together.

In fact I KNOW that there are.

I’ve seen their portfolios (not naming any names), and usually the customer only purchased their services in the first place because of extremely low prices, promises of “unlimited concepts” and “no money down”, and as the saying goes, “you get what you pay for”.

There are, however, many, MANY times when the problem with this statement is the customer simply not understanding what clipart is. Clipart is not another name for poor quality, cheap looking graphics, but is simply used to refer to (usually) royalty free graphics that are used by many people for various projects. In other words, it is the opposite of “custom”.

I have actually seen some very impressive pieces of clipart before, and many times the amount of work that goes into a “clipart looking logo” is much more then would go into a simpler, neater, moreprofessional logo, simply because of the workload involved in drawing more complicated designs. I’m not saying that “clipart looking logos” are better, just that they require more time to create.

What the customer usually means is: “it looks like you didn’t spend any time on this design, it is unoriginal, uncreative and I don’t like it”.  Now, assuming that the designer DID spend more then a few hours on the design, and assuming that the graphics in the logo ARE original, this can be very frusturating for the designer to hear. Below are a few of the things that can contribute to a cutomer thinking that a designer used clipart for their logo:

Reasons for claims of “you used clipart!”

1. Font does not match icon/graphic well enough: if the designer did not spend time time selecting the font used in the concept, or creating it himself, the customer may well reply with accusations of “clipart usage”. Nothing looks as cheap as a detailed icon above a company name in “Times New Roman”. On the other hand, if a designer is spending time designing a decent graphic, why are they slapping a boring  font on it….

2. Clipart is detailed,  a logo shouldn’t be: 9 times out of 10, the client has requested a very detailed design, and then is upset when it doesn’t look like a “logo” should. An example would be a client who requested to have their logo include: “a house with animals on the porch, lawn, in window, in a cartoon type drawing which is warm and fuzzy. The drawings to be relatively realistic and lifelike in dimensions, not distorted images, and happy, warm, fuzzy that makes you smile when you see it. Would like several animals in it, such as dog, cat, horse, goat. No birds, except chickens and/or ducks.”   When the client received their initial concepts they complained that “the image was to detailed, and that you couldn’t distinguish the the animals in the window when the logo was smaller”.

The client also gave the dreaded lecture on the logo looking like clipart, but the design had been drawn from scratch exactly to their specifications. In cases like this it is the designers responsibility to educate the client on what a logo should and should not contain.

3. Generic images are not to much different from clipart, even if they are drawn from scratch:What is the difference between a clipart stethoscope and one a designer just drew from scratch if they are both boring, uninspired images? A logo should be unique, catchy and different. What is the point of hiring a design firm if you aren’t getting a unique logo design?

In closing, it is important that designers educate their clients on what makes a great logo and what makes a hideous one, and that designers make sure that they are putting their whole heart into creating unique, inspired logos.