Comments on: Verizon logo: One graphic too many

By: Haroon

Haroon — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:09:13 +0000

Totally agree with removing the check mark — it looks much better without it.

I find the check mark so annoying. Even seeing the logo on a beautiful phone repels me.

By: Nora

Nora — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 15:23:11 +0000

I agree with the comment from World’s Best Practice — “be loathe to criticize another’s work if you’re unaware of the constraints and parameters the designer had to work under.” If you think the Verizon logo is difficult to work with, you should see my employer’s logo. It was designed about 20 years ago; it was ugly and awkward then, and it’s ugly and awkward today. Nothing looks good with it. On the other hand, maybe I’m just a crappy designer. Perhaps someone more talented could do a better job of incorporating it into the many marketing and promotional pieces I produce. In any event, the Verizon designer may not have had any choice in the check-mark debacle. Good discussion, though.

By: John McWade

John McWade — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:59:16 +0000

From the Verizon Web site: "The symbol was selected because it uses the two letters of the Verizon logo that graphically portray speed, while also echoing the genesis of the company name: veritas, the Latin word connoting certainty and reliability, and horizon, signifying forward-looking and visionary."

By: Ed C

Ed C — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:05:29 +0000

Does anyone know what the word Verizon means or why they chose it?

By: Brian K.

Brian K. — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:39:56 +0000

I have hated the Verizon logo since the moment I saw it. First of all, even then, it had a dated look. But more importantly, it’s awkward to design around; I’ve had many occasions where Verizon was a co-sponsor or branding partner, and it just creates a weird space around it — not to mention the black-and-red colour scheme. The whole thing just creates an awkward shape (the angles, the negative space and the gradients), all adding up to one fugly brand logo.

By: Cindy Brown

Cindy Brown — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:08:53 +0000

This is a hard call for me. The logo is definitely cleaner and more masculine without the check mark. But more visually unique with the check / “V”. And the check/V mirrors the lower portion of the “Z.” I wish the mirror of the “Z” were more exact and obvious, though.

By: Kristin Maija Peterson

Kristin Maija Peterson — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:06:09 +0000

Yikes! $300M+ and this is the best they could come up with? I have to agree with many of the comments that the big red check is what I call the “useless design element.” It’s like an after thought or something the CEO insisted on having. Wonder if they used a creative brief on this project. ;-)

By: Brett

Brett — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:27:57 +0000

John asked did we know others. Here's another for people to think over: This is the new(ish) logo of the big local telco in New Zealand, Telecom NZ. Why the small superscript NZ, and what is that pale blue circular transparency/fill all about? And I am not that sure about the scribble and the colour choice of that tint of blue. I don't think any of it works, really.

By: Chris Wheaton

Chris Wheaton — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:41:49 +0000

I don’t see the V as a letter or a check mark, but as a stylized productivity graph . . . a bare bones “J curve.”

By: SuKai

SuKai — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:31:12 +0000

There are some really interesting points here. I think the most logical conclusion must be that it met the company requirements for a transitional logo. It would be really interesting to see what was rejected and what direction they are planning on taking the logo.