Logos are what you make them, unless they really suck
Jun 14th, 2007 by Jon Stahl
Jeff Brooks offers some sound advice on organizational logos:
You can agonize all day and night about getting a logo just right, but you’ll be barking up the wrong tree. Your logo will never bring a lot of meaning to the table. The best logo gets out of the way and lets reality do the work.
Instead, work on making your organization the best one around — the one that everyone talks about, that people seek out to get involved with. Do that, and unless you really screwed up, your logo will be great. Because it stands for something great, not because it made you great.
And take some comfort: No matter how awful your logo accidentally ends up being, I’m pretty sure it won’t be as bad as this one, which not only looks terrible and communicates nothing, but is reputed to trigger epileptic seizures, and was created at a cost of $796,000.
As someone who works for an environmental organization with a logo that one supporter once compared to a falling tree, I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff. 
No question; bad logo. It’s unexplainable … like the AMC Gremlin. It’s vaguely erotic too. Not really, but maybe. For a city that produced one of the masterpieces of modern design (the tube map) it’s sad to see $800K lost on this dog…
Agreed 110%.
Google’s logo looks like it was designed by a nine year old with a box of Crayolas. Doesn’t seem to have hurt their market cap any