Thursday - August 16, 2007
thought processes of some people...
There's a digg entry:
And it's a link to the checkpoint firewall logo, aparently drawn by the CEO's 6-year old daughter.
It's not a great logo, but it's not the worst I've every come across. My personal logos are far, far worse. But that's not the big deal to me. The big deal is the submitters commentary for the entry:
"Yes, this really is the official logo for Check Point security software. It was created by the CEO's 6-year-old daughter. Would you trust your computer's safety to a company with this heinous logo?"
Huh? When has logo quality been an indicator of performance or quality? I can only see two minor ways: It might cause me not to look at the site in depth and therefor not be aware of their offerings. It also might suggest financial issues if you can't afford a logo. The successfully, IMHO, defuse this issue by telling the story of it's origins. And the website isn't dominated by the logo, so I don't think it would be an issue at all.
I just don't get some peoples thought process on why this logo is important. I guess they've been sucked in by 'the establishment' (what ever that means) to want only the slick visuals that marketing provides... Meh, I guess I shouldn't through stones...