The majority of council/local area logos are absolute bollocks.
I don't mind the hill concept for somewhere in the Pennines (which clearly the went for) as I've done it myself (Dale House Logo) but that looks like some kind of screensaver from Windows98.
I think there's a debate to be had as to what constitutes a logo and what doesn't. For me personally this is more of a wordmark, with an accompanying graphic. If it was to be a logo I dont think it would be flexible enough to be used in different situations. Logos need to work on business cards and letterheads but they also need to be reproduced in various sizes, sometimes in black and white, sometimes shrunken down to fit a website or twitter avatar etc.
For me this wouldnt work when reduced in size. It also wouldnt have the same effect in b&w. I like the font choice but I think the graphic is far too wide and too complicated. A good tip for logo design is to try and reduce it down to postage stamp size and see if it is still legible. If not then it needs a rethink.
Clients (especially councils) will take your logo, photocopy it, scan it, resize it all without your permission and without your input. You need to make sure your logo still reads well, is legible and looks great in any situation.
I'd have to disagree in saying that it's not a logo.
A logo is simply something that represents a business or organisation. Whether it be a wordmark, a symbol, or a combination of both.
How simple of complex it is doesn't determine if it's a logo or not. Obviously it's better to air on the side of simplicity when designing logos, for all the reasons you've mentioned, but that doesn't mean that something as complex as the Pennine Lancashire example isn't a logo.
I agree with Mark. anything can be a logo. How well it works that's another story. The reason why I posted this is because everything I know about logo design, this contradicts it. And just wanted to get other designers thoughts about it.
I still disagree chaps, but it doesnt really matter what you call it, the main thing is whether it does the job it has been designed to do.
If you aim to use this graphic on business cards, tshirts, pencils.. whatever, then I dont think it will effectively do the job it needs to do.
The basic checklist for designing a logo is...
1. Does it represent the brand in a simple and unique way?
2. Does it still look good when reduced to the size of a postage stamp.
3. Will it replicate well in black and white?
4. Can it be inverted to sit on a black/coloured background?
I would say in this case your logo would struggle for certain on points 2. 3. and 4. Its debatable whether it achieves the 1st point too but regardless of that it has too many basic problems to make a good logo.
I think I'm inclined to agree with Dave on this one. I mean, surely there has to be some technical standards when it comes to logo design and the Lancashire one surely falls short of any such standards. I wouldn't attach four wheels and a chair to a series of branches and call it a car!
That article backs up the earlier points raised, this isnt a logo, its a graphic device, used as a flag and a brand for the campaign.
Even when you check the design agency, Creative Concern, who delivered the job, it shows that they only ever used the text on its own as this makes a decent wordmark.
I cant find any evidence of this graphic ever being used as a logo. Sure, it was added to backgrounds on websites and letterheads, but its not a logo, its a graphic device.