Logo signs and the temptation to Google/Yelp while driving at highway speeds

[Pete from Boston]

Better solution: Just use signs with vague service terms ("Accommodation", "Gasoline", "Food", etc.) that might never be changed when a chain re-brands or closes one of its branches.

Even better, just use the symbols.

Apparently, this style of signing excludes specific types of restaurants like those with Chinese food and Kosher meals.

Yes I think that's a stupid argument, and yes I would prefer to just see symbols and/or generic service terms.

It excludes any restaurant without a logo.

Perhaps the remark was just in jest, but I've seen logo signs that just displayed in text the name of restaurants that didn't have a logo.

I have too, but the implication seemed to be that it would be better if simply a logo or generic symbol were displayed.  This would discriminate against small independent businesses without a recognizable logo.  Based on past discussions here, I realize there are folks who feel recognizable chains are the most reasonable place to stop, but I don't think it's a fair way to design this kind of program.

[GCrites]

I've seen quite a few LOGO signs made for small businesses that, while not "generic" didn't have a fancy corporate logo. I remember Fancy Gap, VA had ones for the two old-school motels left over from the '40s that dominated the scene there back in the '80s.

[roadman]

It excludes any restaurant without a logo.

If a business doesn't have a specality logo, then they can put up text logos instead (see the MUTCD for examples).  90% of the Attractions signs in Massachusetts (the ones put up during the MOTT program in 2000 and 2001) have text logos instead of specality logos.

[Pete from Boston]

It excludes any restaurant without a logo.

If a business doesn't have a specality logo, then they can put up text logos instead (see the MUTCD for examples).  90% of the Attractions signs in Massachusetts (the ones put up during the MOTT program in 2000 and 2001) have text logos instead of specality logos.

I know.  Again, the premise I was responding to was that they should all be logos or generic symbols.

[jakeroot]

Perhaps the remark was just in jest, but I've seen logo signs that just displayed in text the name of restaurants that didn't have a logo.

I have too, but the implication seemed to be that it would be better if simply a logo or generic symbol were displayed.  This would discriminate against small independent businesses without a recognizable logo.  Based on past discussions here, I realize there are folks who feel recognizable chains are the most reasonable place to stop, but I don't think it's a fair way to design this kind of program.

It excludes any restaurant without a logo.

If a business doesn't have a specality logo, then they can put up text logos instead (see the MUTCD for examples).  90% of the Attractions signs in Massachusetts (the ones put up during the MOTT program in 2000 and 2001) have text logos instead of specality logos.

I know.  Again, the premise I was responding to was that they should all be logos or generic symbols.

Logo signs, just by human nature, favor businesses with actual logos. Here's a lodging sign in the suburban Seattle area. Frankly, the bottom two look miles more appealing just based on the logo. But that's not entirely fair to the Northwest Motor Inn, nor Hotel Puyallup, who may have equally nice hospitality (but just lack a logo).

[Pink Jazz]

FYI, Grand Canyon State Logo Signs has recently updated their website, and looking at photos of logo signs throughout the state, it appears that there has been a big increase in participation over the past year in both the urban and rural areas, as well as in Flagstaff and Yuma which have recently been migrated over from the rural program to the urban program.  This pretty much debunks the myth that logo signs are unnecessary due to the widespread use of smartphones, otherwise there would be significant declines in participation of the program.  And this is in a state where using a phone while driving is still legal despite the safety risks.