Logo was a great idea but became prominent at a time when kids where starting to realise computers could do better. The C64/Amstrad/Sinclair/BBC/Apple-II all had Basic which could be coopted into doing real games and thanks to PEEK POKE and CALL provided a springboard for the more enterprising kids to start poking around with machine code..
Logo however was a decent language. It was list processing, functional (It was, in fact a lisp derivative of sorts) , and generally taught good code hygiene. It didnt have gotos.
I had a teacher in my first year of highschool who insisted Logo was the language of the future. I thought he was an idiot, because clearly it was Pascal. Welll...... more the fool on both of us. Retrospectivly, I was right.... sort of.... Pascal taught the sort of programming that you do with C,C++ (Turbo was object oriented) and so on. Logo taught the sort of programming you do with Lisp, Scheme, and the like. It would have been better if he was right, in the scheme of history the lisp family are clearly superior languages than the algol family (Pascal/C/C++/etc) but they just never took off quite the way C and C++ did. The torch is still held up to some degree by Haskell/Erlang/Clojure/etc but they still are very much minority languages, and we're all the poorer for it.