New Poster New Logo

[designpunk]

why not whick one of my recent logos up I thought...

Opinions welcome..

[erichmond]

want problem does it solve, what was the brief, is this image making for image sake!! or if you say it was for a car company, you could probably give it a respectable crit but without any brief! what is the basis for a crit? in order to have an answer, you have too have a question!!?

[DesignerScott]

I'm guessing it's a personal logo, but yah, too much of a car motif unless that's the industry you're in. Otherwise, main badge is too boring, and the signature is not legible at all. Nothing really screams "Hey this is a good unique design" instead it's more like "hey, you've seen me before, kinda sorta a little bit"

[reuber1]

Yeah, is there any background to the project? It's hard for us to give a crit without one; the timing probably isn't too great either, the weekend is coming and it's usually pretty quiet. However for a logo's sake, I think if that gets too small the signature won't be recognizable (if it's supposed to be? again, some background would clarify that).

[DesignerScott]

One more thing too that I just realized, The classic law about logo design is that it needs to start in black and white. I can't imagine how this design would look if it were ever placed on a white background. (O.K. I can imagine, I just don't want to)

[philben]

Aesthetically, it looks nice on screen. But what is it for? that’s where the problem begins:eek:. Is it a personal logo or for a company? We will be in the best position to comment if you make these known.

[designpunk]

Interesting replies - I purposely don't go posting the company / logo brief on forums as I like to see what the logo says without having to connect it to any particular product or person. And I hop this one would provoke some discussion on logo design.

Everyone replied with questions such as "want problem does it solve", well why does a logotype have to solve a problem?

Why does it have to reflect a product or contain a hidden message?

I think clients get too wound up with the logo solving some imaginary problem, or that it will bring some magical kudos or quality to an otherwise dull lifeless company selling dull lifeless stock.

Designer Scott mentions that a logo should work on white - why? That is to much of a general rule (although one I agree with, and
personally
I think in 99% of cases it should be presented on a white or black background, but I have my own reasons for that - not brown backgrounds by your own rules Scott )

So my question is what is wrong with a simple aestheticallypleasing logotype?

That promotes many good reactions, all of which can be reflected onto the company / product in question if used
effectively.

This logo was for a one - off usage for a hair company, they supply 90% of hollywood with it's pre shooting products and the brief was a simple 'make us a badge that shouts Established and Expensive' it was always going to be used on black products as well as being embossed on large
silver panels so it never needed to be on paper, white or reflect a particular product.

We were asked to be influenced by the Aston Martin / Breitling / Bentley logos.

Perosnlay I feel it's a little too masculin.

[erichmond]

How strange? I must admit that I do not agree with what your says. Once a client ask to change there logo that looked like a toliet roll or kitchen roll, after doing some market research on the logo the response was that the company probably did produced toliet paper or fax paper, they actually produce plastic film to wrap around products. The logo did not reflect their company! I actually think IMO that it is important to reflect a product or be obvious about what a particular company does or do.

"We were asked to be influenced by the Aston Martin / Breitling / Bentley logos"

I think it is the job of the designer to recommend to the client how thier logo should look, not to be influenced by something they like.

After all a chair is a chair and should look like a chair and should function like a chair, it should not be design to hang on a wall! .....bad analogy I know but I'm hungover!

Of course, this is only my opinion and I'm not here to insult anyone.

[designpunk]

Hey no, it's always good to see where other designers come from.

So by your rationale, what does orange's logo say about what they do? Or what does the golden M of McDonalds say to you about fast food?

If your company did market research on a big yellow M I doubt many people would say 'hey burger company'? So does that mean in your book it's a bad logo?

I personally think it's more important to provoke the right 'feel' and for a company logo (as opposed to my sample posted) and to also make it memorable.

[typographics]

Interesting replies - I purposely don't go posting the company / logo brief on forums as I like to see what the logo says without having to connect it to any particular product or person. And I hope this one would provoke some discussion on logo design.
first of all, everyone here needs to know its purpose because you are showing the logo out of context. assuming no one on this forum has ever heard of this product, we need to be properly informed in order to provide a better analysis of your design process and determine if the posted logo is a successful match for your client.

Everyone replied with questions such as "want problem does it solve", well why does a logotype have to solve a problem?
because as all professional designers know, whether thru formal training in college, on the job expierence, or extensive industry research, thats the keystone of design. we are problem solvers. we dont simply make decoration. graphic design transends art in many ways.

So my question is what is wrong with a simple aestheticallypleasing logotype?
nothing, as long as it is understandable, appropriate, memorable, distinctive, timeless, well executed, versatile and reproducable.

[JPnyc]

Well that's the nature of a logo. A logo is a trademark of something. If it's not, then it's not a logo, just a design, a graphic.

[morea]

because as all professional designers know, whether thru formal training in college, on the job expierence, or extensive industry research, thats the keystone of design. we are problem solvers. we dont simply make decoration. graphic design transends art in many ways.

well said.

[erichmond]

So by your rationale, what does orange's logo say about what they do? Or what does the golden M of McDonalds say to you about fast food?

Ah the classic golden M means McDonald's. It isn't obvious connection, McDonald's dont sell anything that look like golden arches, however thanks to the power of advertising, people have been "educated" to make the connection. The same goes for Orange.

However if the brief says that a client does not have the budget for such extensive advertising then the approach should be taken in a different way. :o

The original point was to understand the breif that was given, without the brief it's difficult to give a reasonable crit. :o

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

If your company did market research on a big yellow M I doubt many people would say 'hey burger company'? So does that mean in your book it's a bad logo?

Actually, if you did such a market research study on a big yellow M I would suspect that the vast majority of people polled would respond with "hey burger company." It's one of the most recognized M's - and logos - in the world. That's the result of well thought out design, effective branding and marketing, and the historical perspective of the image. It's not the result of just creating a pretty image.

- J.

[erichmond]

Actually, if you did such a market research study on a big yellow M I would suspect that the vast majority of people polled would respond with "hey burger company." It's one of the most recognized M's - and logos - in the world. That's the result of well thought out design, effective branding and marketing, and the historical perspective of the image. It's not the result of just creating a pretty image.

- J.

I agree with Jeff, and the same would go for Orange too.

[designpunk]

Ah the classic golden M means McDonald's. It isn't obvious connection, McDonald's dont sell anything that look like golden arches, however thanks to the power of advertising, people have been "educated" to make the connection. The same goes for Orange.

However if the brief says that a client does not have the budget for such extensive advertising then the approach should be taken in a different way. :o

The original point was to understand the breif that was given, without the brief it's difficult to give a reasonable crit. :o

That is my point exactly - McDonalds never started off as a billion dollor company, the logo was made just after they went from a burger cart to a franchise so they obviously didn't design it knowing that they could advertise their way into peoples brains. Yet it's one of the most icon logos ever known, and has hardly harmed the company. It mainly represents the golden arches that used to be part of their buildings.

My point is that a logo doesn't have to represent a product - you mention your toilet roll logo exersize when you asked people what it represented.

I don't see (for most businesses) the benefit of having your product shown from your logotype, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but i don't see it as an important aspect of logotype design.

As for 'problem solving' what problems does the golden M solve? What problem was there in the first place when they were just 2 dudes with a buger cart?

Design isn't just about problem solving, it isn't that methodical, sometimes design is just about having fun and making people feel good. Logos and design in general is over valued and over complicated, mainly by design companies using it as sales tool.

[designpunk]

Actually, if you did such a market research study on a big yellow M I would suspect that the vast majority of people polled would respond with "hey burger company." It's one of the most recognized M's - and logos - in the world. That's the result of well thought out design, effective branding and marketing, and the historical perspective of the image. It's not the result of just creating a pretty image.

- J.

My question was meant to be positioned as if the company was new, not now - obviously if you didn market research now everyone would know the McDonalds logo....:rolleyes:

I will rephrase it: "So if you did market research on the golden M in 1940 do you think people would have said 'hey burger company'?" or thought "Wow 2 golden arches, these people must make great burgers!"

[JPnyc]

Of course not, but it IS a giant M, albeit disguised. And the logo wasn't designed around their building, the buildings were designed around the logo.

[typographics]

Logos and design in general is over valued and over complicated, mainly by design companies using it as sales tool.
your not going to win a lot of supporters with comments like that. this is, after all, a forum for graphic designers. telling us that our profession is over valued is going to be a hard sell. quit while you still can! lol ;)

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

I will rephrase it: "So if you did market research on the golden M in 1940 do you think people would have said 'hey burger company'?" or thought "Wow 2 golden arches, these people must make great burgers!"

Probably not since the "golden arches" "M" as we know it (which has actual relevance to the name of the business) were not introduced as the logo until 1961 or 1962. It was created by Jim Schindler to resemble the arch shaped signs being used on the sides of the restaurants. He merged the two golden arches together to form the famous 'M' now recognized throughout the world. Originally, back in the 40's most people would have said "hey burger company" because the logo was the character "Speedee" and his head was a hamburger.

- J.

[JPnyc]

Didn't Wetson's have a single orange arch on their bldgs?

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

Didn't Wetson's have a single orange arch on their bldgs?

*snicker!*

- J.

[chriscrooz]

Hey I like the design... I think it's clever how you used different layers to create the shine and chrome look. Also I do believe it would look good on a white background with maybe a drop shadow and some simple type below it for the company name. It is a very appealing peace that makes you look at the design for a while to see how it was made up. Great work, good execution and nice small touches.

[kerrysmagicshirt]

let us not forget folks it's mot just a big yellow M it's *slimier then slimy type voice* 'The golden arches'

wow this debate about logos and should they automatically say what the clinet does seems to be endless. - i think eventually the forum will go of into two fractions and there will be a rebellion that will lead in the whole forum exploding :(

[designpunk]

your not going to win a lot of supporters with comments like that. this is, after all, a forum for graphic designers. telling us that our profession is over valued is going to be a hard sell. quit while you still can! lol ;)

I am trying to point out that logos are 'sometimes' over valued & over analysed - and sometimes graphic design in general is too.

Surely as a graphic design professional you have come across clients who think a fancy new logo is going to transform their business into some multi billion dollor monopoly? Or the local window cleaner who comes to you for a logo design but in truth we all know he really doesn't need a logo?

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

Or the local window cleaner who comes to you for a logo design but in truth we all know he really doesn't need a logo?

Huh? Why would you assume (or know) that a window cleaner didn't need a logo? Perhaps he wants, or needs, greater visual presence in his local market and his graphic identity may be instrumental in taking his business to the level he desires. In 30+ years in the business I don't think I've ever "known" that a client coming to me for a logo has not needed a logo. He may not specifically understand what will best serve his needs - but often a logo or logotype is the initial element required for successful branding, marketing and customer recognition.

Years ago I had a portable toilet company come to me for a logo design. Was I to assume for some reason, such as the nature or size of their business, that they really didn't need a logo? Their logo, and the tagline "We're number one - and number two," was a factor in them becoming one of the largest porta-potty businesses in the Pacific Northwest.

- J.

[DesignerScott]

O.K. it seems like you started out on the defense, but I'm going to try and keep this civil here. The points that I am trying to make are:
1. For us to critique your logo, we ineveitably have to know at the very least what the company does, and in most cases the name of the company. Why ->
The name of the company is often intertwined with the company's message and branding strategy. Most companies didn't arbitrarily pick a name for their company.
The company's market indicates the audience, which is who will be responding to the logotype. You wouldn't want us to be analyzing your logo with the expectation that it is directed at the 18-24 middle class male market when really it's for the 40-50 upper class female market would you.
Taking this the other direction if you were designing a logotype for the company Apple (Registered Trademark of Apple Computers) and you made a logo of an apple with a bite out of it in a shiny silver. My reaction would be --> Why are you making this fruit company's logo shiny? or What does this techy logo have to do with an Apple?
2. Designs should be designed in Black & White initially for several reasons which have all been outlined other places in the forum. Summary ->
Simplicity, Small Sizes, Printing Constraints (i.e. one color printing / screen printing)
Regarding my logo, it did start out as a black and white design, and then I added color later. I have B&W versions, one-color versions, and two color versions for both brown and white backgrounds, as well as animated versions.

[designpunk]

Huh? Why would you assume (or know) that a window cleaner didn't need a logo? Perhaps he wants, or needs, greater visual presence in his local market and his graphic identity may be instrumental in taking his business to the level he desires. In 30+ years in the business I don't think I've ever "known" that a client coming to me for a logo has not needed a logo. He may not specifically understand what will best serve his needs - but often a logo or logotype is the initial element required for successful branding, marketing and customer recognition.

Years ago I had a portable toilet company come to me for a logo design. Was I to assume for some reason, such as the nature or size of their business, that they really didn't need a logo? Their logo, and the tagline "We're number one - and number two," was a factor in them becoming one of the largest porta-potty businesses in the Pacific Northwest.

- J.

Why? A window cleaner, male, 55 years old, has been window cleaning for 25 years. Has a client base of a few hundred people and not enough time in the day to satisfy them all. No interest in employing someone to help ,like to deal with all his customers directly. All his marketing is done through word of mouth.

He asks if we think he should have a logo? We ask why he feels he should have a logo and he says because other window cleaners have one.

We ask if he is interested in growing his business or investing in some marketing he replies no.

Not sure how you operate, but I wouldn't say he needed a logo.

Local Fish & Chip shop named 'Charlie's Chips', sits in the middle of the high street, has many customers, turns over a healthy profit.

No interest in marketing, doesn't want to spend any money on advertising (more importantly doesn't need to advertise) asks if they should have a logo for the outside of their shops rather than just the name.

Guess they could have one, but do they need one? Do they need to go out and spend £1k or £15k on a rebranding exercise?

You must bear in mind that not everyone wants to grow their business, gardeners, window cleaners, plumbers, the local newsagents - sometimes, just sometimes, they are content with the little business they have grown up from nothing, content with the amount of work they do and harbour no interests in growing and taking over the world.

[designpunk]

O.K. it seems like you started out on the defence, but I'm going to try and keep this civil here.


I am not getting defensive over anything, my apologies if you think I am. And thanks for keeping it civil.

1. For us to critique your logo, we inevitably have to know at the very least what the company does, and in most cases the name of the company.

I told you what the company does and why it wanted this logotype.

My point is, I personally don't always think that it is of paramount importance what the company does relative to the logo they have. I.e I think Google's logo is awful, no matter who had this logo I will always dislike it. I have made a subjective decision on a logo purely by aesthetics, and I am asking what is wrong with that?

Such is human nature, rightly or wrongly to judge things at face value by our own personal tastes.

Even though you and I are designers, I am 100% we have completely different tastes in what looks good and what looks crap, and thus cater for completely different companies.

I don't think we are all bound by the same tastes.So why should we all follow the same design rules?


you made a logo of an apple with a bite out of it in a shiny silver. My reaction would be --> Why are you making this fruit company's logo shiny?


And my reaction would be "why do you assume I am a fruit company"? Why have you made a big presumption of my company just by looking at a logo.

Would you assume that Puma sells big cats or that Shell sells...er shells?



Designs should be designed in Black & White initially for several reasons which have all been outlined other places in the forum. Summary ->
Simplicity, Small Sizes, Printing Constraints (I.e. one colour printing / screen printing)


Again, I did point out that personally I think a logo should always work well in B&W, but I am asking why? Who says it must be in black and white to be simple, to be small and to allow for one colour printing. Why can't a solid red logo be shrunk to a small size? why can't a red logo be simple?... you get my jist.

I am not trying to argue with every point you make here, merely trying to start a discussion on challenging certain rules that designers sometimes try religiously to adhere to.

[DesignerScott]

Question:

And my reaction would be "why do you assume I am a fruit company"? Why have you made a big presumption of my company just by looking at a logo

Answer:Such is human nature, rightly or wrongly to judge things at face value by our own personal tastes.

About the B&W versions: example -> A friend of mine was printing up some low-budget B&W flyers and wanted to add a small ad for me. If I were to just give him my 2 color logo, who knows how the printshops would have handled that situation. So while all of my own print work is done in color and I have control over how the logo looks, this is just one example of why I needed a B&W version too! Now this is an easy situation because I'm a designer and can handle that situation, but your company is probably not that educated about design, so that is why identity/branding strategy packages exist and contain all of the necessary options/guidlines for printing.

[orkaknos12]

Why? A window cleaner, male, 55 years old, has been window cleaning for 25 years. Has a client base of a few hundred people and not enough time in the day to satisfy them all. No interest in employing someone to help ,like to deal with all his customers directly. All his marketing is done through word of mouth.

As a marketing thought exercise, the conclusions you've reached are problematic. They're too shallow and face-value. The reason why they're content with their small business being small is usually because they fear change and growth. The 55 year old window cleaner has come to design firm to ask for a logo, he's not simply asking for you to draw something and give it to him. As we've already said, he's looking to get visibility - in the phone book, on his truck, on his storefront if he has one, and he's probably saved some money to get this job done right. The logo design process is only one tiny piece of a brand package. If they didn't need anything, they wouldn't approach your firm. To want to expand a business, but not hire new people is a contradiction, and a good design agency will recognize what lies deeper in his plans, and help this guy do some basic business planning along with his marketing. Once you do a few jobs, you'll realize that people open up significantly when you start posing the right questions about their business marketing plans. Part of the the value of a good marketing team is in securing clients who would've never known about you simply by word of mouth and approaching you just because you now have visibility.. it costs a little to start the process, but the new clients and work will end up paying for the advbertising in no time.

As for the criticism of your logo, it looks good art wise- maybe a little complicated by the over-zealous shading but still says car company to me. I'd take some books out of the libarary on branding, logo design and marketing and really read through them, they'll tell you much more about the process you've embarked on than I can typing on this forum.

-Jon

[designpunk]

hoho thanks we will take it on board.

[JPnyc]

Well car or motorcycle company. It's loosely reminiscent of the Harley-Davidson logo.

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

You must bear in mind that not everyone wants to grow their business, gardeners, window cleaners, plumbers, the local newsagents - sometimes, just sometimes, they are content with the little business they have grown up from nothing, content with the amount of work they do and harbour no interests in growing and taking over the world.




But it's not about "growing and taking over the world." It's about presenting a professional and consistent business image to their existing and potential clients and the community at large. (They may not need more clients - but that client base does change and evolve over time)

The type of businesses you seem to be writing off as not needing logos have been the backbone of my business since about 1976. They (the small or single-person business) are also the businesses that I prefer to work with as they have more of a vested interest in the end result of a design project. The client contacts at the major corporations are often just going through the pre-determined motions established by structure they work within. The small, or individual, business person is so much more enthusiastic about the business image of being presented to the general public. It is often their individual name and personal livelihood being conveyed to the local community. They are most often the clients with whom I have developed business relationships of up to two decades.

And the logo design work I have done for those individual business owners - gardeners, barbers, hairstylists, plumbers, architects, photographers, writers, carpenters, consultants and other designers - is the work in which I have the most personal pride and satisfaction, due in part to the fact that the impact of my work is much more measurable and the direct client feedback is much greater. I appreciate it when a client thanks me for making what they do for a living look like a real company. For many of these individuals it is not necessarily about getting more business - it's about looking like they mean business.

- J.

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

It's loosely reminiscent of the Harley-Davidson logo.

That was my immediate impression.

- J.

[mac.FINN]

Well damn I missed a perfectly viable chance to rant about logo design again. :D oh well... seems to be a popular topic lately.

[DesignerScott]

I think what we have here is a situation where eye-candy books like "100 top logos" or "50 top business cards" are leading to the misconception that a "graphic designer" is just an artist who "makes pretty things"!

[PrintDriver]

Actually, the first thing I thought of was Aerosmith...

[vtwin_gary]

Well maybe it's all the hockey talk but I thought Detroit Red Wings when I saw the logo.
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/6043/detroitredwingsticketslogo200x.gif

As far as ascetically the mark seems fine to me.
Yes it's good work but, do I think it will sell shampoo.... no.

I like a well thought out, non childish argument. Please keep it up. Sorry punk, Jeff is like my E.F. Hutten.

[DivineDesign]

This logo was for a one - off usage for a hair company, they supply 90% of hollywood with it's pre shooting products and the brief was a simple 'make us a badge that shouts Established and Expensive' it was always going to be used on black products as well as being embossed on large
silver panels so it never needed to be on paper, white or reflect a particular product.

We were asked to be influenced by the Aston Martin / Breitling / Bentley logos.

Perosnlay I feel it's a little too masculin.

Personally, after seeing this I would have NEVER thought hair company, until reading it was for a hair company. Being the daughter of a hair salon owner & international platform artist, and having previously worked in the salon industry for 8 years (an being around it my whole life), and designing packaging for hair products.........It doesn't say anything about the industry..I dont' think making it "established and Expensive" should be taken from high end CARS...take a look at the hair industry and you will find a totally different image to be portrayed as "expensive etc." Thats just my opinion though. :cool:

[mac.FINN]

I'm going to revive this thread if I can... I've got lots of things I'd like to say but I'm going to simplify it all into one phrase about design. Here goes:

If it means nothing...it is nothing.

[steve-o]

Despite the talk of literal vs. symbolic vs. emotional appeal of a logo, designpunk asked if the logo conveys an established and expensive feel.

Black, white and silver are all colors that are supposed to convey high end, but I don't think this logo screams established and expensive.

Wings and shield are very militaristic/conservative symbols. I see this in the bentley logo, astin martin, and breitling logos. But it's not only the wings object that gives them this feel, it's the way the wings are designed -- very straight and angular, not wavey and "free flowing". Establishment, rather than established, I'd say. Almost artistocratic.

I agree with PD that it reminds me of the Aerosmith logo, but because the aerosmith logo relies on curvey, wavey lines of various thicknesses it conveys a different feel. It takes traditon and turns it upside down. It says rebel. that is its goal.

Therefore, I think your logo contradicts itself. Not sure what it wants to say. You want it to convey established and expensive, so you use symbols and colors for this purpose, but the treatment of them conveys that Aerosmith free-love rockstar mentality.

Just my rambling observations. :)


why not whick one of my recent logos up I thought...

Opinions welcome..

[DivineDesign]

can i get an AMEN!!!!!

I have really just always wanted to say that..just ignore that lol

[steve-o]

If anyone is even still paying attention to this thread, on my way to work this morning I drove by a ROLEX billboard. ROLEX uses a gold crown.

I think for high-end hair products, a crown would be an appropriate icon. Kind of its literal (sits on your head) and symbolic (high-end, regal, luxury, etc.) meaning.

Mind you Budweiser and Hallmark also use crowns, but like I said in a previous post, it's all in how your design the icon.

Good luck!

[designpunk]

Ok I am a designer I like my trade and want it to continue - I ran over a hundred logo projects last year, way way more than in previous years - and it accounted for around 65% of all design work undertaken. This meant dealing with many different companies to start-ups with crazy ideas to large corporations like the BBC which gave me a pretty varied experience of what people are looking for and what they find important. My opinions changed quite a lot of the last year and this is pretty much the basis of my questioning.

Right back to the thread; most people are kind of missing the whole point here - originally the design was posted blind without any background to gauge reaction, a few people said they couldn't comment without knowing some background on the company, philosophy etc before commenting - the discussion then grew with me asking why people feel unable to judge something on aesthetics alone.

Sometimes it's nice to post a logo or design and see peoples instant reactions, feelings, emotions, what it says to them and how they value it without having to explain the whole history behind it.

A lot of logos are viewed and perceived this way in day to day life - we are hit by logos every single day; most of which do not come with a handy synopsis of the product or company.

One of the points rasied was "Personally, after seeing this I would have NEVER thought hair company"

Each to their own, but I personally don't understand why certain people think unless the logo is that ridiculously obvious then it has no value.

Here are some examples of hair care logos without a picture of a woman's head & flowing hair.

http://www.ghd.uk.com/
http://www.babyliss.co.uk/
http://www.toniguy.com/

Anyway, I never said it was a logo for shampoo, I merely said it was a logo for a hair care company - people assume if it's for a haircare company then it must be shampoo.

I did point out it was for a one-time only usage. In essence they were giving their top stylists / clients (such as wella, Toni & guy) something to say thanks. They wanted a design to reflect the high quality, exclusiveness of the product which happens to actually be mechanical hair care products (straightners etc) not the assumed shampoo. Their core stylists are in Hollywood & movies and thus wanted something a tad OTT.

Even from the few posts on this thread it's a good indictaion of how people interpret logotypes differently.

[vtwin_gary]

DevineDesign here are some examples of hair care logos without a picture of a woman's head & flowing hair.

http://www.ghd.uk.com/
http://www.babyliss.co.uk/
http://www.toniguy.com/

none of these have "a woman's head & flowing hair" but none of them have any type of mark either, just nice clean type logos.
just my $.02

edit:
http://www.ghd.uk.com/Images/GHD.gif
http://www.multipharmacy.com/shop/files/sxdetail/3030053020806_IMAGE2.jpg
http://www.toniguy.com/toniandguy_logo.gif

[reuber1]

I think you need to give us some credit. Just because we ask for a brief doesn't necessarily mean we assume that the logo should be a literal interpretation of the brand's services or products. It helps us visualize what you are trying to accomplish and we can say "Yeah, I can see that". It works a hell of a lot better than "why not whick one of my recent logos up I thought.... Opinions welcome"

[designpunk]

Reuber1 my point regarding it a literal interpretation was in response to this question, not as a response to people asking for a bit of background.

" The logo did not reflect their company! I actually think IMO that it is important to reflect a product or be obvious about what a particular company does or do."

Ps: Nice cat

[typographics]

designpunk,

geese...you posted a graphic on a graphic design forum, but you didnt want any graphic design feedback. you just wanted artsy, aesthetic, "look at my cool mark" feedback. if thats all youre interested in, then post it on an art forum. dont get pissy and upset just because people here actually care about its application, and whether or not its appropriate for its purpose and intended audience.

who cares if it looks cool? we can all make stuff that looks cool. the hard part is coming up with a great concept that effectively targets a small segment of the population in order to persuade them into taking a particular action.

none of us can tell whether or not you succeeded in that quest, because you simply showed us a graphic out of context. since you denied us the necessary information to determain its effective impact, we asked you for it...but you denied it to us, and started ranting about something completely off topic.

matthew~

[designpunk]

designpunk,

geese...you posted a graphic on a graphic design forum, but you didnt want any graphic design feedback. you just wanted artsy, aesthetic, "look at my cool mark" feedback. if thats all youre interested in, then post it on an art forum. dont get pissy and upset just because people here actually care about its application, and whether or not its appropriate for its purpose and intended audience.

who cares if it looks cool? we can all make stuff that looks cool. the hard part is coming up with a great concept that effectively targets a small segment of the population in order to persuade them into taking a particular action.

none of us can tell whether or not you succeeded in that quest, because you simply showed us a graphic out of context. since you denied us the necessary information to determain its effective impact, we asked you for it...but you denied it to us, and started ranting about something completely off topic.

matthew~

Ah Matthew

I replied over a comment that sugested that every good logo must show the product.

I am not getting upset about people asking for background on this logo - I have never asked if this logo was perfect for the company or for any product. I simply asked for an opinion at face value and the thread went on from there - I appologise if it's gone off topic but heck it's all part of the fun.

[erichmond]

Reuber1 my point regarding it a literal interpretation was in response to this question, not as a response to people asking for a bit of background.

" The logo did not reflect their company! I actually think IMO that it is important to reflect a product or be obvious about what a particular company does or do."

Ps: Nice cat

This is my opinon and remains so, what was said was 'reflect', meaning the embodiment, representation in a faithful or appropriate way in presentation to the relevant parties.

[typographics]

okay, ill play along. at face value, it looks like a crest with wings. :)

[designpunk]

This is my opinon and remains so, what was said was 'reflect', meaning the embodiment, representation in a faithful or appropriate way in presentation to the relevant parties.

Eric, I took my reply from that latter part of the sentence where you said "IMO that it is important to reflect a product or be obvious about what a particular company does or do"

Nothing wrong with that but I personaly don't think it's that vital to be 'obvious about what a company does or do' and was simply trying to provoke a discussion around that.

[designpunk]

I'm going to revive this thread if I can... I've got lots of things I'd like to say but I'm going to simplify it all into one phrase about design. Here goes:

If it means nothing...it is nothing.

Gonna revive this quote :)

Everything means something to someone.

[DesignerScott]

I'll play along too then, to me it looks like a harley owner took his PSP for a ride on United!

[PrintDriver]

You've got a literal crowd here DesignPunk. Hard to get them to see a logo bug doesn't have to 'spell-it-out'.

The only thing I thought when I first saw it was, damn, I hope somebody doesn't have to make a sign outta that. Quickly anyway. That's a 2-weeker. Though I bet the metal shop would have a blast. LOL.

It really did read 'expensive car' to me too.

[reuber1]

Reuber1 my point regarding it a literal interpretation was in response to this question, not as a response to people asking for a bit of background.

" The logo did not reflect their company! I actually think IMO that it is important to reflect a product or be obvious about what a particular company does or do."

Ps: Nice catOK, my bad. I was reading this on and off at work so I didn't get the full of it.

"Nice" cat? That thing is pissed off 24/7, just look at him. But I still love 'em.

[EC]

"Nice" cat? That thing is pissed off 24/7, just look at him. But I still love 'em.

Awwwww.

[Mitch Wood]

Haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I think some people need to open there eyes to the big ole' world, and not just internet chat rooms...

Keep on at what you are doing designpunk, you obviously have a grasp of what you want a mark to do, even if the client narrow mindedly pointed you down a very slim path. This would not have been my route or execution, but how boring would things be if we all worked the same way.

As me old man would say, horses for courses, make of it what you will...

p.s. Sorry for the lack of a crit, but I had to comment.

[mac.FINN]

Everything means something to someone.

So what does this mean to you? Do you think this logo will actually mean anything to your demographic? I think just about everyone here has associated it with a car or motocycle.

And to re-define my original point: if your design has no meaning other than face value ascethics then it has no meaning, it has no staying-power and it has no use as a logo.

Tell my why this is a good logo. What makes this a good design? I'll like to know what you think, and I don't want you to skirt around either. Just say why it's good. What would you say when you present this to a client?

And I'm going to agree with Typo, you posted a "logo" here and so far have been unable to accept any critique or critisism. You seem fairly obtuse towards this design - in that "you're right, doesn't matter that everyone else disagrees". Which to me is a sign of a lazy designer; unwilling to change something he/she thinks is good without being able to defend it.

[steve-o]

I also agree with Mitch.

DesignPunk, (I know you didn't point me out specifically, but) that's why I tried to keep my comments on the feeling that the logo conveys and why it conveys that feeling.

Personally, I think design should be more than an acedemic exercise. I do think design should also try and instill a desired emotional response in its audience. I admit this is much harder and riskier to do, and sometimes it's completely accidental.

When I first saw your logo I was confused, so I needed to understand for myself why it was confusing. The confusion had nothing to do with not knowing what product or service the logo was for, but it was an emotional confusion stemming from conflicting design elements, which I tried to point out in my previous post.

This is a great discussion, btw!

[designpunk]

And to re-define my original point: if your design has no meaning other than face value ascethics then it has no meaning, it has no staying-power and it has no use as a logo.

Are you a hippy designer by any chance?
Everyone is different, some people don't care for all the bullsh!t spin that design agencies churn out. Some people don't care that there is a 'hidden' arrow in the FedEx logo, some people just like looking at nice looking things.

As for a logo having no use as a logo if it means nothing - Google's logo to me is god awful it means absolutly zilch to me. So what? Google doesn't care, it doesn't affect their businesses that I (and countless other people) think nothing of it. Who gives a rats bum if it's rubbish? You seem to place to much of a high enphasis on the logo.

Tell my why this is a good logo. What makes this a good design? I'll like to know what you think, and I don't want you to skirt around either. Just say why it's good. What would you say when you present this to a client?

I would say to my client "here this is what you asked for". I am not going to get all poetic & arty about every design that leaves the office, i don't have time.

Regalrdless, I never said it was a good logo. I personaly like simple logos with 1 or 2 colours and basic shapes. If anything I think it's too masculin, but hey I said that already.

You seem fairly obtuse towards this design - in that "you're right, doesn't matter that everyone else disagrees". Which to me is a sign of a lazy designer; unwilling to change something he/she thinks is good without being able to defend it.

You know what, it doesn't matter what me you or anyone else thinks. All I care about is what the client thinks - if they are happy I am happy.

If you said to me 'hey your logo sucks' I would take a look at your work - if your work didn't bode well with me then your comment would be of absolutly no consiquence. If on the otherhand, your portoflio contained decent work then I would probably take intesrest in your critique.

When you have been a designer for a while you grow a very thick skin and you learn to be verfy selective in who you listen too - all that really matters to me is what my clients think, they are #1 in my book and without saoundsing arrogant, the only people I really listen too. Not hippies on the interweb :) (joke)

[typographics]

You know what, it doesn't matter what me you or anyone else thinks. All I care about is what the client thinks - if they are happy I am happy.
then why did you post it!!!!!! ugh...

[designpunk]

I enjoy debating?

[mac.FINN]

Once again, you're on the defense and still refuse to properly answer questions. What exactly is a hippy designer?
I agree with you that somepeople don't care about the spin, but that's what make design more than just pretty pictures. That's what makes design good!
Google's logo does have meaning actually. A Google, is a nonsense number with an infinate number of zeros after it. Since google searches the internet (a seemingly infinate number of sites) and it returns (a seemingly infinate number of) hits - the name works. The logo also applies the Zeros idea, when you do a search what do you see at the bottom of the page?
GOOOOOOOOOOGLE. They use the o's to represent 0's. Plus the colours are noticable, memoriable and instantly recognizable even though Google's only been around a short time. It's exactly the opposite of what you say. It's not necessarily the slickest looking logo - but it's still a better design than what you've got here by far.

[designpunk]

then why did you post it!!!!!! ugh...

Tell me, do you care what people think?

[designpunk]

Once again, you're on the defense and still refuse to properly answer questions. What exactly is a hippy designer?
I agree with you that somepeople don't care about the spin, but that's what make design more than just pretty pictures. That's what makes design good!
Google's logo does have meaning actually. A Google, is a nonsense number with an infinate number of zeros after it. Since google searches the internet (a seemingly infinate number of sites) and it returns (a seemingly infinate number of) hits - the name works. The logo also applies the Zeros idea, when you do a search what do you see at the bottom of the page?
GOOOOOOOOOOGLE. They use the o's to represent 0's. Plus the colours are noticable, memoriable and instantly recognizable even though Google's only been around a short time.

How did i know you would reply with a long explanation of the google logo.

My point is my mother doesn't know A google is a nonsense number, my girlfriend doesn't realise the logo applies the zeros idea - yet they use it every day, they think google rocks - they don't however give 2 hoots about the logo. As for saying the colours are memorable - clutching at straws now.

You seem to be defensive when faced with someone who doesn't think the same way as you.

I am happy if you look that hard at every brand, I don't.

[designpunk]

What exactly is a hippy designer?

A hippy who designs?

[flutterby nut]

I enjoy debating?

umm...this is not debating...this is playing with people's heads for the sake of playing with people's heads...throwing something out there to get a reaction...i'm seriously beginning to think this is just a big farce...my .02...

[distruktor]

You seem to be defensive when faced with someone who doesn't think the same way as you.



ironic statement... :D

[mac.FINN]

I do.

How can you possible think that remarking on the colours is clutching at straw? Colour is one of the most basic design principles. I can't believe that you're actually a design professional. I seriously don't believe it.

As for whether or not I care what people think...I care about what people think of the design, that's kind of the point isn't it. I care that my design is good and that it's meaningful and memorable. I care that my design provoke more emotion and thought that just... "hey neat".

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll leave out the fact that your design doesn't have any meaning or relevance at all. I'll critique it on purely ascethic qualities.

it's unfeasible, unuseable, and unimaginative. (please note that these are not personaly opinions but specific technical reasons)
The signature is unreadable and too small. Almost all detail would be lost at a reduced size (say for a business card) There's way too much detail in it for a simple B&W reproduction. It would always have to be used on a black background, since the gradients (shudder) disallow for simple inversion. A shield with wings is utterly cliche. It's remeniscent of motocycles and automobiles (with no connection). It is a bad logo.

[designpunk]

umm...this is not debating...this is playing with people's heads for the sake of playing with people's heads...throwing something out there to get a reaction...i'm seriously beginning to think this is just a big farce...my .02...


Yes I am inclined to agree.

Let us start afresh, the whole point here is not the silver wings - it's that I think people (designers especially) put too much enphasis on logo design - they think the logo makes the product not the other way around.

Those people think everyone needs a logo, that it's good to wear t-shirts with big nike logos all over it (cos nike iz soo kewl).

I think people these days buy into the brand culture a little too easily and read too much into a corporate ID.

Google for example is pretty dire, but becasue it's sucsessful the logo gets kudos from designers. I bet my bottom dollor if google didn't exist, and some college kid posted that logo up on a design forum it would get ripped by almost every designer for using horrible colours, bevel & emboss, and the dreaded dropshadow.

And the same people that will tell you Google is a super cool logo, are the same people that will tell you 2 weeks later that true designers won't use drop shadows & bevels on logos.

I am challenging those people, that is all. I come in peace.

[Kool]

A lot of hostility in this thread directed at someone with a differing point of view. Let's keep it civil. http://home.comcast.net/~rnick9/koolsmiley.gif

[distruktor]

Yes I am inclined to agree.

Let us start afresh, the whole point here is not the silver wings - it's that I think people (designers especially) put too much enphasis on logo design - they think the logo makes the product not the other way around.

Those people think everyone needs a logo, that it's good to wear t-shirts with big nike logos all over it (cos nike iz soo kewl).

I think people these days buy into the brand culture a little too easily and read too much into a corporate ID.

Google for example is pretty dire, but becasue it's sucsessful the logo gets kudos from designers. I bet my bottom dollor if google didn't exist, and some college kid posted that logo up on a design forum it would get ripped by almost every designer for using horrible colours, bevel & emboss, and the dreaded dropshadow.

And the same people that will tell you Google is a super cool logo, are the same people that will tell you 2 weeks later that true designers won't use drop shadows & bevels on logos.

I am challenging those people, that is all. I come in peace.


i hate Nike... wouldnt wear it if you paid me, and it is FAR from "kewl".

i think the google logo is asthetically shit, but, there is good reasoning behind the name... just could of been executed alot better.

i come in peace too!



except if youre wearing a nike hoody ;)

[designpunk]

I do.

How can you possible think that remarking on the colours is clutching at straw? Colour is one of the most basic design principles. I can't believe that you're actually a design professional. I seriously don't believe it.

As for whether or not I care what people think...I care about what people think of the design, that's kind of the point isn't it. I care that my design is good and that it's meaningful and memorable. I care that my design provoke more emotion and thought that just... "hey neat".

Okay, for the sake of argument, I'll leave out the fact that your design doesn't have any meaning or relevance at all. I'll critique it on purely ascethic qualities.

it's unfeasible, unuseable, and unimaginative. (please note that these are not personaly opinions but specific technical reasons)
The signature is unreadable and too small. Almost all detail would be lost at a reduced size (say for a business card) There's way too much detail in it for a simple B&W reproduction. It would always have to be used on a black background, since the gradients (shudder) disallow for simple inversion. A shield with wings is utterly cliche. It's remeniscent of motocycles and automobiles (with no connection). It is a bad logo.

Mice.

[flutterby nut]

Yes I am inclined to agree.



then why keep it going?...what's the point of continuing to ruffle feathers?...why not just stop already?...move on...

[mac.FINN]

what a nice rebuttle Punk. Well played.

[designpunk]

then why keep it going?...what's the point of continuing to ruffle feathers?...why not just stop already?...move on...

...and as if by magic, the thread ended.

Adios Amigos, it's been fun.

Interbrand(ed)

[Kool]

...and as if by magic, the thread ended.

Probably a good idea. http://home.comcast.net/~rnick9/koolsmiley.gif

[DivineDesign]

One of the points rasied was "Personally, after seeing this I would have NEVER thought hair company"

Each to their own, but I personally don't understand why certain people think unless the logo is that ridiculously obvious then it has no value.



First of all, I never said that the logo needed to be ..how did you put it.. "ridiculously obvious" for it to resemble a hair company. I don't think thatit needs to have "a woman's head with flowing hair"..hell, most company's don't (cept TIGI) My own dad's logo is just text. I just said, that the logo that you posted would not come off as hair, to me, it would come off as a car, or motorcycle or something.

*EDIT*
Sorry i didnt realize we were done with this thread, i have been away all week with work, but i'm still giving my 2!!