Company Logo Design - Feedback/Advice Request

[tcraw1010]

Hello:

Though I am new to the Forum, I thought my inquiry would be best suited for this section . . .

In short, I have been developing an online business for just over a year. In doing a little "test marketing" of my site recently, there was some discussion and/or concern with the company logo we have been using ... in that it may too closely resemble an established company's logo.
First off, here is a link to a non-functioning shot of my site with the logo we have been using . . . http://www.musicians-marketplace.com/index3.html
The established company's logo that people were comparing mine to is --> http://www.interstatemusic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/StoreCatalogDisplay?catalogId=10021&storeId=10051

I am seeking thoughts, advice and suggestions from graphic design experts - such as yourseves - with regard to the current logo and/or whether you think a change should be made.

Thank You for any insight you can provide.

TOM

[InZenith]

To be fair, your logo and the one you are 'comparing' to (in other words the logo you stole the design of and altered for yourself :)) are both pretty weak. There is a complete lack of concept. It takes a hell of a lot of marketing to make a logo that consists of very little to be recognised by the masses, money you just don't have.

Instead you need to come up with something that reflects your industry in your own styling so that what you do and what you sell can be easily understood without seeing the rest of the site. Have a little think about it because your site is pretty good so it would be a shame to bring it down with a lesser logo.

[cornfed]

I find both logos to be pretty funky, too. Neither one of them says anything about what you're trying to do. But on your original question, yes, the logos are too similar. Basically you're asking if they're m hanging off a circle looks too much like your m hanging off a circle. I think if you have to ask, then you probably already know the answer! Good luck!

[JesterBlaze]

IMO because they're both so simple I'd bet that there are plenty of others out there that are "comparable" I wouldn't think that you have to change.

Also note that there's is not a circle but in fact the letter "C" no doubt standing for "Cascio". They are similar but if I made the "CIM" logo and then saw yours then before I confronted you about design theft I'd have to accept that I'm basically telling the world that I'm soley responsible for an off-center circle, an artistic design element which is far too generic to make such a statement.

However similar to how cornfed says "If you have to ask...", if I had any part of my brain questioning the authenticity of my work then it'd be enough to change it. Especially on a logo, which is not a "one and done" job by any means. You're gonna see your logo over and over and that "loose string" on your conscience might only grow.

[skirklan]

All of the below and: Serious doubts should be addressed NOW before you start developing equity that you will lose, should you decide to change the logo later.

A circle is not a logo, even if you put an M in it. So, why not come up with some other element to put behind your big M--maybe something that says MUSIC graphically. :rolleyes:

Also, get rid of the second m. Don't you think that big M is big enough to M both words? :confused:

Either way, good luck with that.

[tZ]

contrast is allways good.

It makes you unique and stick out in comparision to your competitor.

I never get why some people want thier stuff to look so much like their competitor. Especially, when the business is just strating up or something. I mean its not like most people are so stupid that they are going to mistake the newer business with the more established one just becasue of a thing like a logo.

Make it different.

yes, it looks simular- typography, circle and all.

[bembo]

take a look at Muzak's logo

http://www.muzak.com/muzak.html

...also

http://www.m-ms.com/

www.mcdonalds.com



I.E... the M as a logo has been done by strong established companies.. do something else if you're going to stand out as a startup.

[budafist]

The logos are similar, but not similar enough to be a rip of of each other.

Conceptually they are both failures IMO. There's nothing about them that is striking, clever or memorable.

Putting letter in circle does not a logo make.

[tcraw1010]

Putting letter in circle does not a logo make.

It worked for 7-Up. ;)

Seems that, for many corporate logos, it simply comes down to the font used. I mean, Coca-Cola/Coke is little more than cursive/times.

Mind you, I want something that is relatively simple, yet bold/pranding - somethign that can look professional (for business correspondece), while at the same time be utilized on promotional items/swag.

I actually put the project out to bid and here are some of the samples I received --> http://www.musicians-marketplace.com/newlogo.jpg

None of them (in my opinion) fit the bill with regard to what I'm wanting.

[cornfed]

Every single other option works worlds better than what you have right now. The only problem that I see with some of them is that they have gradients and that's gonna give you a bit of trouble when you go to fax and whatnot. However, that can easily be dealt with.

What do you mean you put it out to bid?

[tcraw1010]

Every single other option works worlds better than what you have right now. The only problem that I see with some of them is that they have gradients and that's gonna give you a bit of trouble when you go to fax and whatnot. However, that can easily be dealt with.

What do you mean you put it out to bid?


I put a "logo" project out to bid on a freelance resource.

[cornfed]

It sounds like you sort of ran a contest. This sort of thing is really frowned upon in the world of graphic design. You may not be aware of that but it is called spec work. Spec work is where a designer works to design something in the hopes that the potential client will choose their design, thus rewarding them either with money or with their name being listed as the designer or whatever. Maybe this isn't what you did to get these designs, but it looks like it from where I'm sitting.

[tcraw1010]

No, not what I did - or implied in my project bid.

The samples were offered freely - I did not request or expect them. The only thing I wanted to see from prospective bidders was a portfolio of their work.

[InZenith]

It worked for 7-Up. ;)

Seems that, for many corporate logos, it simply comes down to the font used. I mean, Coca-Cola/Coke is little more than cursive/times.


Yes but as I mentioned before, you can only get away with that if you are willing to pump a hell of a lot of money into marketing that kind of logo, othewrwise it really is just a word and not a logo. How much money do you think coca-cola, 7-up, mcdonalds etc have spent on marketing to build up that kind of brand recognition.

[tcraw1010]

Yes but as I mentioned before, you can only get away with that if you are willing to pump a hell of a lot of money into marketing that kind of logo, othewrwise it really is just a word and not a logo. How much money do you think coca-cola, 7-up, mcdonalds etc have spent on marketing to build up that kind of brand recognition.

Well, true .... but when boil it down to it's most basic elements, it's really only just a chosen font and, in some cases, a complimentary element (i.e. red circle, squiggly line, color choice, etc.)

Mind you, I am not diminishing the element of creativity and market-research ... just analyzing the most basic elements of a chosen logo. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem like it should be all that complicated of a formula.

[InZenith]

Complicated no, but it still requires thought. You should probably think of what I am about to say before you shoot down every single comment that has been made in reply to the question you asked. We could argue until the cows come home about what is technically considered a logo, but instead of trying to win a petty argument on a forum thread (which you created) you should be aiming to create a sales increasing logo and brand. Because it is the cash that will keep you warm at night, not the knowledge that yes text on its own can be a successful logo if used correctly.

[tcraw1010]

I am not creating or perpetuating an argument . . . I am conducting a discussion on a topical issue - big difference. Please do not turn this into something it is most certainly not.

I came to this Forum because I have a challenge that I am trying to overcome of a graphical nature. I appreciate the comments I have received thus far and I have had further thoughts/questions in respose to such.

I fail to see the problem with the further comments/questions I have been asking.

[budafist]

Don't expect to get any great work from competitions. The amateurs entering a competition are unlikely to be professionals. If you want a professional logo, then you pay a pro to do it. The end.

[tcraw1010]

Once again, I posted a bid on a project for a logo. No competition indicated, requested or expected. Designers bidding for a project is only "competition" insofar as how they chose to bid. It's the exact same thing when a company puts out a "Request for Proposal," and contractors submit their bid proposals on the project - no difference whatsoever.

So, if these contractors choose to provide samples, that is their perogative to do so. I made no such request or requirement for samples - though I certainly appreciate the gesture.

[budafist]

Well, were the samples good?

[PrintDriver]

The OP says the bid submissions were not what they wanted (which just goes to prove the point that unsolicited submissions are a waste of everyone's time).

Is the M in a circle what you are really looking for? I'm getting an optical illusion in that logo that the circle isn't round and that the right leg of the M is fatter than the others. Or maybe it isn't an illusion. It is annoying though.

[bembo]

Well, true .... but when boil it down to it's most basic elements, it's really only just a chosen font and, in some cases, a complimentary element (i.e. red circle, squiggly line, color choice, etc.)

Mind you, I am not diminishing the element of creativity and market-research ... just analyzing the most basic elements of a chosen logo. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem like it should be all that complicated of a formula.

At a certain time in design history there was little if any logos that were as simple as a letter inside a circle, or simple shape. Therefore when they came out they were new and innovative, and very fresh. Now for the past few decades they have been mimicked to death. As someone said unless you're going to pour a sh*t load of money into establishing essentially "a letter", than it just won't cut it in the market.

And in annother point you argued about coca cola being times... well coca cola doesn't even particulary like their logo, its fussy complicated, and sometimes hard to read. It was created back in the day by people who weren't pro designers. Now its too late, , the brand is defined by that logo. They couldn't change it even if they wanted to. (the COKE logo was basically scrapped)..


Sooo it may be an easy formula to mimick an established brand, but it is not an easy formula to make that logo stand out from the 10000000's of others that mimicked just like you did.

[tcraw1010]

So, is what you're saying that if I am not willing to spend thousands of dollars toward paying a "true" graphic designer in coming up with a "true" logo, that everything else will be tantamount to a mimic and will never be strong enough?

[budafist]

I certainly wouldn't spend thousands on a logo...

What you need to look for is a designer that has strong conceptual identity work in their portfolio. If their portfolio is full of logos that could be used for any business, then that would be a problem. Logos should be unique identifying marks.

[bembo]

yeah what budafist said.

I don't think you're logo HAS to be breathtaking truely unique/remarkable thousand dollar design. But your logo is going to show up on more than just the top left corner of the site, maybe packages, letterheads, business cards. So it needs to be something proffesional, and something that seperates and is memorable from competition.

[Ned]

I don't think you're logo HAS to be breathtaking truely unique/remarkable thousand dollar design.

*snicker* I really don't think there's much correlation between how "breathaking" a logo is, and how much it cost. I have seen the basest, simplistic, often stupid logos come out for $20,000 or more. Take the latest Visit Florida logo (http://www.fahlgren.com/home.aspx?oId=1&sId=clientstories&page=visit_florida) from Falhgren as an example...

A lot of these high budget logo designs could be just as easily done by somebody's 12 year old daughter. :D Often, the higher the budget, the more corporate bigwigs have their fingers in the making of it, and the less creative input is given over to the illustrator, who has the real training and experience in the arts. These logos are "marketing department" made.

[imann08]

This is just my opinion on the matter and I'm not an expert but here it goes. The simplicity of the logo is not an issue to me. The logo itself looked fine. There have been very successful logos that have been even more simple than this. The main issue for you is that you are a startup company in a market that already has some well established players. If company A holds a firm grasp on say 80% of the market and your logo looks like their's does, then about 80% of the people who see your logo will go to their company. The important part is to separate yourself from the competition. Make a logo that wont be confused with others and possibly attack a market or offer an alternative that the other more established companies don't offer.

So, the simplicity of the logo doesn't mean anything as long as it is original and separates you from the competition. A logo can be both simple and recognizable at the same time. I think it has been mentioned before that as long as your logo says something about your company that separates you from the more established companies you have achieved your goal.

If anyone disagrees with this then please speak up. I think this is a pretty sound way to go about it though.

[Ned]

I think simplicity is a poor term to use. A great logo is great in concept, not in flashy effects. What makes a poor logo is when you have no concept, or one that is so blatantly obvious and generic. For instance, that visit florida logo I linked to, that was just a solid color, with simple clean lines. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, for a logo - in fact, it's preferred! The fact that they decided to use a few "waves" to represent Florida... for $20,000 - that's where the child's play comes in! Where's the originality in that?

[imann08]

I agree with what you say about my use of the word simplicity. Maybe I misinterpretted some of the previous posts because of this. I think you know what I was trying to get across though. A logo can be as simple as IBM but if it displays your company message and catches people's attn then it is a success. This along with what I previously said about making sure you don't get confused with a more established comptetitor or are conveying the same message.

[Ned]

One thing you have to remember with a lot of these old established companies, is that their logos were started when there was very little competition in the market, and they've established a reputation behind that logo for a long time. What do you think would happen if Nike didn't exist, and somebody just now introduced the swoosh logo? "Give me a break," would probably be most people's first response. In fact, it'd probably resemble something like this in most people's eyes:
http://www.rayacom.com/images/rayacom_logo.jpg

(This is one of the local printers in my town. Every time I see that logo, I throw up a little bit in my mouth. Notice the "design" part of their description? Yeah, all their "designs" look this bad.)

[imann08]

Ned, I agree with what you say regarding the companies who are the first to establish a market. If you are creating a market that didn't exist previously, then you have a lot more freedom with the logo you make. You can basically make a logo and move on to more important things.

I would like to know what you see as being wrong with the Rayacom logo you posted. Not that I think it is a good logo but I don't think it is that awful either. I'm not quite sure what the little swoosh at the end has to do with anything and it seems like the tracking is awful with the print & design line.

One thing I have noticed about this board in the short time I've been here is that many things are often overanalyzed if that makes sense. The people on this board are not the general public. The average Joe is not going to notice a fraction of what we notice in a logo or layout etc. That is if they notice anything at all other than the logo itself. For instance, regarding the Rayacom logo, we may be able to tear it apart from a design point of view but I can say that I would remember that logo without having to see it too many times. For some reason, I see it sticking in my mind and it doesn't have to do with the fact that you ripped it. I'm talking from the standpoint of its look alone. I think that we often put so much into a fellow designers mind when we analyze a design that it can sometimes have negative consequences. I have already seen a good design get worse (at least in my opinion) because so many people commented on it and everyone had a different opinion on a different part of it. People can sometimes take something that works and start adding things based on the responses of this board to the point that it becomes too much. I don't think that is the case with the logo in this thread but I can see it being the case with a lot of cases. Let me say that I am not, by any means, an expert in design. I consider myself a beginner although I think I have an idea of the basic rules and guidelines. I like to make it clear that I am not well schooled on this stuff by any means because I don't want to come across as all knowing or that I think I know more than someone else. What I say is either opinion, which is neither right or wrong, or it has to do with basic rules or guidelines which I am always willing to admit I am wrong about if someone shows me otherwise.

[tcraw1010]

The main issue for you is that you are a startup company in a market that already has some well established players. If company A holds a firm grasp on say 80% of the market and your logo looks like their's does, then about 80% of the people who see your logo will go to their company. The important part is to separate yourself from the competition. Make a logo that wont be confused with others and possibly attack a market or offer an alternative that the other more established companies don't offer.

So, the simplicity of the logo doesn't mean anything as long as it is original and separates you from the competition. A logo can be both simple and recognizable at the same time. I think it has been mentioned before that as long as your logo says something about your company that separates you from the more established companies you have achieved your goal.


All very good points. I guess I should say that, in terms of differentiation of Musician's Marketplace from most of the "established" musical instrument retailers (online or otherwise), is that MM's focus is on the "non-major" custom/specialty instrument, equipment and music market. In other words, where retailers such as Guitar Center, Musician's Friend, Interstate Music and Musician.com sell the major manufacturer brands (Pearl, Fender, Roland, Tama, etc.), MM focuses/targets the custom/non-major market.


Honestly, I never thought something as seemingly simple as a logo would take as much thought and development as it does. I would like to ask this, though . . . can not a logo (even if somewhat similar to another) build it's own branding strength based on the strength of the business, how it's marketed, reputation, etc?

I mean, look at the "graphics.com" logo . . . nothing particularly unique about it.

[budafist]

We certainly do overanalyse, but it's up to the orginal poster to figure out what parts are relevant and what advice they will not take on. It's what you get with an assortment of trained eyes on a job. Sometimes it can be infuriating sure, but it's only advice. It's not a bible.

[Ned]

I would like to know what you see as being wrong with the Rayacom logo you posted.
Besides the fact that it has no concept or relevence to anything, it also looks like a 15 year old high-school student created it in MS Paint. Not exactly a professional image, wouldn't you say? It's a classic "wtf!?" logo. The bad kerning the general public probably won't notice, but the terrible looking elipse... Anyone can see that it's amateurish and ugly, even with no knowledge or training in communications arts whatsoever. If they simply removed the elipse thing, their logo would be just another thoughtless word, but at least it wouldn't be a horrendous eyestrain.

[budafist]

I think the main point is relevance. The Rayacom logo could be a logo for any company. If you replaced the company name with Telcomax and put Wireless networks underneath, it wouldn't really change anything. The logo would still be some text with a circle.

[Ned]

Logo Creator v5.0 will do this for you. :) Here's a bunch of shapes and swooshes. Just type your company name in, and voila! Instant logo.

[budafist]

Exactly. Non relevant crap that has nothing to do with your business or your clients.

[tcraw1010]

But again ... and I am asking as a non graphic artist layman . . .

Why does a good/strong logo have to have some kind of "relevant" image integration? For example, my business targets musicians and involves selling custom musican instruments, equipment, music. There isn't one particular icon that fits all of those categories.

Take this example, for instance . . . http://www.musician.com

Nothing particularly special about it. However, if the business does well, people will eventually come to recognize and brand the the logo - right?


Forgive my naivite' guys, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this whole concept.

[budafist]

A logo for your business might not have an instrument on it. But it should explore something unique about your business.

Things that represent all music could be sound, movement, rhythm, hearing, song, speakers. Things that are relevant to yourself are the types of clients, your location, your favourite colours etc.

The musician.com logo is clear with a contemporary sans serif font. It is very popular style of font for e-businesses. There is nothing unique or identifying about it that to give you visual clues about the logo though. Everything you get from it is in the reading of the text.

[Ned]

What are the key words that describe your business? I'm not talking about your product (ie, musican instruments, equipment, music), I'm talking about your business (trust, integrity, quality, affordability, etc.)

[budafist]

Links to some stunning (in my opinion) music related logos.

Band (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/7905)
Violin Manufacturer (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/7633)
Music Tours (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/9774)

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

Logo Creator v5.0 will do this for you. :) Here's a bunch of shapes and swooshes. Just type your company name in, and voila! Instant logo.

*snicker!*

- J.

[tcraw1010]

What are the key words that describe your business? I'm not talking about your product (ie, musican instruments, equipment, music), I'm talking about your business (trust, integrity, quality, affordability, etc.)

All of the above ... plus "individuality, diversity, value, community"

[tcraw1010]

Links to some stunning (in my opinion) music related logos.

Band (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/7905)
Violin Manufacturer (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/7633)
Music Tours (http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/9774)

Damn, there are some great ones in the general Gallery.

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

Honestly, I never thought something as seemingly simple as a logo would take as much thought and development as it does. I would like to ask this, though . . . can not a logo (even if somewhat similar to another) build it's own branding strength based on the strength of the business, how it's marketed, reputation, etc?



I think your initial comment says so much about the general public's perception of logo design - if it looks simple the process must be simple. In many cases, the most seemingly simple logo probably is often the result of a very involved thought, development and design process.

Yes, a logo's branding strength can be built, or perhaps improved, by strategic marketing, the reputation/history of the business in question and other aspects - but it's always best to try to position the company (and it's identity) as a unique entity, rather than appearing too similar to another business.

Simple, unique, strong, memorable, possibly clever, non-trendy, and other qualities are always positives in logo design. The longevity of a design should also be considered in the process of creation. I once had a client come to me who had his business logo re-designed five times in as many years - and the design I created was then used for 10 years (until the business was sold).

I appreciate that as a business owner you are asking the questions you have posted here. A designer should be asking, or answering, similar questions of you in the process of creating a logo to represent the company.

- J.

[imann08]

There is nothing wrong with a strictly text based logo but even a logo of this type will say something about your company. The font used can express a lot of things such as class, power, as well as other things. Most law firms will use an oldstyle serif font for their logo for this reason. So, your logo doesn't have to have an image in it to make it good. For the type of company that you have that's where I would be headed though. Ask yourself what your company is about. Get more in depth than just the music part of it. Once you have that, pick fonts or an image that best portrays those things. The image that you use doesn't even have to be some sort of music related thing. It can be abstract but get your point across.

The reason that so much thought and importance is placed on logo design is that it is something that will be with your company for it's life (or a long time) and it does have an effect on how the market looks at you. It is often the all important first impression. You would be amazed at what meaning people can get out of a logo.

[Patrick Shannon]

Go read Logo:LAB right now. That book permanently sits on my coffee table. (And on a side note, the Paradox logo in it RULES everything.)

[InZenith]

All of the above ... plus "individuality, diversity, value, community"

Individuality, diversity, value and community to me mean absolutely nothing when it comes to designing a logo based around your company. With those four words you could be selling sunflower oil. Focus on the previous words you mentioned instruments, music, equipment etc. And you mentioned that you cannot think of a single concept that covers everything that you do. Here is a little secret, it doesn't need to. Focus on your main field and go with that, everything else is just a peripheral.

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

(And on a side note, the Paradox logo in it RULES everything.)

That has always been one of my favorite logo designs. For those not familiar with the design, it's shown in this interview piece I did with Christopher Simmons (http://www.creativelatitude.com/logo_notions/logo_notions_0805.html).

- J.

[Ned]

I remember reading that interview before, Jeff. It's a very good read!

[tcraw1010]

That has always been one of my favorite logo designs. For those not familiar with the design, it's shown in this interview piece I did with Christopher Simmons (http://www.creativelatitude.com/logo_notions/logo_notions_0805.html).

- J.

'
Okay, I feel I need to ask another question . . .

I read Jeff's interview and got to the part abouthis own logo/identity - MINE.
I can understand his rationale behind why he chose to feature a canary, but for the logo itself, it makes absolutely no sense to someone simply looking at it. It doesn't say anything unless it was explained to them.

Again, this is coming from a layman observation - but for all the talk about how important identity is and how it should say something to the viewer (especially the untrained viewer), his own logo/identity doesn't seem to fit that bill - at least to me.

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

'
Okay, I feel I need to ask another question . . .

I read Jeff's interview and got to the part abouthis own logo/identity - MINE.
I can understand his rationale behind why he chose to feature a canary, but for the logo itself, it makes absolutely no sense to someone simply looking at it. It doesn't say anything unless it was explained to them.

Again, this is coming from a layman observation - but for all the talk about how important identity is and how it should say something to the viewer (especially the untrained viewer), his own logo/identity doesn't seem to fit that bill - at least to me.

Actually such logos do end up playing a bit of a great marketing/promotion trick on the casual viewer - and many businesses use off-the-wall names and logos on purpose. When someones asks "What does your name/logo mean?" it initiates a conversation/discussion that may otherwise have never taken place. It's a great opportunity for a business owner to sell themselves and what their company provides. I've often been asked to design logos that don't tell the viewer specifically what the company does or sells.

- J.

[Virgo Nightingale]

The Kodak name is an example of that, it's totally made up. They wanted a name that sounded strong and began and ended with the same letter.

http://www.buildingbrands.com/didyouknow/05_kodak.php

[tcraw1010]

Actually such logos do end up playing a bit of a great marketing/promotion trick on the casual viewer - and many businesses use off-the-wall names and logos on purpose. When someones asks "What does your name/logo mean?" it initiates a conversation/discussion that may otherwise have never taken place. It's a great opportunity for a business owner to sell themselves and what their company provides. I've often been asked to design logos that don't tell the viewer specifically what the company does or sells.

- J.


Then I guess I'm back to my original issue . . .

Is there really anything wrong with my original logo?

http://www.musicians-marketplace.com/index3.html


:(

[frankster]

If you are determined to have that much text and that little imagery in your logo then you need to find a designer that is a typographic whiz to make it look less boring, cluttered and oddly aligned. You can do so much better than what you have right now. Get it right this time round, so you don't find yourself seduced into the expense of re branding in the near future.

[cornfed]

The logo that Jeff is talking about is one that is intriguing enough to be a conversation starter, thus giving him an opportunity to promote and market the business through conversation. It's working, literally, for him.

Your logo is an m in a circle. There is no intrigue or story that begs to be told. See the difference?

[InZenith]

Then I guess I'm back to my original issue . . .

Is there really anything wrong with my original logo?

In brief, yes. Progress seems fairly slow on this thread. You haven't even accepted that your logo requires work, you may want to think about creating your own forum that is dedicated to the next stage of this saga - implementing the changes :D

[tcraw1010]

In brief, yes. Progress seems fairly slow on this thread. You haven't even accepted that your logo requires work, you may want to think about creating your own forum that is dedicated to the next stage of this saga - implementing the changes :D

I am asking questions . . . being provided insightful information (from most) . . . and, as a result, askign additional questions based on some of the responses I have received. No reason to chastize me for asking questions and trying to figure this thing out.

As you might be able to gather, this is very important to me ... which is why this is turning out to be a somewhat frustrating process. I don't want something cartoony, yet (from the feedbak many have provided) I shouldn't be too simple either.

There is obviously an element I am missing ... some little piece of the puzzle I am not seeing or am unable to visualize.

[imann08]

Don't worry about having trouble with this. Everyone here has had trouble with a logo before. Also, the logo can be simple. What I mean by that is it can be text only or text and a simple graphic. That paradox logo is very simple. It's no more than the name and some clip art. It's just done very very well. I'm sure you can see that. The egg and chicken has nothing to do with the company but it does have something to do with the name. The main goal, especially for an upstart company, is to create something that separates you from the competition, is noticeable (a simple text logo can be), and if your lucky says something about your company or what your company is trying to portray yourself as.

Think about what your company does, how it's different from the rest, the personality you want your company to have and other qualities and maybe you can grab one of those things that you think makes you different or is fuel for an interesting logo and use it.

This is complicating but it can be simplified by looking at a few things. It never gets easy. Don't feel you have to follow everyone's advice here. For instance mine. If you start listening to too many people it just complicates things even further. Find the posts that make the most sense to you and seem the most logical and go with it. I have a feeling that you are making this more complicated than it already is.

Good luck

[budafist]

I don't want something cartoony, yet (from the feedbak many have provided) I shouldn't be too simple either.

You make it sound like a cartoony logo is the opposite of simple. You can have a complex (in concept) logo that looks simple. A busy logo is what you probably don't want.

Simplicity is good in a logo. But there is a difference in between simple and bland, boring and irrelevant.

The idea is to find a great concept and show it in the most simple way.

[InZenith]

I am asking questions . . . being provided insightful information (from most) . . . and, as a result, askign additional questions based on some of the responses I have received. No reason to chastize me for asking questions and trying to figure this thing out.

As you might be able to gather, this is very important to me ... which is why this is turning out to be a somewhat frustrating process. I don't want something cartoony, yet (from the feedbak many have provided) I shouldn't be too simple either.

There is obviously an element I am missing ... some little piece of the puzzle I am not seeing or am unable to visualize.
But you don't even seem to have figured out whether or not you think you need a new logo, despite two pages of advice that all follows pretty much what I was the first to say in the first reply to this thread (yet you say my advice isn't useful) Do you actually want to improve your business or just keep talking until someone tells you your logo is good?

EDIT: 7 Pages of advice

[budafist]

That's a good point InZenith. Tcraw, do you actually want to change your logo or are you waiting for someone to tell you your logo is perfect as it is? It feels a little like you're trying to discount the theory behind what makes a logo a good logo so that you feel better about your logo that is lacking.

[typographics]

'
Okay, I feel I need to ask another question . . .

I read Jeff's interview and got to the part abouthis own logo/identity - MINE.
I can understand his rationale behind why he chose to feature a canary, but for the logo itself, it makes absolutely no sense to someone simply looking at it. It doesn't say anything unless it was explained to them.

Again, this is coming from a layman observation - but for all the talk about how important identity is and how it should say something to the viewer (especially the untrained viewer), his own logo/identity doesn't seem to fit that bill - at least to me.

youre right. the "mine" logo is bad. its just as bad as your current logo. the difference? its prettier. this is a common mistake with logo designers...they confuse art with design, using them interchangeably.

a pretty logo can be horribly ineffective, as well as an ugly one. a well designed identity, however, will last the test of time. how can you tell if its well designed? simple. the intended viewer quickly understands and connects with its message/purpose. (thats obviously a quick dumbed down definition, but true none-the-less.)

what should you do? find a designer with work you find to be exceptional, then work closely with him/her until you achieve your objectives.

[tcraw1010]

That's a good point InZenith. Tcraw, do you actually want to change your logo or are you waiting for someone to tell you your logo is perfect as it is? It feels a little like you're trying to discount the theory behind what makes a logo a good logo so that you feel better about your logo that is lacking.

I am asking questions to try and wrap my head around the issues involved in creating/arrivign at a quality company logo. I came here because I felt this would be a good place to get some experienced advice, insight and suggestions.

[tcraw1010]

But you don't even seem to have figured out whether or not you think you need a new logo, despite two pages of advice that all follows pretty much what I was the first to say in the first reply to this thread (yet you say my advice isn't useful) Do you actually want to improve your business or just keep talking until someone tells you your logo is good?

EDIT: 7 Pages of advice


With all due respect . . . I do not understand why you feel the need to jump down my throat for asking questions about an area I do not have a whole lot of experience in.

Others here have been very helpful in addressing questions/issues I have expressed. Just because I have additional questions after receiving various responses does not equate to my "ignoring" any particular bit of advice and/or discounting what has been shared with me thus far.

I fail to see the folly in my approach and/or how this discussion has developed thus far.

[cornfed]

tcraw, you may not realize how you're coming off in your posts so I'll tell you. Some of your post seem that you are asking us to tell you why your logo is no good. It seems as if you want us to tell you reasons just so you can shoot them down. You come off as stubborn in regard to this logo. It's hard for a designer to explain to a non designer why it sucks. You also come off as someone who doesn't have a lot of respect for our profession. Nobody is going to come on here and explain to you the design process, what goes into it and what you get back out of it in a way that you can understand. You aren't a designer. Everyone here has either gone severely in debt in order to go to school and unravel all of the mysteries of what defines good design or they've put a whole lot of sweat equity into learning on their own.

My air conditioner is broken right now. There is no way in hell that I am going to go to an air conditioning repair site and ask them to 1) tell me it's working when it's not or 2) tell me in detail how to fix it. It would take a lot of audacity for me to do that because they make their money off the fact that I don't know how to fix air conditioners. That's their edge on me. So I have to pay them. When they come over here, I will be looking on and trying to get an idea of whats going on. But for the most part, they're on their own. As Buda has said in just about everyone of her posts, you need to hire a professional. You need to let a professional take over and design a nice logo for you that will work for your business.

I don't want to come off as rude, but lets stop leaving room for misinterpretation. I can appreciate your intrigue and desire to solve the mystery of your logo design dilemma. Your questions are fine. But even if I look over the ac man's shoulder til the cows come home, I am not going to leave that experience knowing how to fix air conditioners.

[carter the artist]

The problem it seems, is that first, this is a forum and it really seems that some people feel they are being insulted. You are not being insult. The reply's only come with the intention of attitude dependant on how you read it.

That out of the way.

The main issue it seems is that tcraw would really like to understand the difference between a "good" logo vs. a "bad" logo.
The simple truth? there isn't. However there are those of us who spend our lifetimes studying the true art of branding and we have accumulated a wealth of information and experience on this.
So the long answer is very complex and hard to truelly communicate to the layman without insulting them. What everyone has said on this forum would make a lot more sense if you were in our field. They have tried to simplify everything for you, and I believe there was no ill will meant.

It'd be like trying to explain string theory. I can give you simple illustrations, but you would have to really put the time of study and insight as we have done into branding.

[frankster]

http://www.johnlangdon.net/logos/aquarius.gif

http://www.johnlangdon.net/logos/constitution.gif

http://www.johnlangdon.net/logos/interview.gif

simple, clever, balanced, striking. All by a bloke called John Langdon (http://www.johnlangdon.net) by the way. I love his logo work!

I can't think how to further explain to you beyond what others here have as to what makes a good logo, other than to post some images of good logos and hope that you can see the gap between them and yours.

The guy who created the logos above says on his website...


My criteria for logos are as follows. They must be:

http://www.johnlangdon.net/images/hr.gif

Appropriate - They must embody and convey a feeling that represents the nature of the industry at large. Logos for a ballet company, a bank, and a produce distributor should look dramatically different.
Distinctive - They must distinguish and separate the individual company from the competition. An appropriate look that does not draw attention to the unique qualities of the business it represents only serves to support the industry as a whole, and will most likely draw business toward the leader in the field.
Attracting/Attractive - In general, pleasing aesthetics serve any business well. However, the qualities that attract the target consumer may not always overlap with conventional standards of attractiveness, and so “attracting” may occasionally take precedence over "attractive."
Readable/Understandable - Obviously, if letters and words are involved, the consumer must be able to decipher them. But the same is true for pictorial, symbolic, and abstract images. The image must not only portray what the designer and client intended, but every effort must be made to not convey any unintended ideas as well. A word of caution: the more abstract a logo is, the more it is like a Rorschach test. And it's very hard to predict what every viewer will see.
Functional - A logo must perform with equal strength and effectiveness in each of the numerous places it will be used. It must work on the side of the company truck and the business card. It must retain its integrity in crowded environments of competing graphics and colorful distractions. It must work in one color printing and on low-definition TV and computer monitors. These extreme and varied demands usually call for simplicity in design.

[Jeff Fisher LogoMotives]

http://www.johnlangdon.net/logos/aquarius.gif

http://www.johnlangdon.net/logos/constitution.gif

http://www.johnlangdon.net/logos/interview.gif

simple, clever, balanced, striking. All by a bloke called John Langdon (http://www.johnlangdon.net) by the way. I love his logo work!

I can't think how to further explain to you beyond what others here have as to what makes a good logo, other than to post some images of good logos and hope that you can see the gap between them and yours.

The guy who created the logos above says on his website...

I'm also a big fan of Langdon's work - and his advice.

- J.

[tcraw1010]

tcraw, you may not realize how you're coming off in your posts so I'll tell you. Some of your post seem that you are asking us to tell you why your logo is no good. It seems as if you want us to tell you reasons just so you can shoot them down. You come off as stubborn in regard to this logo.

Again, with all due respect - and I really do not want to turn this into an argument - but as I feel I have been unfairly labeled, I feel I am entitled to an appropriate response to cornfed's statements.

Cornfed . . . when have I "shot anything down ??" This seems like more of a personal opinion than the reality of the situation. Again, I have asked questions . . . received responses . . . and then, if needed, asked further questions. What is wrong with this?

Do you know everything about everything? If not, how do you learn?
You learn by asking questions, building upon the responses you receive and, if necessary, asking additional follow-up questions.

I am not "waiting for someone to agree with me." If that was what I wanted, I wouldn't have bothered to seek experienced advice in the first place. I have taken much of what many have said here and tried to research further into the issue. In fact, I've spent a great deal of time over the past two days looking through the hundreds of examples on LogoPond.com.



You also come off as someone who doesn't have a lot of respect for our profession.

I see ... so asking questions = disrespect for your profession?

Please show me exactly where I came across as "disrespecting your profession." Please feel free to quote me directly in support of such an assertion.


Nobody is going to come on here and explain to you the design process, what goes into it and what you get back out of it in a way that you can understand. You aren't a designer.

Which is exactly why I cam here seeking experienced insight, advice and guidance. I did not come here to be incorrectly libeled as someone who disrespects the Graphic Design profession. It is because I respect the profession that I sought out and came to this Forum in the first place.



My air conditioner is broken right now. There is no way in hell that I am going to go to an air conditioning repair site and ask them to 1) tell me it's working when it's not or 2) tell me in detail how to fix it. It would take a lot of audacity for me to do that because they make their money off the fact that I don't know how to fix air conditioners.

Yet, if you went to an Air Conditioning discussion form, why do you feel intimidated by explainign a problem and askign for advice. That is one of the reasons a discussion forum exists - to exchange ideas/information, ask questions and learn from others experiences.


That's their edge on me. So I have to pay them. When they come over here, I will be looking on and trying to get an idea of whats going on. But for the most part, they're on their own.

So, you are upset because I am takign the step of trying to learn about something on my own - through an available resource - as opposed to simply not trying and getting someone else to do it for me?

I have nto asked for any free handouts here. I have sought advice, insight and suggestions from those with far more experience in a particular field than I have. Some would call this "initiative."

Many of the skills I have learned have been through self-starting/self-researched means. For example ... as a result of the exact kind of initiative I described above, I have learned how to build my own drum kit, the basics of website design, incorporate my business (on my own), and develop business relationships with partners toward fulfilling many of the features my business will function upon. Should I have not bothered with any of this and simply hired professionals to do it all for me? There comes a point where such becomes necessary - granted. However, I do not think it fair to be chastized and/or insulted because I choose to ask questions and/or seek advice from those in the know.

Again, I have not before or now asked for any work gratis. I have simply been asking questions based on an issue I am facing .... and I am very appreciative of the guidance and information most have been kind enough to provide for me.


Your questions are fine. But even if I look over the ac man's shoulder til the cows come home, I am not going to leave that experience knowing how to fix air conditioners.

You never know unless you try.

[tcraw1010]

So the long answer is very complex and hard to truelly communicate to the layman without insulting them. What everyone has said on this forum would make a lot more sense if you were in our field. They have tried to simplify everything for you, and I believe there was no ill will meant.

Thank you, Carter. Most of the responses have been msot educational and informative. In fact, I have taken much of what has been shared with me to heart and have endeavored to research further into the examples and theories that have been communicated.


It'd be like trying to explain string theory. I can give you simple illustrations, but you would have to really put the time of study and insight as we have done into branding.

Believe me, I would never try to come across as anything more than a complete novice when it comes to this area. This was my original premise base for coming here - and I not now, nor have ever, expected someone to explain each and every detail of graphic design or, more specifically, logo design.

I took a graphic design course in college - so, although at a most basic level, I can understand and appreciate the skill and artistry that goes into designing - be it an ad layout, a CD cover, or a single letter.

[tcraw1010]

I can't think how to further explain to you beyond what others here have as to what makes a good logo, other than to post some images of good logos and hope that you can see the gap between them and yours.

The guy who created the logos above says on his website...


THANK YOU, frankster !!!

That point-by-pont description is most helpful and educational.


I've been doing exactly what you mentioned in looking through dozens upon dozens of quality logo designs (mostly on http://logopond.com/all/ thus far). The more I research and try to learn, the more I understand how complex a process this can truly be - regardless of how simple the end-result logo may appear to the general eye.

[cornfed]

Well, true .... but when boil it down to it's most basic elements, it's really only just a chosen font and, in some cases, a complimentary element (i.e. red circle, squiggly line, color choice, etc.)

Mind you, I am not diminishing the element of creativity and market-research ... just analyzing the most basic elements of a chosen logo. When it comes right down to it, it doesn't seem like it should be all that complicated of a formula.
Look, I have no desire to argue with you either. As a matter of fact, I won't argue with you. It's fine that you're trying to figure this out. The statement that I am quoting you on is the one that comes off as a "How hard can it be?" attitude. I'm all for you trying to wrap your mind around logo design. But, I find that the attitude portrayed above doesn't lend credit to the years we have put in to studying typography, color theory, spatial relationships, current markets/trends, and a hosts of other issues that are involved in any sort of graphic design. It's fine that you want to know the answers to all of the questions you are asking. It's arrogant for you to feel like you can pick up on these concepts in a short amount of time, master the necessary software and create a successful logo for your business venture.

Honestly, I never thought something as seemingly simple as a logo would take as much thought and development as it does. I would like to ask this, though . . . can not a logo (even if somewhat similar to another) build it's own branding strength based on the strength of the business, how it's marketed, reputation, etc?
It seems like you are asking questions in order to justify the continued use of the logo that we have all told you is not up to par. The statement quoted above implies that you could throw anything together and if marketed correctly then be successful. I know it's a question, but it implies an attitude that designers encounter all to frequently.

So, you are upset because I am takign the step of trying to learn about something on my own - through an available resource - as opposed to simply not trying and getting someone else to do it for me?
I'm not upset at all. I'm just telling you out it's looking from the chair in my office.

I see ... so asking questions = disrespect for your profession?
I have repeatedly stated that your questions are fine. But the answer to your dilemma isn't going to come from a question and answer session. While you're asking questions, trying to figure out how you're going to handle this, other people are out there selling custom instruments and you're losing business. Eventually it becomes an unfair trade-off and the scales are tipped in a favor other than your own. Honestly, I could care less if you go out and design your own logo. Do it and market the hell out of it. I'm saying that you would be better served in the long run if you let a professional designer put together a logo for you in exchange for money and you focus on what you're allegedly good at - selling custom instruments. I'm not going to try to fix my air because the end goal is for me to be cooled off. The most efficient and cost effective way for me to do that is to call a professional and lay off the trial and error side of things. I've already been out there poking the fan with a stick to get it to kick start. It worked the first few days, but now it's not working for me anymore. I think that if you try to do this on your own then you are going to end up spending gobs of money on marketing that probably won't work and then be way behind because you not only have to build your business back up but you also have to re-brand yourself and combat everything that goes along with that process.

This doesn't need to turn into an argument. But try to listen to what everyone is telling you and not feel defensive. Nobody's trying to attack you. I'm really just trying to explain to you how I see it and what I think you need to do in order to solve your problem!

[imann08]

Those John Langdon logos are great examples of how it can be simple but good. Especially that interview logo. That one is great. Hopefully by looking at those the idea we are trying to get across may click.

One thing I learned by learning this stuff is that what may look easy isn't easy at all and it can be very difficult to explain to a layperson. This stuff isn't fun a lot of the time and especially when something as important as your own company is what you are working on. Since this is something that will be used for a long long time, getting outside help is not a bad idea at all. It may seem like a lot to spend on something like this now but spread it over the life of your logo and it's not that bad. Especially if it successful as opposed to not.

[budafist]

I love that interview logo too. It's simple and clever.

[Exodus]

My opinion can be summed into one glorious word that describes the essence of my standpoint on your logo and reactions.

Blarg. (http://www.zombo.com)

[Drawing a Blank]

I've got popcorn anybody want some, Kool I told you I would bring enough the next time.

Actual quote from customer who wants illustrations;
"These look so simple why is it going to cost $XXX.XX. Never mind I'll do them myself."
Three days later he called me and asked me to do the illustrations, I told him the price had gone up.

[carter the artist]

I've got popcorn anybody want some, Kool I told you I would bring enough the next time.

Actual quote from customer who wants illustrations;
"These look so simple why is it going to cost $XXX.XX. Never mind I'll do them myself."
Three days later he called me and asked me to do the illustrations, I told him the price had gone up.


Yeah, this happened to me too. I was in discussions with a friend, who was a partner in a family business. I was going to give him a Great Deal on a complete stationary package. However after he talked to his dad, a partner, I was told they would just pay XXX amount for a design. After I did the design exactly as they wanted it (I looked at this as an illustration job now not a design job) his father said something along the lines that he could have done that himself in CD.

But i got paid. that's all that matters.

[Ned]

Actual quote from customer who wants illustrations;
"These look so simple why is it going to cost $XXX.XX. Never mind I'll do them myself."
Three days later he called me and asked me to do the illustrations, I told him the price had gone up.
Yes, I've had the same thing happen a number of times... Or else they'll say, "I'll just find somebody cheaper". Or... "I can just get a student to do this for $50."

[Exodus]

Yes, I've had the same thing happen a number of times... Or else they'll say, "I'll just find somebody cheaper". Or... "I can just get a student to do this for $50."

That usually translates to "My 14 year old nephew with pirated software."

[Ned]

Yes, but they do come back when they realize the mistake they made. :D

[budafist]

Or worse, with MS Paint.

[Ned]

Yeah... What's worse than designing with pirated software is designing without the right software, and not knowing the difference.

[carter the artist]

Hey I love the companies whose logos are designed in MS Paint. i had to deal with one when I was a printer. It was silly.

[InZenith]

Perhaps these 'would be artists' like to think they are going old school and bringing it back to basics :p