Of course, but eventually the logo and brand identify (as distinct from the brand in its entirety), do become imbued with the emotional capital the brand has built and if you need to change the logo later, it can be more awkward.
1 Like
Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, and many other successful companies, as you know, started with terrible logos, but that’s because their founders didn’t know any better at the time. As they grew and became successful, they all spent a small fortune on retooling their visual branding in an effort to correct their original mistakes.
When a start-up is fortunate enough to understand the importance of appropriate visual branding, it can avoid those initial costly mistakes and get something that can seamlessly evolve as the company grows.
There’s no reason to “get bogged down in the logo.” Just hire someone who knows what they’re doing and let them take the lead.
Now that @sprout ripped the bandage off the discussion, as he often does, yeah, both of the @loop’s logos sort of suck (sorry, Loop). The second one has potential, I think, but the typography is nothing short of horrible.
I think the infinity symbol could work since the company name directly suggests it. Still, I probably wouldn’t include it as a symbol within the name, even though I initially suggested it. Those kinds of solutions often fail to work out. Instead, I’d probably concentrate on designing a stylish, fluid-looking infinity mark as a stand-alone logo and spell out the name separately. Then again, I know almost nothing about the company, its product, its market niche, its goals, or its personality — literally nothing that I’d need to know if I were designing it.
At a previous job, we hired Lindon Leader, the designer of the FedEx logo, to bring a fresh perspective to a branding project. During our initial sit-down discussion, I asked about the FedEx logo and whether it was an accident that was only discovered after the fact.
As you probably know, the company was originally called Federal Express, and its logo wasn’t horrible, but it wasn’t good either. They wanted a new logo, but Lindon told them their name was the biggest problem and that they needed to shorten it to be more catchy.
They resisted the suggestion, but he drew up an idea using the FedEx name. If I remember correctly, they still didn’t want a new name until Lindon pointed out the hidden arrow, which suggested that FedEx, the company with the no-nonsense, snappy name, was solely focused on moving packages from here to there as efficiently as possible. It supposedly clinched the deal.
1 Like
Hey Just-B, please don’t be sorry, this is the kind of straight talk I was hoping for. I really appreciate everyone weighing in during their valuable free time. The note about the logos is heard; I will refine based on the input. 
@Just-B I don’t disagree that a strong identity early on can save a company rebranding costs later. But my angle was more that a logo by itself doesn’t carry the weight it only makes sense as part of a bigger identity and a product that actually works.
So sure, refine the logo now, but I’d say don’t obsess over it. Build the service, let people trust it, then the visuals can evolve naturally and with purpose rather than being forced at the start.
1 Like
Wow, seems like I’m the only one that thinks #2 has potential with some refinement.
@loops I’m curious. Which one did you do and which one did your partner’s daughter do. I suspect you did #1.
I liked 2 too