With type design, a quest for symmetry needs to account for optical illusions that occur in weight balances.
Below, the left image is the first from your animated GIF. It shows a typical Caslon S. The right images is one of the final frames of the sequence.
In your attempt to make everything geometrically symmetrical, you’ve caused it to look visually nonsymmetrical. The bottom of the S needs to be taller and wider than the top half or it looks unbalanced and top-heavy. The goal should be visual symmetry and balance, not their geometric equivalents.
It’s fantastic that you’re planning to open your own design business.
Regarding the mark - what is it you’re trying to say and to whom are you talking to?
I think these are questions you should be answering first before trying to ascertain whether or not what you’ve come up will be a good fit for what you’re trying to acomplish.
Wow! Thank you so much for your awesome responses.
TL;DR:
I’ve played a bit with a version of this logo that omits the bottom half. I like it, but I think I’ll need to either modify or change the typeface used for the text for it to work well. So far I’m not in love with anything I’ve come up with, but I’ve not been at it for more than an hour. I do have one more idea to explore. After that it might be back to the drawing board.
Regardless of my path forward I think it’s clear that while it may be okay, it needs refinement. Your collective feedback has been very helpful. I am hoping to have more time tomorrow to actually play with alternative designs.
This is the most important question, and might answer others. I’ll do my best.
The target demographic is the DIY/maker/craft community. (PD hit the mark in his second reply.) More specifically, I’d be targeting those within the community who use vector assets as an element or aspect of their physical or digital products. The age range is quite wide here, and the logo is intended to appeal to both ends of that spectrum—sharp yet familiar and approachable. I’m aiming to convey a sense of clean and simple design, with a focus on quality and attention to detail. I’ll be selling similarly styled designs, so this logo should align with that aesthetic.
I like what I have so far, but I know it isn’t perfect. I’m passionate about it, and I feel, at the very least, the logo has “good bones." And that is why I’m here; less because of doubt or indecision and more for constructive feedback on something I feel has potential, but isn’t all the way there.
I don’t have a great reason for it, but I’ll admit this was an intentional decision and not the consequence of a lack of consideration or understanding. Still a rookie mistake I suppose, but an intentional one? In any case, I think I’m trying to turn the S into something it isn’t. I enjoyed the ripple-like appearance that the symmetry invoked, but in the end that’s irrelevant and contributes nothing. It’s still an S.
This is one of the things I was curious about, and now it’s been addressed. I will adjust it in case I end up using the bottom half. Thanks for the input!
I appreciate the honesty. I’ve never really liked the way mirrored Ss look. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it done well, which is not to say it isn’t possible. I’m curious if you’d be willing to share what you came up with. More to the point, did you align the Ss with their spines touching or “face-to-face?”
While I do like the way it’s turned out so far, I’m here looking for objective input because all I have right now is my own very non-objective thoughts. And I’ve been staring at it for too long with the same eyes. Feedback like this is exactly what I’m looking for.
I’m shooting for modern, as opposed to traditional, but PD is correct; I’m not looking to compete with commercial stock sites. I have far too little ambition for that… I hear what you’re saying though, and I partially agree. This has crossed my mind already.
Do you feel there is any room for this concept to evolve, or would you suggest approaching from a new perspective entirely? I’ll share one of my abandoned designs in my next update.
In your honest opinion, do you think that this logo works by just lopping off the bottom half? I’m genuinely curious. If what you first saw, before you scrolled down, was the finished design, what would your feedback have been? I realize this may be a moot question considering what others have pointed out, but I’m curious to know, if you’re willing to elaborate on your original reply.
Thanks again for all the great feedback! I find this extremely fun, and I really appreciate your time!
It was immediately recognizable that they were the tops of two letter esses. If you take the serifs away, that might not be so clear
The extension of the tail over the company name balanced the white space to the left.
The shape sort of went toward carpentry tools (think block plane or handsaw handles,) like someone who might have a shop-bot would latch onto.
Similarly, they look like the top of a monogram which might drag in the crafters, scrapbookers, vinyl plotter users
the sharp point to the right went to the idea of precision. Now you have the laser cutters. (but keep the rounded end. Don’t make it pointy, there’s nothing more frustrating than cutting a sharply pointed logo element on a laser and having the end burn or melt off LOL!)
All in all, I thought it very effective.
Until you added all the confusion of the bottom half, which undoes all of the focus and balance you had.
I feel this logo is quite bold/strong/edgy, whereas I would guess your demo is women… I wonder if you soften it, perhaps a little more feminine…? my 2 cents
Do you think the typeface you’ve chosen reflects a DIY/crafts-related impression? Personally the typeface you’ve chosen for “Strictly Silhouettes” seems super serious and a little boring to me; And while I get that you want it to reinforce the “strict” aspect of the brand, I don’t know whether that will fit with your target audience.
I would suggest you spend some time on Behance and try to look at the world through the eyes of your prospective customer. What brands would they like? What asthetic would resonate with them?
The target demo is hardly limited to women. The people I do vector conversions for are all men. 100% of them. They have everything from lasers to vinyl cutters to shop-bots in their home shops. The makers market isn’t just women’s craft-arts things.
There was something very balancing to me on the very top logo, and just the top half of it, where the solid, but not too heavy typeface used for the name offset the large curves of the esses. It set a good foundation (I’m still ignoring the bottom half as not necessary.)
Thanks for breaking down your thoughts. My impression was that the two halves contributed more to the overall balance of the mark, but your input provides valuable perspective. The more I look at the original, the more it feels overcomplicated. I didn’t add in the bottom half for compensation; I kept it as part of the S, but I’m realizing more that the top half is sufficient on its own. Your points have clarified that for me a bit more.
On certain platforms I believe this is more true. On Etsy in particular, a majority of the sellers/buyers are women. With that said, I think this is a misconception, and the designs I’m looking to sell—the files, really—have a wide range of applicable uses.
I haven’t thought to check out discord, but Etsy is where I’ll be testing out the store first. If I find enough success there, I will explore other options/platforms.
I agree with you, and that was also intentional. I wanted to use something clean and easy to read. A lot of the SVG shop logos I’ve seen are overly complicated and lose legibility at smaller sizes (esp. on mobile). I saw this as an opportunity to differentiate my shop from the rest, again aiming to communicate a clean and simple aesthetic.
@PrintDriver The market I’m entering is a saturated one, and I don’t plan to make a killing. My focus will be on quality over “quantity,” which isn’t necessarily a concern for much of the DIY/maker community. As you’ve mentioned, there’s a high prevalence of sellers offering designs that are obviously TM’d / CR’d, many of which are included in “packs” of 100s or 1000s (yea…), and offered at a very low price. Precision in execution is not the goal here, and potential buyers see a bargain.
My original inspiration for opening the shop came from thinking I could do better—not universally, but in some areas. Whether or not this is a good enough reason to go through the trouble of opening a shop is a whole other topic. “Just good enough” has almost become an athletic of its own and one that I think many prospective buyers might prefer over a sharp, well executed design. I’m looking to test this theory. My conviction is clear, and even if this proves unsuccessful, It will have been worth it to me
For now, I’m perfectly happy with the car I have.
Thanks again for all the feedback! I am actively working on the design, but I’m letting things marinate and crystallize, taking into account what has been pointed out thus far. The goal was never to turn this into an exercise in design-by-committee, but your collective input has been awesome so far. I will post an update soon.
It’s great that you’re giving so much consideration to the legibility, but if that’s what you’re trying to prioritise, why did you include the “SS” in the background? Why not just opt for a logotype instead which would be far more effective as far as versitility and legibility go?
While I think legibility is the most important thing (and I don’t think you should choose some quirky typeface!), I do think you need to give it some character, and the driving force behind this decision should be something that connects with your prospective customers.
Why do you think you need to differentiate yourself from everyone else in this space?
I would suggest you watch this (you only need to watch 5 mins):
Maybe the overall demographic of Etsy is women. Dunno, I only go there for specifically Steampunk stuff which teeters just over the edge of a male dominated demographic (actually it’s probably 50/50.) Same for Discord. I’m probably not your target demographic either and where I work the demographic is mostly men as well. Quite honestly, if I were gonna take this leap I might add 3D .stl print file capabilities. That’s where I see some demand that outstrips supply (again though, anyone that lays out money for a 3D printer starts with some capabilities so yours would have to be above and beyond entry level stuff.)
That’s a good point, and my initial response would be that I wanted to do something more interesting than a logotype, but I know that’s not a great answer. I’m not at all locked to the design I posted. I like it quite a lot, but for reasons that don’t necessarily reinforce its purpose.
Another good question. I watched this whole video; there’s a lot of great info here. I realize the question was probably rhetorical, but my short answer is similar to the woman’s, which is I feel the natural urge to want to stand out amongst a sea of shops that all kind of look the same. I understand the inherent risk in that.
To his point, what I’m offering is not so different to what’s being offered at other shops. On the flip side, I am, to some extent, looking to attract the antelope hunters. Different obviously isn’t always better, but it does often cause people to look. I’m not expecting this logo mark to pull all the weight of the shop; the listings will have to do most of the heavy lifting, as that is what most will see first when searching for a [thing].
Thank you for sharing this with me!
Most of the time I’m in the same boat, usually searching for shop stuff or industrial design (things I can’t afford). I’ve never thought about offering STL files, but that is beyond my scope at the moment. I have an ambition:motivation issue. I’d love to get into 3D designs, but I have too many on-going projects and hobbies.
This reminded me of an exchange I had with a customer a few years back. She insisted I turn her digital photo into a 3D printable file, so she could go take it to the local fab lab. She would not accept what I had to say and argued with me for 30 minutes over whether or not it was possible, let alone feasible. This was after I already spent an hour cropping her questionably-sourced graphics as she hovered over my shoulder.
I’m finally back with an update. I played around with some alternate ideas after considering the input and feedback I received here, and then I took some time (over a month) to clear the design from my head.
I recently revisited the concept, and, while I do still like my original design, I agree with some of you that it ultimately wasn’t working. I played with some text-only variations and settled on a logotype that I quite like. It doesn’t have the sharpness of the original IMO, but it does tick more boxes, in terms of versatility and simplicity.
This logo is currently what I’m using, and I’m curious to know what you think, if you don’t mind sharing your opinion. It’s getting warmer here, but I still have my heavy sweater.
Thanks for looking, again! Hope everyone is doing well.
Firstly, the whole SS thing is more obvious now. Never a good look. The two components show little unity. It’s very bland. Kerning is terrible. Weights and balance are all over the place. And … that S is hideous. So poorly designed, it looks upside-down. Not sure what the font is, but it’s awful.
Sorry you’ve expended so much time and effort on this for me to just slate it, it really is not great.
@sprout I appreciate your feedback! I’m working to address your critiques now. Any mutilation of the font is likely my fault, from messing around with it so much. I do acknowledge that the concept is not exactly inspired, and I’m okay with that.
S’s are difficult to draw. The curves need to flow into each other perfectly with precise balance and correction of optical illusions. The bottom bowl of the S needs to be a bit larger and wider than the top bowl. Your S looks as though it’s about to roll over backwards.
Are the two marks you’re showing meant to be seen together or are they two separate ideas? Separately, I think the bottom one has merit, but as you said, it’s not all that original. Paired with the top one, everything’s out of whack. The split between the black and white isn’t centered on the bottom one, nor do they line up. I don’t see a way to make them work together as a cohesive unit.
I’d also avoid any SS pairings in a logo. Heinrich Himmler’s Schutzstaffel always comes to mind — at least to me.
Thank you B. That was a far more polite way of saying it.
My, somewhat, curt response was likely to do with the unholy hour I was unintentionally awake. So Joseph, I apologise for my brusqueness, if not my content.
