Hey guys,
I am in the process of developing some identity options for a tech/strategy company. The brief requests a focus on precision, math, and partnership.
I have been playing with some scientific and bonding concepts, and the 3rd one down is supposed to be a => symbol (using the space between the E and the >)-it’s programming language syntax relating to association/bonding.
Let me know any of your thoughts!
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6702/screenshot20100924at114.png
That doesn’t work for me. With part of the logo positive and the other in negative space, even being pointed out, it’s hard to see.
I think the hexagon with dots looks the best, but my first thought is “chemical”
I like the yellow Originate in column 2, bottom row.
The Originate one reminds me of the logo for Imitrex.
As an art director, the first thing I would tell you is that you need to diversify the typographic palette you’re using. I like the font, but you’re limiting your solutions. Clients tend to be a literal bunch and I would assume your clients would especially be so. By using the same gothic sanserif, you are putting all your eggs in one basket and if the client doesn’t care for it, you’ve sabotaged all your options. There are plenty of ways to render tech, especially with an emphasis on precision, math, and partnership. For instance, “precision” would suggest fine, detailed elements that would be a nice changeup from the blocky letterforms and iconography you’re using.
A somewhat subjective second thing is that I’ve never been a fan of setting a name in a typeface and calling it a logo. It goes to the heart of a logo being distinctive. While most of these options do do something more than that, it’s not by much.
I preface the next point by saying that I love simplicity and minimalism. I think, however your range of graphic adornment (with the exception of row 4) are so minimal so as to be vague as to what it’s trying to be telling me. Be especially wary of iconography (=>) you need to explain. Even if your clients get it, you need to be able to rest assured that their customers understand it. That said, while I like what you were aiming for, it’s not successful yet. I think it could be accomplished and is worth another hour figuring out, but it’s not there yet.
I agree with RaftPeople who said that row 4 “reads” chemistry.
Of all I think that row 2 shows the most creativity. I like that it starts to evoke a mathematical function and almost kinda suggests the two portions of the “8” could be “working together” like interconnected gears. The thing that makes me nervous is this gets into renaming territory, which — depending on what they have trademarked, could be at worst infeasible and at best awkward when it comes to customers knowing how to spell or refer to the business. Think of this movie example: is it “Se7en” or “Seven”? If it’s the former, how do you pronounce that? (Mind you, I love the treatment). We’re in an age in which everything is going to be entered into a computer: web search form, database, search field, etc. Your client especially. Just be aware how your logo solution is going to affect that. The same caution applies to row 1 as well.
Not sure what row 5 is supposed to be doing. For that matter, what are the yellow screens showing in general?
I do think that the graphic impact of your work does show a professional sensibility, so I think you’re well on the way to delivering some top-notch options. I just think you need to branch out graphically and typographically a bit.
This is great feedback. B Serum, thank you so much for taking the time to write all of this-it’s what I needed.
I agree with all of your points and will experiment on all fronts.
Row 5 was a quick pass at experimenting with text being tugged up, and creating an arrow pointing up. The client also mentioned that one thing they do with their partnership/technical expertise is take firms to the next level. I think it’s not working though.
I do like the arrow concept, but can you try and connect the E and > so that they are touching? Otherwise it looks more like a prompt to me.
Is there any possibility of some compensation if a winning idea comes from one the Teeming Millions?
It would probably have to be offered to you through privately, though, as anything posted on this forum is legally the property of The Chicago Reader, Inc… so be careful!
Got it. If you like this direction, you could link it exclusively to the “i” and use color to link the normal “i” with the arrow so that it still reads as an “i” but the color will encourage the eye to put them together.
That said, “upward motion” doesn’t sound like the core defining attribute of this group — rather a phrase like “taking a company to the next level” is the sort of generic sales pitch that most companies will claim, so probably not the one that gets to the heart of what makes them special. If fact, that’s something to consider with the “precision, math, and partnership” trifecta as well. I remember learning in school that even a full-page ad has a fraction of a second to convey an idea; so make sure you deliver that one idea as clearly as possible — and leave any other ideas or messages out entirely to avoid a jumbled message. But clients love to say, “We’re this, and we’re this, and we’re also this.” Which is fine, but if an ad can’t tell the novella story, the logo can do even less. So I would be inclined to ask the client “What’s the one most important characteristic this logo should convey?” (If you don’t already know). To use a dining metaphor, you can season that entree with the other characteristics, but you don’t want three entrees.
In case you’re not joking or goBuffalo is worried about copyright…
The Chicago Reader has no more ownership of this work than they would have of Mickey Mouse were a picture of him linked from this site. The artist has implicit ownership of any original work they create from the moment of creation.
Moreover, “ideas” are not copyrightable, especially when they involve translation from verbal suggestions to graphic implementation. Add to that the fact that given the nature of a logo, (s)he’s presumably going to transfer unlimited usage of the mark to his/her client (though (s)he can retain usage for self-promotion and portfolio purposes).
thanks again B Serum. I agree with regards to the moving up not being a core concept, and I think encapsulating the 3 concepts of precision, science, and partnership is hard to do , but I tried to focus on partnership in a precise and scientific-style way if that makes sense?
PS I went to your profile homepage-I love the packaging design work I saw on the first page.
^^ Noted (and thanks), but I’ve just whipped up four graphic prototypes (a progression along the same idea, with additional detail at each stage) and IMHO each one kicks the OP’s portfolio to the curb (no offense intended). My greatest concern is that my basic idea’s so good it’s already been used; clearly, someone would have to conduct a search on existing corporate logos to make reasonably sure it’s sufficiently distinctive prior to submission.
I don’t mind selling it for a relatively nominal sum as a sort of ad-hoc consultant, but I should get something should the idea end up getting used. I once knew a descendant of the guy who designed the Planters Peanut trademark (modelled on FDR during the Great Depression), who was paid fifty bucks cash for it, and I’d rather not follow his impoverished footsteps, if you follow my meaning.
To the OP: please PM me if this intrigues you at all.
:> looks to me like a smiley face. It looks like someone using something ‘in’ way after the fact (like if my mom said to me: word up).
^ using this above a letter makes me think it’s make up you’re selling- it reminds me of Lancôme.
The font leaves much to be desired. The simplicty recalls something Joe Average made on word. It doesn’t have a polished professionally made look to me.
Out of all, the inverted infinity sign is the most interesting.
Not sure if any of them really says ‘originate’ to me all that strongly, except in words.
How about using the concept of ‘origin’ in graph axes - maybe using a shortened Y axis and time’s arrow on the X axis, with the word ‘Originate’ either written so that the O is centred on the graph origin, or so the word is appearing to label, or be underlined by the X axis?
Thanks but I was not really going for illustrating what the name says-not all logos do this). The brief was to focus on concepts of precision, math and partnership. I did sketch out some origin ideas as they relate to math, but was not happy with them.
Makes total sense. You’re thinking the right way.
Thanks, I like them too, but I didn’t do them. There’s a few of us designers over here and those are the work of a talented designer named Jonny (but I am happy to say that my series of self-inking stamps made it into Communication Arts’ 2010 Design Annual! — I’m very stoked about that!)
I didn’t see that initially, and now that you explain what it’s supposed to be, all I can think of is FedEx and the white space arrow in their logotype.
Echoing B. Serum, having to explain a logo or logotype is doom. It’s about as bad as chefs who plate up a fancy dish and then hovers over you to direct you in how to eat it.
btw - the yellow is really hard to look at for any amount of time. I’m seeing spots right now.
My preference is the 1st one in line 3, and I think I like the back on white across the board - the use of the grey is nice with the back.
In saying that, the > looks like a DOS prompt - which to my marketing (but non-technology eye) could come across as old fashioned? But to those in the right field it probably makes more sense.
I agree with comments above that while you’ve got a whole lot of options, they are really playing around with the same elements of colour and the > in different orientations. If an agency presented this to me I don’t think I’d feel like I had enough diversity. I’d normally expect 3 different concepts (of which what you’ve shown would be perhaps 2 - line 4 being the alternative).
I’d perhaps want to see a couple of different fonts - something slightly as modern but slimmer? This font (and the yellow colour) reminds me of Tonka Trucks.
In terms of colour, the yellow looks hazmat to me - like dangerous chemical, or construction. This is particularly the case when you have the > as an accent above the word (line 5) - for me this looks like a construction company or property developer.
What do these look like with a different colour palette? You might want to suggest a couple of different options of complementary colours- and keep in mind that most companies need a negative version (when placed on dark vs light backgrounds) and one that works well in B&W. If most of the identity is tied up in the colour this is lost when things are printed out etc.
The atomy thing - looks to me like an atomy thing. Speaks chemistry or physics.
Unfortunately, I have to say that none of the logos convey the concepts you are trying to suggest…precision, math and partnership, and I am heavily oriented towards those areas.
