Branding Crisis
I'm going through a bit of a branding crisis here, and I need you guys' help!
I love the personal touch with my actual signature, it fits easily in the borders of the branded photos here on the blog, but its so boring. However, sometimes simple is better.
I love my original logo, because it seems much more professional. Its just that it doesn't seem to fit well on the website. There are also a few hidden secrets about this logo. The 2 palm trees not only describe our nature of being laid back, but they stand for my wife, and my son Max. The moon and the stars have always been an amazement to me as well.
Which one do you guys like better?
1
2
or
3
The new 2008 logo.
2
or
3
The new 2008 logo.
8 comments:
The # 1 Logo is the best. Why?
It has Class.
It is generic.
Nick or Nichlous should be reserved for friends and family - in business no matter how casual, familarily breeds contempt.
The first logo can be used no matter how large an organization you become - think BIG.
Numbers 2 and 3 denote a one man operation without much seriousness to the organization.
These are only an Old man's theory, although I do have some background in brand identity having worked for one of the greatest - Coca-Cola.
Ed
Ed, it's always a pleasure to see your comments on this blog. Very refreshing. Interesting the way you put it.
I agree with Ed and actually has me rethinking my first name being included in my logo. It has simplicity and professionalism all over it.
I disagree with 'Taxman'... you want your logo to be memorable... NOT generic.
#1 does not have class at all - it looks sloppy imho.
We are in a personal business, and want our clients to know us and treat us like we are part of their family... so the formalities have to end - they will call you by your first name at some point.
Besides, when your biz grows and the value of what you offer grows with it, it allows your name to have more meaning and value. Which is all what branding is about.
I say #2.
; )
Uggh....so frustrating! Thanks for you guys responses!
I agree with Johnny. This is a personal business, one-on-one, and having a brand identity that is all about YOU is the most desirable of all. Take a look at the biggest names in photography today. ALL of them are branded on ONE PERSON'S name. Jessica Claire, Becker, David Jay. Ultimately, what is your business plan? ARE you a one-man operation? Or is your business a photo factory? If you ARE a one-man show, then capitalize on YOUR name. You will be easily remembered and easily found. I totally disagree with taxman that a one-man operation lacks "seriousness." A one-man operation, to me, sounds like a great way to get PERSONAL attention from the BOSS. I like the simplicity of #1, design-wise, but I'm not crazy about the initials. I'm also not too fond of the palm tree logo as-is because it looks too much like clip art and not personal to YOU and what you do. I think you should consult with a graphic designer, give her your ideas and your palm tree logo, and let her run with it. Keep in mind that you need a logo that will work on many platforms, so simpler is better. It needs to be easily transferred to a one-color design (the palm tree logo as-is doesn't). I agree with Taxman that the first logo has a certain class (I love the colors and the font) but it needs to be taken a step further to personalize it. Generic is not your style of photography.
I totally have to agree with Jules here. One thing about logos, people (who are not graphic designers by trade) usually want to make them way more complicated than they should be. Your 08 logo is WAAAAAY too complicated--the reflective text is hard to read, and on the other ones while I like the symbology of the palm trees and moon I think the extra embellishments along the bottom are overkill. In reworking your branding, a good graphic designer will reduce the logo to its simplest parts, removing everything that is incidental (because it takes attn. away from the important parts), and then rework the rest of it so that it gets the message across easily and can be used a bunch of different ways (dif colors, dark or light, with or without text, etc...).
The logo entry on wikipedia has lots of good info about what a logo should and should not be. Here is another one: http://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/logos.cfm
++
FWIW, Lauren
You guys are totally right. Going to stick with number 2! Thanks so much!
Post a Comment