Help me pick a DWF Computers Logo!

Dixie's logo:

Moki's first logo:

Moki's second logo:

Dave's logo:

Franks ad with included logo is HERE
Please be sure to read this post about the ad: http://www.cigarpass.com/forums/index.php?...=60&#entry93465


Please be aware that, although I value everyone's opinion here, I have a number of local contacts here that will also be "voting" on their favorite logo. However, ultimately, the decision is mine. I'm just trying to figure out what everyone else is thinking about my logos.

Thanks in advance to everyone that participates, and please feel free to post any comments you may have.

Dave

[btw, I did not make the logos in question; don't want to take credit for that, I just had a friend of mine do them]

My suggestion is go with the second Beannie logo -- but if you want a more serious, corporate image, cut out the beannie, as lbrief did in his ad. His ad is soooooo much more professional, attractive, and will be much more effective than your original ad, IMHO.

(not trying to insult you, please don't take it personally).

I'm all for anonymous voting, but I'm just curious - who voted to keep my logo as-is?

Dave

Out of the logos you listed, I like your original one the best. It's classy and professional. It's plain... sure. But if I were a potential customer, I'd be more enticed by that logo than any of the others.

Take that for what it's worth.

vewyphishy said:

Out of the logos you listed, I like your original one the best. It's classy and professional. It's plain... sure. But if I were a potential customer, I'd be more enticed by that logo than any of the others.

Click to expand...

UGH!!!!! Pokes eye out with fork. If you want a plain text logo, chop the beannie out of the logos my friend made, but for the love of god, don't use a logo with a drop shadow like that, color gradient through it, improperly kerned Palatino typeface, and no shadow on the second part of it.

I mean no offense to you, Dave, I couldn't do any better myself, it's why I took photography and not graphic design. But that original logo... ouch.

Geez, tell us how you really feel about it. :lookup:

DaveWF said:

Geez, tell us how you really feel about it. :lookup:

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm only saying it because I'm trying to help. I went way out of my way to at least attempt to get you to rethink the ad, even if you don't use any of the stuff we generated for you, I'm glad i did.

The ad that lbrief (Frank) designed for you is excellent; you'd be well-served by going with a slightly cleaned up version of it, IMHO.

I voted for mokiII logo. But to tell the truth, either of the Logos that moki's friend designed would be great.

Here is why I voted this way...

The ad that Frank designed is awesome, I love it, without the color is the way I would leave it. But now add the Beanie Logo WITH color, the logo then becomes the only color in the ad. Now when one of your service vehicles is seen on the street (you can do this with your car and your wifes for now, then when you need to hire help...) that Beany on the door will remind them of your ad, they will remember what you do and look on your door sign for a number to call you.

:thumbs:

Congrats Dave. lookin good!

-Top-

Voting doesn't top a post and I don't want this to get lost until after the weekend.

Dave

OK - you asked for it... I'm going to give the opinions from the perspective that I would if one of my graphic designers presented these internally (to just me and other team members) at a comp review in preparation for a client presentation later on in the day or something:

1) If one of my designers showed me your logo as a potential one for a client, they'd probably be fired or at least be forced to by many many rounds at the bar across the street. IMO... Moki actually is going easy on you...

2) Dixie's logo also doesn't meet minimum standards in terms of graphic design. No way I'd even consider it as anything but a rough sketch for a future idea - but I wouldn't string up the designer, just snarl at him/her.

3) Moki's logos both meet design standards and are excellent pieces, but they meet the following overall design goal: "Give Dave's company the image of a professional and polished, but slightly quirky feel - label him as a professional nerd". If that's what you're going for, either of Moki's logos work great!

However, my problem with this process is that I think you need to stop and figure out your design and brand requirements. Most opinions you're getting are not on graphic design, but opinions on the design goals themselves. This is why so many people are picking Moki's logo without the beanie, IMO - because they disagree with the "quirky" and "nerd" parts of your non-explicit design goals.

The core of any design project is to meet the design goals of the client, and yours were not clearly stated (in your thread) and your goals have been assumed from the start and never explicit as far as I could see. If you agree with the overall branding statement I made above, choose the first beanie logo. It meets that goal quite well. If you think that your branding goal should just be "Give Dave's company the image of a professional and polished technical firm" - then I'd choose the second beanie logo or start over (preferably the latter, if budget allowed).

The reason I'd pick the second one where the beanie is separate, is because disassociating a logo-mark and the stylized text of a logo weakens the overall brand statement. I don't think that the cuteness of it would be retained long-term, so I'd choose the one that let's me discard the beanie later over time if I wished. In other words, I'd pick the second beanie logo because I'd want to sabatoge it and undercommit to the mark.

If I was out of budget, then I might just launch with the Moki logo without the beanie altogether, which leaves me with a solid basic and professional word-mark - but that would irk me a bit, as the text as currently designed was not meant to stand-alone - and is a bit weak without the mark.

Regardless, at the end of the meeting - I'd scold everyone (and then buy them a beer) for not clearly getting the client's design requirements before they brought in the graphic designer. Ironically, Moki probably had as many revision cycles on this project as a normal (albeit a small) logo project - which illustrates why the design process always benefits from at least some formality. At least: Make sure you know what the client wants and gather detailed design requirements before you start design - otherwise, everyone is not only debating graphic design, they're debating the core values you want to express.

Lastly, Frank's ad did a good job overall. The ad is pretty old-school and content focused - and I'd give it a thumb's up or down depending totally on the type of customer you were targeting as well as the planned publication or method of distribution. e.g. This ad in a newspaper with a target audience of small business owners in a medium to small city/town... Nice Job! Again, I can't give an opinion on graphic design very well unless I know what the design goals, customer goals, sales goals, marketing environ, etc - all are. Anyone who tells you a graphic designer doesn't need to care about your business plan - needs to kick their designer in the ass.

My last point (which disagrees with some other posts made in the other thread): No company should ever short-change the design process in terms of process itself. Formalize your goals, including overall business, sales, marketing, etc - and let them drive everything you do. Nothing is arbitrary, and opinions don't mean much - unless those opinions are attempting to measure against your goals. You might not be able to afford the best (or any) graphic designer, but if you define your goals explicitly and well - you'll always be a success.

*whew*

Yeah - I know... I give the word "long-winded" new meaning. I really tried to stay out of this... but just couldn't help it in the end. The funny part is, this is my condensed version.

Cheers,

- Oak

oak said:

OK - you asked for it... I'm going to give the opinions from the perspective that I would if one of my graphic designers presented these internally (to just me and other team members) at a comp review in preparation for a client presentation later on in the day or something:

1) If one of my designers showed me your logo as a potential one for a client, they'd probably be fired or at least be forced to by many many rounds at the bar across the street. IMO... Moki actually is going easy on you...

2) Dixie's logo also doesn't meet minimum standards in terms of graphic design. No way I'd even consider it as anything but a rough sketch for a future idea - but I wouldn't string up the designer, just snarl at him/her.

3) Moki's logos both meet design standards and are excellent pieces, but they meet the following overall design goal: "Give Dave's company the image of a professional and polished, but slightly quirky feel - label him as a professional nerd". If that's what you're going for, either of Moki's logos work great!

However, my problem with this process is that I think you need to stop and figure out your design and brand requirements. Most opinions you're getting are not on graphic design, but opinions on the design goals themselves. This is why so many people are picking Moki's logo without the beanie, IMO - because they disagree with the "quirky" and "nerd" parts of your non-explicit design goals

Click to expand...

Very well said Oak, I agree completely. A logo not fitting in with a branding goal is different than it not working in a design sense.

The safe route would be to do what lbrief has done and just use the text of the beannie logo in the ad, if you feel the beannie is not "professional" enough for the image he wants to portray. I'll say this though, I've found that a bit of humour backed by excellent service is a great combination for a business.

Much depends on the image that Dave wants to portray for his business. Since we didn't get much in the way of guidance on this, we decided to infer it from his "nerd for hire" comments. More information on the image he wants to portray would be very helpful in the design process.

Regardless, I think lbrief did a great job on designing an ad that'd do very well, in color or b/w -- it's quite traditional and conservative, but it looks nice from a design point of view, and is much more organized and professional looking than the original ad.

Alright Dave, my friend is not happy that you're not happy with the 8 logos she delivered. She wants to do some additional design concepts, HOWEVER -- we need feedback from you on what kind of image YOU want your logo to portray.

In addition to any design parameters (more horizontal, more vertical, b/w vs. color, etc., we need to know how you want the logo to feel. Do you want it to be serious, all business? A touch of whimsey? Something that is technically oriented?

For instance, the beannie logo works from a design point of view, but is it too cartoony for you? Is it a bit too much on the whimsical side of things?

Unless we have some guidance, we're just shooting in the dark here. Let me know. Oak gave you some very good advice in his post.

For instance, out of these logos, which ones are more in the direction you want to go, in terms of the look/feel? Not the *design* necessarily, but the image they give off in terms of professional/whimsical/technical, etc:

http://people.ambrosiasw.com/~andrew/dwf_logos.jpg

From a consumer's point of view, I chose your original design, Dave.

Dixie's design was too "unprofessional". Moki's friend's designs just don't strike my fancy from a consumer's point of view. Your original design is both professional looking and catches my eye, without making me think about an Underdog cartoon.

But, have to say that I actually like Frank's ad. I think it targets the audience you had originally designed your ad for. It's professional looking and catches the eye. An ad does not always have to include the same logo you may use for business cards, promo items, etc. IMHO

Matt R said:

From a consumer's point of view, I chose your original design, Dave.

Click to expand...

...and a scream of pain from graphic designers was heard echoing across the world...

But, have to say that I actually like Frank's ad. I think it targets the audience you had originally designed your ad for. It's professional looking and catches the eye.

Click to expand...

Yep, Frank's ad is a good one, there's no doubt.

An ad does not always have to include the same logo you may use for business cards, promo items, etc. IMHO

Click to expand...

So much for branding... honestly, anyone in the marketing profession will give you exactly the opposite advice.

Moki, thanks for the offer to rework the logo, but I have less then 1 week to have the finished product in to the printers and whatever is decided still has to be incorporated into the ad. Please note, however, that I never said I was not happy with the logo. I took what I considered to be the "top contenders" and placed them up for a vote. It has been everyone else that has been criticizing (sp?) it. If I didn't like it, it would never have even been in the poll.

Also, I'm sure other people have noticed that you seem to take anyone's opinion that is different then yours very personally. Remember, not everyone is a graphic designer or in marketing. And I'm sure that not all graphic designers would be as offended as you have been from
a. my original logo, and
b. anyone supporting my original logo.

I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, just that you should perhaps tone it down a little. But hey, I'm no expert on people... that's just my opinion

Anyway, I hope you don't take that to pesonally. I really have been happy with the logos that I put up for review, and there's still plenty of time left ot vote. I'm planning on leaving the poll up and active through the weekend.

And for what it's worth, the things that I value most about my business are that I'm very personal with my clients, friendly, professional (while still dressing fairly casual), and yes a little nerdy too. Certainly a logo will keep my ads memorable, but I'd rather they remembered me and my service then anything else.

Dave

DaveWF said:

Also, I'm sure other people have noticed that you seem to take anyone's opinion that is different then yours very personally. Remember, not everyone is a graphic designer or in marketing. And I'm sure that not all graphic designers would be as offended as you have been from
a. my original logo, and
b. anyone supporting my original logo.

Click to expand...

Nope, I don't mind people having an opinion different than mine at all -- for instance, I love lbrief's ad, and have stated such repeatedly. It's simply well-done.

I do find it amazing and fascinating that anyone would pick your original logo, however. As an exercise, show it to a few graphic designers -- Oak nailed it head on, any graphic designer that put forward a logo like that would be fired.

I've shown these logos to numerous graphic designers that I know (who aren't registered here, and obviously can't vote), and the opinion has been absolutely 100% in line with Oak's and my opinion. Oak's in the business, I do hope you'll give his credence the weight it deserves.

That isn't something you should take personally; most graphic designers couldn't possibly do any of the things you can do with computers, so it isn't a surprise that the reverse is true as well.

The entire reason I got involved to help you at all is that I didn't want to see you go to press with the ad/logo as you had it originally. I'm telling you plainly, they are both bad. That's why I decided to get involved and help.

I'm sorry if that offends some people, or you personally, but it's the truth.

btw, lbrief noted something interesting; every time I say something bad about your original logo, someone votes for it. I think there's more involved here than just which logo is best.

This would be a pretty interesting psychological study actually. "Screw that guy, he's being mean, I'm voting for the original logo out of spite" heh.

Four years of art school and my opinion shoots pain through the hearts of graphic designers.

A logo is not the prime directive of branding, it is just one part of it.

You have seemed to take all the opinions quite personaly though. Lighten up. Dave isn't frickin' Microsoft. He's a small business, in a smaller community, where personal relationships effect business much more than a flashy logo or branding.

Matt R said:

You have seemed to take all the opinions quite personaly though. Lighten up.  Dave isn't frickin' Microsoft. He's a small business, in a smaller community, where personal relationships effect business much more than a flashy logo or branding.

Click to expand...

This is certainly true; but why bother doing it at all, unless you want to do it right?

Both myself and my graphic designer friend spent an awful lot of time trying to prevent (in "Queer eye for the straight guy" terms) a graphic design disaster. Guess we should have just left well enough alone.

I am not taking the opinions expressed here personally (I didn't work on these logos myself, nor do I like many of them that my friend did), other than being personally offended (from an aesthetic point of view) by the original logo/ad.

I'd be elated if he went with lbrief's ad, for example, which isn't something we had a hand in, simply because it is well done, and looks good.

The beany is what people will remember. That's a good brand... like the peacock was on TV for all those years, NBC I think, the michelin marshmallow man, Pillsbury Doughboy, Energizer bunny etc etc. You think those companies were worried about whimsy? NO, and I'll tell you why. The clever logo doesn't always sell your product or make people buy or define your company, it notches the consumer brain which remembers the logo and stores the pertinent information about your company right along with it. It's a handhold, a bookmark, a place saver for what would otherwise be transitory information. Keep nailing them with your logo and you won't have to introduce yourself, they'll know. Lose the beany at your peril, Dave.

NA