Logo Factory

I didn't "recognize" you at first until I looked at your name. Cool!

suzanne maestri-walters :: graphic designer :: www.onegirlcreative.com

Thanks! Yeah, since I'm a bass player I built a bass for myself and dubbed it 'the bass of my dreams'. I'll never need another bass, hence the avatar. :)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

Very clever indeed. =P

Can you build me a loft in SoHo???? LOL

suzanne maestri-walters :: graphic designer :: www.onegirlcreative.com

Sure! A very, very tiny loft. :)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

BUT. Look at it from the clients point of view:

TWO THOUSAND FIVE hundred dollars for a logo (it MUST be good, the designer down the street was charging me the same / less, BUT, see next point...)

I get it in TWENTY FOUR hours.

I get to choose from FIVE preliminary designs.

Plus a bevy of additional services added on to the price tag. They guarantee no clip art, and from the look of it, some of the logos ain't that bad really.

So, a company with seemingly endless manpower, resources the average designer can only dream of VS regular designer Joe. It isn't about the output of the project (cause some clients wouldn't know a good logo from and EXCELLENT logo), but the service looking attractive to the client, the ease of the whole procedure. I mean, let's face it, a lot of clients can't deal with the design process, and just want us to do as much as possible with the least. So the Logofactory seems like a good solution to this for them. My question would be now: How do we take back that market, or how do we compete with the LogoFactories of the world?

Unless you churn out logos like a factory I wouldn't recommend taking any of this business. It's no good for the designer (no portfolio stuffing here!) and the client gets a substandard logo. It's not that factory logos are bad, they just aren't original.

Aren't good logos original and timeless? I don't think LogoFactory provides this. This is what you pay for when you get a designer or real design shop to do research for you. You wouldn't want to accidentally copy the Quark logo for your brand (just an example) would you? :)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

Amen. And what about personality? I found the logos, albeit professionally rendered, lacking life. The Logo Factory has forgotten to factor in the person-to-person contact and team development synergy.

ciao
3dogmama

You tell 'em, 3dogmama. =P

suzanne maestri-walters :: graphic designer :: www.onegirlcreative.com

1) if you want a logo critique, put it in the critique section
2) if you want people to come up with business card ideas, then hire a designer. they'll help you develop a whole identity package, from business cards to letterheads and envelopes if desired.
____________________________________________
Architectural Technician - Multimedia Designer
www.ArchMedia.us

Ditto. Link farming is frowned upon here at cb.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

Interesting to hear it from the source. Thanks for posting.

How do you respond to the criticism that your 'logo factory' lowers the bar for logo design as well as prices? Sure, you're responding to market need, but the market isn't always right (see www.no-spec.com for an example of this).

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

I want to thank you very much for taking the time to comment in this thread. I also want to point out that Logo Factory wasn't being targeted per se, but rather being used as an example.

I like the fact that you came from humble beginnings just as most (if not all) people on CB. Your website does in fact make you guys look bigger than you are, which as you've stated is a good and sometimes bad thing. You've created a name brand and service that people are attracted to (even discussing in a forum) and that in itself is an excellent sign that you've done something right.(Of course, appearing in Design publications sure helped as well) Knowing how you've begun however (one man operation versus corporate big wigs who decided to try this "design game" to see how much money they can make) does put a more human face on your company.
Your business model does come off as "The fast food of design" but you bring up a valid point when you state you would spend most of your time answering the million dollar "How much does a [...] cost?" question. Your business model actually saves you from a lot of hassle.

I guess it would be safe to say that The Logo factory can be seen as one big team of freelance designer creating designs as opposed to one big corporate identity churning out logos all day everyday. Another of my concerns was if businesses such as yours (and many others it seems, as each day goes by more and more in fact) have a bigger (unfair?) advantage of having a team of designers to help come up with ideas. As I noted up top, some of your designs are really pretty good and no where near clip-art quality. No where near the time of stuff you'd expect a big corporate design entity to come up with. But let's face it, a one man operation, such as myself for example, would have a hard time coming up with string, or even reasonable logos, within 24 hours. My point was would companies such as LF make "mom and pop" design shops or one man operations lose business with a better business model promising faster, more cost effective logos at a more consistent rate. Upon reading your post, I can actually see the only people who might have to worry about competition from companies such as LF would be big design firms offering those 500$ lunches to prospective clients.

In regards to the "imagine working for a company like this" comment, again, the image one gets from perusing your site is one of a big corporate machine trying to phase out the small time designers in the industry. Dozens and dozens of designers chained to their desk all in nice little rows churning out logos like its nobody's business, taskmaster vigilantly watching over them. I just hope you don't feel like you had to come here and defend yourself, but rather come here and shed some light and educate us about the nature of your company.

It goes to show that no matter how big a fish you are (or seem), there will always be a bigger one on top of you.

Sheridan boy eh? Well, anybody who has James Brown working for him can't be that bad! ;)

Point taken. Though I do agree that 'globalization' is happening, I believe that design suffers as a result. Design = commodity as we go forward and it's really unfortunate. We're left with producing quantity rather than quality.

Guess I'll design quality on my own, unpaid, time, eh? :)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

for me, local work comes from mostly from networking and recommendations. how much you can get depends on a huge range of factors. how well you network (i'm mediocre at it, at best), the quality of your work, the local competition, how much actual work there is locally (you'll find more work in DC than peoria), how much effort you put into it, etc.

(applause)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

Well said. You brought up some good points there 3dog, particularly the bells and whistles comment. At the end of the day, the clients satisfaction with a project is outweighed by the respect of your peers in the design community. Too bad you can't pay bills with respect ;)

While I respect Mr. Douglas for visiting with us to explain his company's evolution and operation, all of which was refreshing to learn about, I have to add my applause to this post as well. I think we all spend too much time trying a label ourselves, or cram ourselves into the right niche -- life as product placement, you know? -- rather than accepting our strengths and fearlessly introducing all kinds of potential clients to them. It's usually just a matter of figuring out the right approach. People are people. They'll almost always respond to a quality product, fairly priced, offered by a pleasant and honest person, no matter how rich or corporate they may be. That's my little pep-talk to myself for the morning. Now...on to that Brochure from Hell :-)

Mara

I wouldn't expect you to defend your company name, website, logo, your work or your work history to me, so I find it odd that you wish to belabor this 'Factory' name issue. But no mind. Guess that's the nature of web forums.

Bottom line? At the risk of being contrary, it is what it is. While I'm certainly not in the same league, Industrial Light and Magic use similar imagery though I suspect you wouldn't be so quick to judge them based on the clinical definition of Industrial. Same goes for The Icon Factory, Factory Records, The Factory Theatre, The Comedy Factory, and a host of creative outlets that use Factory in their name, none of which can be defined by "without concern for individuality", a phrase you've claimed is part of the actual definition.

Which, by the way, it isn't.

It does surprise me that a creative type would take such a literal approach to how a name breaks down - if I hired you for some marketing material, I wouldn't actually expect three dogs to design my brochure. And you'd think me daft if I did.

In terms of my history, why the surprise? The vast majority of businesses do fail - not really a big deal. And while I didn't ask, your opinion on my failures seems to indicate that there might be some misunderstanding. Should probably clarify a little further. When I referred to 'freelance' businesses, I didn't actually mean setting up shop, and then failing, as a freelance designer (something which technically can't happen - even a freelancer who has no work is simply between gigs). That's my fault. I guess self-employed would have been more accurate a description (I was always technically a freelancer if picking up the occasional gig is the absolute definition we're going to use). I was actually talking about several design-related businesses that I started solo, after packing in working as a salaried art director for someone else.

First up was a magazine. Tricky industry to begin with, especially in Canada where we have 10% of the US population and face competition from their publications, (supported by advertisers who pay to reach an potential audience of 300 million). That failed due to a recession (early 90s) and a lack of advertising revenue available for established publications, let alone upstarts like mine. In retrospect, it was a stunningly stupid move considering the economic climate of the time. I thought I could wrestle it to the ground through superhuman effort, my positive outlook and previously established contacts and publishing knowledge - I couldn't. Got three issues out. On my own. Then kaput. For anyone that's interested - magazines burn money. And go belly up with amazing regularity.

The other was acting as the internal art department of a mid-sized marketing company who wanted someone in-house without, and here's the nub, paying salary (so I guess I was still technically a freelancer). A quasi-contractor kind of deal. They had many of the "top-dogs" I assume you're referring to (as a Canadian, you may remember the roll-out of the new Northern Telecom brand in the mid-ninties - we worked on some of that - not the logo itself, but a lot of peripheral design material and trinkets). Trouble is, top-dogs sometimes pay in 120 - 365 days, hold the paper on huge A/P and even though I was technically an independent, I ended up financing some pretty large accounts for months on end for the marketing company, rather than the other way around. I've seen these arrangements fail beforehand, but I thought my sunny disposition could conquer a rather 'iffy' arrangement. Again, it couldn't.

I ended up with sizable accounts receivable but very little in the way of cash in the bank - deadly combination for a solo designer (with a wife and two kids). I was nowhere near starving but I had to walk when the cashflow got tight and I moved further and further down the 'to pay' list. Not that I'm blaming them - I was bedazzled by the big fancy accounts, corporate clients and lost sight of the bottom line. I should have known better. Had nothing to do with how much I was charging. It had to do with how I was, or wasn't, collecting what I had already billed. It came down to this - I couldn't afford their business - as lucrative as it seemed on first blush. Trouble is, my freelance had dried up - working as their 'art department' had monopolized my time and I had failed to keep in contact with my small roster of regulars. I had to move back home and start again. I was just naive when it came to how business worked and the realities of day-to-day (working for someone else for a very long time will do that). From that point on, I took deposits. No A/R. No net thirty unless we have a retainer that covers a percentage of the tab. No final payment, no digital. It took me a while to get there. No design forums for advice in those days. Only carping with friends over a few beers. The rest was trial and error. Emphasis on error. And if people can avoid making some of the same mistakes, by reading about mine, well maybe that's helpful in some small measure.

As my failures 'surprise' you, I take it your experience has been different. Which is all fair enough. If you managed to develop a decent sized practice, without mistakes or changes in your overall plan, I salute you. I was never that lucky (though I did learn a lot of valuable lessons). Conversely, if you have made mistakes, or changed your career path, I wouldn't be so bold as to offer my opinion as to the whys or wherefores, without being in possession of a lot more information than can be garnered from a web forum, and probably more importantly - only if you asked.

In terms of whatever subsequent success TLF has had, it wasn't the result of a name change (or, in this context, pricing), but rather getting involved with the Internet in 95/96 and getting a head start on a rapidly expanding, but untapped, market. There wasn't any competition in those days. In fact, there were relatively few designers with websites (to put it in perspective, Google came two years after I posted my first web page) and competition was light until around 2000. We did have a pricing advantage over US shops - currency exchange on $US was almost forty points (alas, that benefit has evaporated) and the US market (early adopters of the Internet) accounted for 97+% of our business. We were getting paid 1.5 times what we billed in $Canadian. Simply a matter of right time. Right place. With a business model - one that I'd kicked around for a few years - that worked in the new environment. Digital artwork could be delivered by e-mail, allowing me to work with clients across vast distances (something which was completely impractical beforehand). All wrapped up with some substantial currency perks. In 1996, it was pretty revolutionary stuff and we were one of the first out of the gate. I'd like to think my cleverness had something to do with it, as well as my earlier experiences, but blind luck was as much a factor as anything else. Nowadays, it's a little harder. Much more crowded field and there's three-and-a-half pages of websites that perform better than us in a Google 'logo design' search. We used to be number one without any effort at all. And while I'd certainly like to be, we're not as much of an issue as people are making out.

In terms of bells and whistles, I wasn't literally referring to shiny dingy things and plastic kids toys. I thought that would have been clear. I was speaking metaphorically about the outward image crap - maybe bling might be a better term (marble, ferns, etc) required if you want to market yourself as the Nordstrom of Design (which was part of the earlier discussion), to account execs who are used to being wined and dined for their business. From my experience (not unsubstantial), the quality of design, while being an important issue to be sure, isn't the only thing in top-dog land. If that were the case, every scrap of artwork and design for 'top-dogs' would be uniformly stellar. It isn't. Some of it is crap. Unfortunately, bullshit networking is part of the equation. Spent many a day on a golf course because Molson & Carling O'Keefe big wigs loved to play golf. (and I frikkin' hate golf).

Conversely, if you can land the majors (you refer to them as 'top-dogs) by cold-calling, without contacts, without the bling, and without holding the paper on sizable A/R, then you are better at this game than I am. As long as our definition of top-dogs is the same, you're managing to do something that many haven't been able to. Cold calling clients is not something that I'm terribly fond of (and to be honest, it pisses me off when people cold call me). If you're blessed with an abundance of confidence to do so, then I'll simply have to take my hat off to you. Again.

This is a lot of effort for someone who doesn't care what people on forums think about his business. :)

Hey, more power to you for your success. I just think that design is in trouble when it becomes a commodity, but creativity itself becomes that as we move to the computer (and industrialization) more and more fully.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

Can't spend twelve or so years on something without some measure of 'caring'. This thread is named after my company. Pretend that it's named after yours. Then read some of the comments upthread and imagine they're talking about you.

You'd probably respond yourself. At least if you believe in your own shiznet.

As I do of mine.

Well that's just my point. If you believe so much in what you're doing, why are you so vigorously defending it? I think its success pretty much speaks for itself. If my company was doing as well as yours seems to be, I could give a hoot less what someone else thinks about it.

I would suggest you trim some of the text from your website. It's wordy! And make the 'buy a logo' link more prominent and in teh left hand column. That's your call to action, not an afterthought.

Anyway, I'm not knockin ya, just curious why you feel you need to defend anything.

Not only that, but you're not the only Logo Factory out there. :)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

I can get fairly scrappy from time to time - and it's hard not to take things personally.

Yeah, I know about the website - wordy as all get out. Not much of an editor I'm afraid (as posts upstairs will attest to). Needs a massive work over, but I spend w-a-y too much time arguing in forums.

My company is actually The Logo Factory (that's the TM anyway). The other's owned by an embroidery outfit from Florida - not even the name of the company. I actually owned that domain but let if go to save a few dollars (stupidest thing I ever did). A few years later, he tried to sell it back to me for $14,000.

Had to decline...

for an online forum, that's the equivalence of an online autobiography..

hot damn..
____________________________________________
Architectural Technician - Multimedia Designer
www.ArchMedia.us

Yeah, you're right.

Apologies for the blather - got a little carried a way.

You know, what it boils down to in these financial hard times—you have to do what makes you money. And if this is providing you with a good living for you and your family, then you know what? Kudos to you!!! I want and hope to be in that same situation, because as I mentioned earlier, I am unemployed (since December) and those unemployment checks are no longer arriving in the mail.

I am trying to research ways to sell "something, anything" on eBay (not graphic design related, mind you) so I can get a piece of that billion dollar pie. So hey, if this is what's doing it for you, Sdouglas, then I say you have nothing to explain. It works for you, and there's plenty of work to go around.

Congrats on your successful venture/business. I'm jealous!!!

suzanne maestri-walters :: graphic designer :: www.onegirlcreative.com

Secretaries with MS Publisher are lowering the bar...

As are execs and sales doods with PowerPoint. :)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

i think you're spot on.

while it would be nice if everyone could always do good design and every company both appreciated and needed it, that's just not reality. i don't think there are many (if any) desigenrs on this board who can say, "i've never done any work that i wasn't proud of." and many of us have held jobs that were composed largely of stuff that was just "grind it out every day" stuff at some point in time.

so the question is... what's wrong with providing simple design serves? even if it's not ground breaking or award winning? there's a big market for it.

many people here may not want to do much of that work, but that doesn't mean it's not valid work. nor does that mean there isn't value to the work. even if some designers don't value it, many clients do.

so we shouldn't get too carried away with bashing the 'commodity' side (not sure that's the best word, but it'll do) of design. for some clients, that's really the right approach. sure, there are some clients who probably *should* care more about design, but that's for those designers who want to do better work to convince them that it should be more important to them. there are also some clients who spend way more on design services than they get a return for. and, as a business, isn't that the bottom line? should a small 1-2 man plumbing company spend $200 on a simple logo that's at least cleanly done, or $3000 for a better one? will the better logo make them $2800+ more?

so we shouldn't get too carried away with bashing the 'commodity' side (not sure that's the best word, but it'll do)

Commodity:
1. an article of trade or commerce, esp. a product as distinguished from a service.

I'd say 'Commodity' is the right word to use according to this definition. Graphic design is a service. We pay taxes as freelancers as a service, not a product. What logo factory (and other companies like it) does is blur this line. No bashing, just the truth.
----
Powerpoint is not a design application

the reason i said that is whether it's a commodity itself is more a matter of perspective. i don't want to get into an argument over this, we can agree to disagree, but i'll explain myself so i don't just leave it hanging.

just because a service provided isn't necessarily as high of a standard as another, and just because a group of people perceive that producing higher volume at lower standard still doesn't change what the end product is. even if it's a lower quality end product, a lower-quality widget is still just as much a widget as a higher-quality widget.

besides, i don't think i want to base my definitions of what is a product or a service on how our govt decides the tax code should tax it. if you've ever dealt with customs categorizations, you'd know exactly what i mean. i once worked on a case for a lobbying firm (in a prior life) where those beautiful russian lacquer boxes (the ones intricately painted with a single sable hair) were categorized by the govt as "miscellaneous paper products" (at a 30-40% tariff, and a category that included kleenex, toilet paper, paper towels, napkins, etc.) instead of as art (a 0% tariff) because the boxes were made of paper mache before they were lacquered and painted. we never could convince them to change that.

on a side note, the tax issue, from my understanding, varies by state. in some states, there are parts of graphic design that are taxable (especially if you provide a final physical product and not just an electronic product). and there are moves afoot in at least some states to change the way design is taxed, something that's generating a lot of controversy in maryland right now.

We definitely disagree. Not sure how you can refute my argument because it's based on the exact definition of 'commodity' but that's your choice I guess...we're hardly talking about the same thing as usual.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

Hope you don't think I'm being overly critical; it's an interesting discussion that's been boiling under the design community for years.

----
Powerpoint is not a design application

Like I said, I agree with BOTH sides of this particular story. Both have valid points. Seriously. I just didn't want it to get out of hand as I truly feel that Sdouglas (albeit rather long) is trying to explain HIS side of the story, since as he stated above, this thread is titled Logo Factory—his business!

I think it's good to hear both sides of any story. It allows us as human beings to be less critical in certain situations because we know the facts.

That's all. It's all good. I still love ya, Nat! =P

suzanne maestri-walters :: graphic designer :: www.onegirlcreative.com

Sweet. :)

----
Powerpoint is not a design application