to update my logo or no?
wgzn (1712 pencils) | Thu, 2010-01-14 03:43
ok gang. your turn to rake me over the coals...
i have been using the name "understandinc." for the last decade or so for my freelance "brand"
people seem to enjoy the name and it always generates a variety of pleasant conversations with new clients.
so. i've used the top version since day 1. i like it. it works. it suits my style. BUT, i've been toying around with updating it from a type perspective.
the lower one is the updated version
most of my peers say stick with the original. as its stronger and feels more confident. i agree. but i just cant help but feel the itch to update.
what do you all think? original or update?
by the way. i'm a graphic designer/video producer. here is a link to my static web placeholder:
http://understandinc.com/
have at me ; )
Commenting on this Image is closed.
Really, it makes no difference.
Leaky Penny
Check out what I've been up to lately!
http://petersonjoseph.com
I'm going to print it out and eat it.
-Unknown Artist
I personally like the top one better, but both say boring.
Maybe you can emphasize the @ ---> u . The name is very intersting.
Hi wgzn,
> the company name could be misunderstood and catalogued as starting with @
you could made it different color from rest of the name or make a vertical version too with logo on top, just for consolidate the brand name.
> both: you could test italic 'u' inside @
> first logo has still lower mean line for 'inc' and kerning are not good.
the good: condensed is loud and bring a prompt or ready feeling.
> the second logo 'inc' is more "real italic" and the 'i' ball is rounded; better kerning too. the good: 10 years younger. the cons: seems expensive compared to first logo. xD
yes I'm brazilian xD
I will stand with the upper one, but the 'inc' & (u) logo need some treat.
Thanks!
- 
- 
RANAMAJU
--------------------------------
thanks guys. let me address your comments and ask some more questions. from the bottom up
ranamaju - could you elaborate on "treat"
qwertytale - 1. interesting point about the miscatalogueing due to the @ishness. but in the 10 ish years ive used it. thats never happened. what i DO get sometimes is just understandinG and more often understanding inc. i have tried stacking the two elements and it just felt more like a hotel mark. 2. have tried going italic with the @ element but what ended up happening was the two italic ends made the understand part feel really confined. also tried going italic with just the u part inside the @ and it introduced all kinds of c, e, g, q ambiguity. 3. good point on the "mean line" bit. admittedly i never noticed that. i'll get on that.
4. can you elaborate on "kerning are not good"? 5. the condensed font and tight kerning were intended to do just that - thanks 6. good eye on the true italic! as it is. the top one is just skewed. 7. can you elaborate on "expensive"?
lucas - good suggestion. i had done that in the past, but in the end i just found the similar weight of the two elements more interesting
aroberts - ouch. i do a LOT of corporate work so i intended to keep it fairly approachable and staid. but BORING. i'll give that some thought
and last, leaky - i kind of expected snarky from you. thats kinda where u live.
I figure if you're going to do a refresh of your identify, you'd try something more than just retyping your name in a different font.
You've got an interesting company name and more can be done with it. Emphasise the icon, let it take centre stage. Your established clients will find the new treatment refreshing and a refreshed, "hipper" logo will help attract new ones. Looking at your site right now your work is overpowering your logo. I believe there are varying schools of thought on this, based on looking at web sites and what not: People will have a strong identity but their portfolio is rather bland. Some have understated identities but more prominent portfolios. Then you have the in betweens. I think your work jumps right out whereas your logo seems kinda hidden, so if anything you'd wantot work on it being bolder.
If i had to choose I'd pick the top one though, at least you won't have to reprint your business cards and paperwork because as I said in my comment, there isn't much of a difference.
Leaky Penny
Check out what I've been up to lately!
http://petersonjoseph.com
I'm going to print it out and eat it.
-Unknown Artist
1. how good, It afraid me xD
2. Agree, and you can't use so spaced kerning because the name lenght xD If you have time, try to make a "bottom" with @ and make 2D or 3D with perspective or other effects for web 2.0 use. I think you can valorize it more and will have nothing to lose compared with pasted version ;) I understand the confined feeling, it's not good to add so simmetry, that's we suggested some colour for it too and make more room between two 'u'. Like you need to distinguish the symbol from logotype.
4. If your goal is make the "inc" as an extension of "understand", then you could try to maintain the kerning like the bottom version. And apparently in this version the 'inc' start seems not good. In my opinion, the "verbal reading" effect is enough persuasive, you don't need to graphically explicit the joint. I see the bottom version more stable because you don't feel much difference between two 'u'. The top version is like you'd used three fonts.
6. Yes, the 'n' and 'c' are totally "untrue" xD
7. my first impression is that the second version logo design office is newer with not enough clients and the clients will pay for new furnitures and 27" iMacs xD
yes I'm brazilian xD
When I read it I saw "uu" at the beginning. I would either drop the second non-stylized one, or treat the @(u as a mark, larger and centered above your company name.
@nderstandinc: have it run in the same font, all as one word. For differentiating between the words employ screens or an alternate colour.
I'd still look at working up some more sketches. As noted above, it's an interesting name...
"Art -- the one achievement of Man which has made the long trip up from all fours seem well advised." - James Thurber
thanks leaky. i knew you had more in ya ; )
and im down to like 3 biz cards anyway. it was the need to reprint them (about the only paper thing i use) that started the urgency to redesign...
thanks for the points gang. i gotta tell ya i have files and files of various "sketch" states and have tried nearly everything youve all mentioned at one point or another. but things always end up too homogeneous or too ambiguous and i always end up coming back to where i started. the font change is about the only thing that ever really had any legs. plus i like the idea of using arum sans as opposed to the way overused univers ; )
but if it works it works...
will try a few of the tweaks you guys mentioned and get back with ya.
thanks for the time!
The top one is better, but don't like either to be quite frank. The font in the bottom one is totally inappropriate imho.
But I think there is a better solution to this. The symbol in front of the name reads "uu" to me as well when it's one color like here. It works better in two colors like on your website (love the placeholder idea, btw - I need to do that on my pathetic excuse for a website). Mama's idea about centering the mark over the text was what occurred to me as well - a larger mark and smaller name because that's a pretty long name for one word. The other thing you can try is maybe breaking it down into four layers...
(mark)
under
stand
inc.
Either way - judging by your work on the site, you can come up with something more interesting than either of these two examples.
#1 has some harmony withing the type, though personally I would give some space to 'inc.'
Visually your C on 'inc' looks bolder, and could do with tucking in slightly.
#2 every character looks a bit awkward, especially the 't's and 'd's.
If a type treatment change was all you were aiming for, I would stay with #1
lots of people have mentioned the UU issue, I like the way that it reads "u understand inc(K)", nice play on words, I still think it needs some kind of separation, but I would keep it on the same baseline, maybe a change of colour / shade?
The © (with a 'u') symbol could be developed a lot further, at the minute it's rather staid.
living on dreams and custard creams.
thanks again to all. i have a deadline i have to attend to tonight, but in the next 36hrs or so. i''l put some of your suggestions into a new file to post.
again in a decade or so, ive not had anyone try to read the @u mark as part of the word. but then again 80% of the time its viewed in 2 colors. but being the old curmudgeon designer i am, i have to follow my own rule - if it doesnt work in 1 color. it doesnt work.
as far as developing the @u icon. ive played with perspective and scale and that always looked like it was trying too hard. ive played with hand stamping it - PLAYED OUT! tried pixelating it - better. but still PLAYED OUT. tried sketching and scanning it then tracing the result. neat. but a bit more cheeky than most of my clients would enjoy
i'll keep playing. pay some attention to you guys' suggestions and see how it develops.
keep em comin!
Art D - please elaborate on "The font in the bottom one is totally inappropriate imho."
not wanting to argue. just wonder why you feel that way?
Sure wgzn... First off that font doesn't even look like a professional quality font - for example the u and the n should be rotated versions of the same thing (like in the top example). That flattened off piece on some of the letter arches looks out of whack to me. It's on the n, r, t, and a but not on the u, d or s. It makes the font look amateurish - exactly what a type professional would not want in their logo. It's also not aesthetically pleasing in any way.
As always... jmho.
dont know what to tell you on that one art. as they are both what id consider "professional" fonts. univers from the adobe library for the top version. and arum, purchased from veer on the bottom. and i hate to call you out but youre incorrect about the the u and n thing. they are NOT simply rotated versions of each other (in either face) just to be sure, i ungrouped and flipped the characters and there indeed are subtle differences between them.
and as far as the flattened curve thing, i think what you MAY be seeing is artifacts from the compression. as i guaranty you there are no "flattened off" pieces. but either way, im not sure why a flattened section of a curve would by definition relegate something to "unprofessional" status. in all my years as a designer, i have yet to hear any rule that flattening a curve = unprofessional. in fact according to the theme song from the dukes of hazard, "straightening the curves" seems to be some degree of attractive quality ; )
but i appreciate your hightened sensitivity to type. thats rare these days and there is a lot of schlock out there - cheers!
is it just me, or are you feeling slightly attacked by art's comments on his opinion of the lower font being "unprofessional"? It's just an opinion on the font and I'm sure is no way an attack on you. Just throwing that out there as this comment seems to be getting a bit pushy and passive aggressive.
Big can of worms here - I'll address some of these issues...
.
Professional fonts. Okay, there are tons of companies out there selling "professional" fonts. Obviously any font that the artist made cash on could be considered "professional" - but there ONCE were standards applied to fonts that meant they had to be of a certain quality to be considered for use on the professional level. Read up on ITC if you want more info on that - it's too deep to dig into here. So your top font - Adobe - no problem there. The bottom one? Veer? Never heard of them. Perhaps they are making money off that font, but it does not rise to the level of a professional quality font (IMHO) because the letterforms are misshapen.
.
Which brings us to the "flat" areas on the fonts. First off, being flat has nothing to do with being "unprofessional" - you can have round, square, diagaonal, whatever shape fonts that are still professional quality. That's not my beef here - and it has nothing to do with "compression" or anything other than the way the font was DESIGNED. Let's pick a nice easy to spot area - the underside of the arm on the "r". It's flattened off straight. The top of the bowl on the "a". The top of the tail on the "t". That is what I was referring to - it looks like a mistake - and not a happy one. It also doesn't carry thru the entire font - THAT'S why it looks "unprofessional". Which brings us to...
.
So far as the "n"s being alike in the top font - they might not match perfectly - but VISUALLY they are the same. I checked myself in Illustrator and the Univers n and u are so close you'd need a professional with a magnifying glass to tell the difference. Not true on the bottom font. The width alone is obviously different - the n is wider than the u (for one thing). Font characteristics - on a professional quality font - carry throughout an entire face. So every letter with the hump shape (or reversed hump) - n, h, u, etc... would all have the same width. Look at the top font - the u and the n, while not EXACT mirror images - are the same width and have the same general shape. Not true on the bottom.
.
Okay - so there is my reasoning behind the "unprofessional" comment. Now it could be that you just happen to have a company name that is using some of the oddball letters in the font which makes it LOOK more unprofessional than it really is. Maybe if the entire font was displayed we could figure out WHY whoever designed this font gave the a's that crazy bowl that doesn't match the other letters and why he chose to make similar letters - u and n - totally different widths. But the question has to be asked... WHY? Even if this WAS a well designed font - it's still gawd awful ugly. With all the beautiful fonts you have available... why would you pick THIS one?
.
As always... jmho.
.
.
.
.
PS: Thanks for having my back, Aro. :-)
no. i dont feel "attacked" im just questioning the logic behind his opinion.
i know that by offering up my work for critique that im opening myself up to the possibility of unfavorable reviews. but likewise, anyone who offers a review has to understand that their review may also be called into question.
and art d is simply incorrect in this case. though as said above, that may be due in part to compression artifacts in my image.
so no offense taken - and none intended.
It's an opinion though and as opinions, there really isn't a correct or incorrect evaluation of a font.
agreed. i try to never argue opinions, but his comments were presented as empirical observation (flipped u/n and flat curves) and neither was the case.
again, i'll chalk it up to compression artifacts giving that impression. but the root of the comments simply werent accurate.
and THAT i'll argue until im blue in the face ; )
I'm not a designer but I like to think I have a design eye and thought that I would give you my feedback based on being more of an amateur in this field as I am sure some of your clients are as well.
Firstly, not that it would ever have been an option to change the name but I think the name is really good... but I can see where people may get Understanding Inc from. Are you specifically trying to keep your logo to a 1 colour logo or would putting the Inc into a separate colour to differentiate and highlight the difference between the Understanding and the Inc?
I think with the two logos shown, the top one shows the difference better. I also think that with a redesign, you want the change to be substantial enough to justify it rather than subtle which you currently have.
I can see what people are getting at with the @u and the next u being read as uu but I think if you have not found that to be a problem in the last ten years, then it should not start causing you problems now.
I hope this helps and I look forward to maybe seeing an updated version.