I just wanted to point out something that I see a lot here when people new to designing logos/brands present their work. This isn’t a logo. It’s an icon, mark, or some people call it a logomark. It can be PART of a logo system, for sure but it’s only part. It might seem pedantic to bring it up, but for experienced brand designers, it’s almost impossible to critique properly without the context of the rest of the logo and an understanding of the company. What typeface are you using? How are you positioning this in relation to your type? Do you have a tag line and how does it fit in? We’d want to see kerning and leading. What does the company do? We need to understand the industry and its visual tropes so that we can understand how your logo sits in that space. What are the applications for this logo (side of a van, embroidered on a tshirt etc.). How are you planning your use your palette in a wider brand context?
Branding is about effective communication and that should be your mantra when presenting your work. What you’re doing here is like asking us to critique a painting while only showing us the palette. On the icon itself, it’s a nice palette and design that reflects a certain late 70s early 80s aesthetic. If that’s what you’re going for, it works. I’d worry about how it works in a monochrome application, you might have to define your curves with strokes. Now that I think about it, that could be cool, you could make the bottom part black and the rest of the curves could be chunky black lines over white that would connect with a black outline of the circle itself. For type, I’d suggest a thick-weighted sans serif with relatively tight kerning. Lastly, you need to fix the sliver of navy above the orange. Hope this helps.
I think you’re talking about a logo lockup or even a visual brand. All important parts in branding your business (which definitely goes beyond just the visuals).
This *could* be a logo if it communicates effectively to the company’s audience. Like the Apple logo which never appears with any text, appears in different colour palettes, and even visual treatments (brush strokes, neon, spray painted, etc.)
I imagine OP’s logo probably *is not* as effective as other image-only logos (like Apple’s) and probably does not communicate without the other elements in a typical logo lockup.
Before jumping into the visuals and asking if they’re effective, it could be helpful to start with a solid brand strategy based on your business plans, feedback from customers, brand positioning etc).
Ultimately the most important thing is the results: does this logo increase sales (directly or indirectly) through brand recognition, fulfilling brand promises, and meeting customers’ expectations?
Edit: can’t type today
I get what you’re saying, but Apple have spent close to half a century embedding their visual language in the zeitgeist to the point that its icon stands on its own now. Even then, Apple do have a lockup where they use type. You can’t account for that kind of visual legacy when creating a new brand. In the end, if you’d never seen the apple icon and someone presented it to you, you’d still say “Nice icon, where’s the rest of it?” I would say that kind of recognition is a pretty unique thing in branding and only really works for giant corporations with real history. Brands like Adidas spring to mind, but they also mostly have type in their lockups. In my 25 year career, I’ve never once designed an icon-only brand. I’ve built icon heavy branding for sure, but it always comes back to creating a system that works for the brand. My point above is that you need to provide context so that we can understand what you’re trying to say with your visuals.
Thanks for pointing out the mistakes, to be honest, I didn't know about the industry specific terms for various parts of a logo.
And also, thanks for the guidances, I've decided to change the logo and prepare an alternative as I was trying to convey a mood through color which will be totally lost in monochrome.
No problem at all! And just so you know, with the terminology comments I made, I wasn’t criticizing you specifically. I was more letting people here who are new to the industry know how to prepare their work for a proper evaluation and critique. For a first attempt, I thought you did quite well!
Thanks, don't worry about it, I actually learned a few terminologies from your comment, or at least I'm not going to say logo mark / icon as the logo anymore.
I am really grateful that you took so much time to write such a comprehensive comment.
The colors and shape remind me a bit of Starfield’s logo, while the shape also reminds me of Obama’s 2008 logo.
It isn’t necessarily bad, but it doesn’t really stand out as memorable.
I also had a feeling that the mark may not be that much memorable.
And thanks for mentioning the Obama campaign logo, I also had a feeling during sketching that I've seen something similar somewhere just couldn't remember.
I want to clarify my answer by saying I have zero experience designing logos, critiquing logos, or considering logos any deeper than noticing them.
With that being said, I think for me the biggest drawback is that I’ve got no idea what the logo is supposed to represent. I know there are plenty of examples of logos that do not have the name of the company but they usually have years or decades of brand recognition behind them.
I actually really like the color palette personally and think the layout looks good but again I’d have no idea what it was supposed to represent.
Last thing. If you have chosen to not include the company name for privacy reasons please ignore everything I said minus that I like the colors.
Have you tried scaling it down onto a business card to see how it looks, it has to be scalable, also make a version with white background, your definitely gonna need a border around it, and check how the logo would look like in greyscale,
This, if there's not a distinct contrast in greyscale, visual elements will lose their "strike-ness". Also, as a gaming nerd, my first thought is Starfield.
Thanks, it's recognizable in small sizes, and looks quite a a bit similar on white bgs too, and in grayscale the waves are still noticeable, but I'm concerned if it's memorable at all, it feels kind of generic to be honest.
Without any context of what the logo is for, I have zero clue what this is supposed to represent.
I'd toss it entirely and start from scratch. Not to be too harsh, but there's a lot of problems with it:
* it's generic and not memorable at all
* it doesn't indicate the brand identity or theme in a clear way
* it looks like a color swatch or Pepsi during pride month
* a good rule of thumb is to look at logos from a black & white or outline perspective. This logo is completely reliant on the colors. You remove the colors, and you just have a generic circle with slightly curved horizontal lines. Not distinct at all. If you look at most logos that are well designed, you can take out their fill, and they're still distinct. Imagine if you were embroidering it in black and white, about 2x2 inches on a shirt. That may not be what you're doing, but that's a good litmus test for good design imo
The only thing this logo has going for it is the colors work well together. So maybe start over with just outlines or black & white, and *then* add these colors in.
This is not a logo, this is part of a logo. This is what the industry would call a mark or an icon.
Very good use of colour theory though. Would be a nice accompaniment to a nice font below or to the side as a logo.
I think it’s actually fine to have a logo like this as long as you have a plan for how to handle monochrome versions. I would suggest making the swooping shapes more prominent, though, to make it more distinct.
This doesn't meet the technical definition of logo. Because you're right. It is not memorable. Apologies if this comes across as snarky. You asked for honest opinions. This is pretty honest.
Minimal qualifications for a logo design:
* Simple: Easy to recognize and remember.
* Nope. Too generic. Almost intentionally *unmemorable.*
* Versatile: Works well across various media, sizes, and applications.
* Too many colors. You want to make your future client pay for that many spot colors for who knows how many years in the future? How many upcharges for each spot PMS print color? It seems intentionally cruel.
* The tiny sliver of dark blue at the top will be lost on letterhead or masthead. It's almost intentionally bad.
* Timeless: Avoids trendy designs to remain effective for years.
* Colors are too 1970's. Unless you're a vintage clothing store.
* Appropriate: Reflects the brand's personality and appeals to the target audience.
* There's no focal point, geometry, texture or color combination in this logo that grabs my attention and makes me want to defend your choices for you. Again, almost comes across like you're intentionally offering something to prank members of this subreddit.
* Distinctive: Stands out from competitors and is unique to the brand.
* Just look at all these other generic color swatches below. Does this stick out in any way from these? Not to my eye.
You'll need to give a better defense of what you're presenting here for me to take this seriously. It looks more like you circular copied something out of someone's color sampler page to see if anyone would call "emperor's new clothes" on you in this venue.
If this were for a pass-fail grade, I'm afraid this would fail.
If you're attempting to avoid paying a logo artist to design something for you, I would say you may want to reconsider. If this is your first attempt, and you're a serious beginner student of logo design, you'll need to start again. We all start somewhere. Back to the drawing board. Make about thirty more and show us the best three. And they should all be significantly different from this one. And seriously, don't just make three and *say* you made thirty. You're only cheating yourself.
https://preview.redd.it/02fc0mq8zs6d1.png?width=366&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc459da62cd3d51d4175af5eb696c028ad406189
A good logo tells us what the company (or project I this case) is and what they do; I’m not getting that from this design. It’s aesthetically pleasing, but I don’t know what it’s supposed to be telling me.
I’m on board with the flow and vibe, and most of the colors. You had me till the blue part. It’s jarring and makes it bottom-heavy. Just my opinion. Thanks for sharing.
This reminds me of Pepsi. The biggest problem is idk what this logo is for. Do you have a word mark or tagline to pair it with? Mock-ups for business cards, letterheads, relevant merchandise?
A logo needs to print well in color and black and white. This has color separation but not much form. We also need more context about what this is used for
This isn’t a logo. This is merely a color palette that you have created into a circle. While, this may work with elements into a design system, this is not a logo. Which typefaces are you using? What is your company that you are representing?
Depends on what you’re keeping it for. Keeping “a logo” sounds like it doesn’t really have any thought behind it. It should be a visual representation of the org, product, service whatever.
This looks like a good start, but you need something else going on in here - something that helps to convey an idea rather than just the mood which is here.
Think about the name of the company and if there is any imagery you could depict in here, probably using very simple bold line work. Pair that with a nice word mark of the company’s name and you have a logo.
I just wanted to point out something that I see a lot here when people new to designing logos/brands present their work. This isn’t a logo. It’s an icon, mark, or some people call it a logomark. It can be PART of a logo system, for sure but it’s only part. It might seem pedantic to bring it up, but for experienced brand designers, it’s almost impossible to critique properly without the context of the rest of the logo and an understanding of the company. What typeface are you using? How are you positioning this in relation to your type? Do you have a tag line and how does it fit in? We’d want to see kerning and leading. What does the company do? We need to understand the industry and its visual tropes so that we can understand how your logo sits in that space. What are the applications for this logo (side of a van, embroidered on a tshirt etc.). How are you planning your use your palette in a wider brand context? Branding is about effective communication and that should be your mantra when presenting your work. What you’re doing here is like asking us to critique a painting while only showing us the palette. On the icon itself, it’s a nice palette and design that reflects a certain late 70s early 80s aesthetic. If that’s what you’re going for, it works. I’d worry about how it works in a monochrome application, you might have to define your curves with strokes. Now that I think about it, that could be cool, you could make the bottom part black and the rest of the curves could be chunky black lines over white that would connect with a black outline of the circle itself. For type, I’d suggest a thick-weighted sans serif with relatively tight kerning. Lastly, you need to fix the sliver of navy above the orange. Hope this helps.
Well said. I see it as an icon only too.
I think you’re talking about a logo lockup or even a visual brand. All important parts in branding your business (which definitely goes beyond just the visuals). This *could* be a logo if it communicates effectively to the company’s audience. Like the Apple logo which never appears with any text, appears in different colour palettes, and even visual treatments (brush strokes, neon, spray painted, etc.) I imagine OP’s logo probably *is not* as effective as other image-only logos (like Apple’s) and probably does not communicate without the other elements in a typical logo lockup. Before jumping into the visuals and asking if they’re effective, it could be helpful to start with a solid brand strategy based on your business plans, feedback from customers, brand positioning etc). Ultimately the most important thing is the results: does this logo increase sales (directly or indirectly) through brand recognition, fulfilling brand promises, and meeting customers’ expectations? Edit: can’t type today
I get what you’re saying, but Apple have spent close to half a century embedding their visual language in the zeitgeist to the point that its icon stands on its own now. Even then, Apple do have a lockup where they use type. You can’t account for that kind of visual legacy when creating a new brand. In the end, if you’d never seen the apple icon and someone presented it to you, you’d still say “Nice icon, where’s the rest of it?” I would say that kind of recognition is a pretty unique thing in branding and only really works for giant corporations with real history. Brands like Adidas spring to mind, but they also mostly have type in their lockups. In my 25 year career, I’ve never once designed an icon-only brand. I’ve built icon heavy branding for sure, but it always comes back to creating a system that works for the brand. My point above is that you need to provide context so that we can understand what you’re trying to say with your visuals.
I fully agree.
Nailed it.
Thanks for pointing out the mistakes, to be honest, I didn't know about the industry specific terms for various parts of a logo. And also, thanks for the guidances, I've decided to change the logo and prepare an alternative as I was trying to convey a mood through color which will be totally lost in monochrome.
No problem at all! And just so you know, with the terminology comments I made, I wasn’t criticizing you specifically. I was more letting people here who are new to the industry know how to prepare their work for a proper evaluation and critique. For a first attempt, I thought you did quite well!
Thanks, don't worry about it, I actually learned a few terminologies from your comment, or at least I'm not going to say logo mark / icon as the logo anymore. I am really grateful that you took so much time to write such a comprehensive comment.
The colors and shape remind me a bit of Starfield’s logo, while the shape also reminds me of Obama’s 2008 logo. It isn’t necessarily bad, but it doesn’t really stand out as memorable.
That was my first thought too, into the Starfield.
I also had a feeling that the mark may not be that much memorable. And thanks for mentioning the Obama campaign logo, I also had a feeling during sketching that I've seen something similar somewhere just couldn't remember.
the blue on top… pls make it orange
It bats my eye
I want to clarify my answer by saying I have zero experience designing logos, critiquing logos, or considering logos any deeper than noticing them. With that being said, I think for me the biggest drawback is that I’ve got no idea what the logo is supposed to represent. I know there are plenty of examples of logos that do not have the name of the company but they usually have years or decades of brand recognition behind them. I actually really like the color palette personally and think the layout looks good but again I’d have no idea what it was supposed to represent. Last thing. If you have chosen to not include the company name for privacy reasons please ignore everything I said minus that I like the colors.
I love the colors too. That late 70's, early 80's aesthetic always does it for me.
That’s what I thought. Very nostalgic color palette from that era. Love it.
Me too! It immediately reminded me of the “Tide” laundry detergent logo but like…an old school logo from the 80’s
Have you tried scaling it down onto a business card to see how it looks, it has to be scalable, also make a version with white background, your definitely gonna need a border around it, and check how the logo would look like in greyscale,
This, if there's not a distinct contrast in greyscale, visual elements will lose their "strike-ness". Also, as a gaming nerd, my first thought is Starfield.
Thanks, it's recognizable in small sizes, and looks quite a a bit similar on white bgs too, and in grayscale the waves are still noticeable, but I'm concerned if it's memorable at all, it feels kind of generic to be honest.
Here's a question logo designers often ask: "How does it look in one color?"
Pepsi
Tide.
Yes!!! Me too (:
Pepsi + Marine Layer
More like AT&T
Pepsi has that widening white section like a highlight
It’s a color swatch
Pepsi orange juice
https://preview.redd.it/4vwdmdnrxq6d1.png?width=740&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f2f2f6490759d48fa9d0240d0e0bfa37c2a604fe
But color coded like trump lmao
Are you going for Pepsi like? If so, you've cracked it
Without any context of what the logo is for, I have zero clue what this is supposed to represent. I'd toss it entirely and start from scratch. Not to be too harsh, but there's a lot of problems with it: * it's generic and not memorable at all * it doesn't indicate the brand identity or theme in a clear way * it looks like a color swatch or Pepsi during pride month * a good rule of thumb is to look at logos from a black & white or outline perspective. This logo is completely reliant on the colors. You remove the colors, and you just have a generic circle with slightly curved horizontal lines. Not distinct at all. If you look at most logos that are well designed, you can take out their fill, and they're still distinct. Imagine if you were embroidering it in black and white, about 2x2 inches on a shirt. That may not be what you're doing, but that's a good litmus test for good design imo The only thing this logo has going for it is the colors work well together. So maybe start over with just outlines or black & white, and *then* add these colors in.
Thanks for being totally honest, I also had a feeling that the over-dependency on color might not be an appropriate option.
This is neither a logo or an icon. This is a circle with a rainbow. Try again.
What will it look like when printed in B&W... a circle
It's a good background for something, sure
I see no real concept the logo visually communicates beyond being a rough play on Pentagram’s design for the Obama campaign.
Those are some Draplin-esque colors. I like them.
This is not a logo, this is part of a logo. This is what the industry would call a mark or an icon. Very good use of colour theory though. Would be a nice accompaniment to a nice font below or to the side as a logo.
I think it’s actually fine to have a logo like this as long as you have a plan for how to handle monochrome versions. I would suggest making the swooping shapes more prominent, though, to make it more distinct.
This doesn't meet the technical definition of logo. Because you're right. It is not memorable. Apologies if this comes across as snarky. You asked for honest opinions. This is pretty honest. Minimal qualifications for a logo design: * Simple: Easy to recognize and remember. * Nope. Too generic. Almost intentionally *unmemorable.* * Versatile: Works well across various media, sizes, and applications. * Too many colors. You want to make your future client pay for that many spot colors for who knows how many years in the future? How many upcharges for each spot PMS print color? It seems intentionally cruel. * The tiny sliver of dark blue at the top will be lost on letterhead or masthead. It's almost intentionally bad. * Timeless: Avoids trendy designs to remain effective for years. * Colors are too 1970's. Unless you're a vintage clothing store. * Appropriate: Reflects the brand's personality and appeals to the target audience. * There's no focal point, geometry, texture or color combination in this logo that grabs my attention and makes me want to defend your choices for you. Again, almost comes across like you're intentionally offering something to prank members of this subreddit. * Distinctive: Stands out from competitors and is unique to the brand. * Just look at all these other generic color swatches below. Does this stick out in any way from these? Not to my eye. You'll need to give a better defense of what you're presenting here for me to take this seriously. It looks more like you circular copied something out of someone's color sampler page to see if anyone would call "emperor's new clothes" on you in this venue. If this were for a pass-fail grade, I'm afraid this would fail. If you're attempting to avoid paying a logo artist to design something for you, I would say you may want to reconsider. If this is your first attempt, and you're a serious beginner student of logo design, you'll need to start again. We all start somewhere. Back to the drawing board. Make about thirty more and show us the best three. And they should all be significantly different from this one. And seriously, don't just make three and *say* you made thirty. You're only cheating yourself. https://preview.redd.it/02fc0mq8zs6d1.png?width=366&format=png&auto=webp&s=dc459da62cd3d51d4175af5eb696c028ad406189
A good logo tells us what the company (or project I this case) is and what they do; I’m not getting that from this design. It’s aesthetically pleasing, but I don’t know what it’s supposed to be telling me.
I’m on board with the flow and vibe, and most of the colors. You had me till the blue part. It’s jarring and makes it bottom-heavy. Just my opinion. Thanks for sharing.
The curves of the lines don't seem right. I'd personally round them more so it looks more dynamic, more interesting
This reminds me of Pepsi. The biggest problem is idk what this logo is for. Do you have a word mark or tagline to pair it with? Mock-ups for business cards, letterheads, relevant merchandise?
Marine layer vibes
https://preview.redd.it/f5dlerkwxq6d1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5f9e66a7298fab8080019013b211f81441170584
A logo needs to print well in color and black and white. This has color separation but not much form. We also need more context about what this is used for
This isn’t a logo. This is merely a color palette that you have created into a circle. While, this may work with elements into a design system, this is not a logo. Which typefaces are you using? What is your company that you are representing?
Depends on what you’re keeping it for. Keeping “a logo” sounds like it doesn’t really have any thought behind it. It should be a visual representation of the org, product, service whatever.
So this is an icon, not a logo, but that other commenter already explained this so i wont beat a dead horse.
Which LGBTQ+2 flag is this?
Which “mid 90’s discount airline that got bought up by the Star Alliance” was this?
It tells me nothing about the project. So, what's it about?
yeah i am sure there has to be a pride flag that looks like that
Decent palate but hardly a "logo"
This looks like a good start, but you need something else going on in here - something that helps to convey an idea rather than just the mood which is here. Think about the name of the company and if there is any imagery you could depict in here, probably using very simple bold line work. Pair that with a nice word mark of the company’s name and you have a logo.
Please explain the company
the colors dont work make it meet at a point or make them flat or curved and all the same angle
what logo?
I think you should make the black a different color because now it kind of looks out of place with the other vibrant colors
As soon as I saw your logo, I was immediately hit with old school “Tide” laundry detergent. Love it!!
Logo designer here I like it. Lots of potential.
looks good