This is topic How about a logo Critique. in forum Letterhead/Pinstriper Talk at The Letterville BullBoard.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.letterville.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/37867.html

---

Posted by Mark M. Kottwitz (Member # 1764) on :
 
One of my contractors had me come up with a logo for his clients, and he all he specified was he wanted it oval, with grass and a sky, and the name inside...

So, how does this look? What would you change?

Thanks in advance...


 

---

Posted by Kelsey Dum (Member # 6101) on :
 
Your illustration should portray more of a "lawn care" image. Try a more manicured lawn... maybe add some flowers or bushes. Add some color to the text and put more emphasis on one or the other (Sedgewick & Son or Lawn Care). I feel like they are competing.

just my 2 cents.
 

---

Posted by Wayne Webb (Member # 1124) on :
 
too much sky....I would raise the lawn up to give it more space. Iwould use a display font for the owner's name and a sans serif for "lawn care"
Maybe you could also try putting a tree in that hole below "sedg". Also, lower "Sedgewick" down to the optical center and decrease the size of "& son"...maybe try a different color for "& son" too.
After moving the name to the center, try putting the birds and clouds around the top. You might also want to try changing "lawn care" to a dark green.

[ November 23, 2005, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: Wayne Webb ]
 

---

Posted by Doug Allan (Member # 2247) on :
 
I think it is leaning too far in the direction of "realism" & that doesn't work for me. A more iconographic representation might be better.

Also the lettering seems overshadowed by the graphic. Try to make some real interesting lettering solution that could almost stand on it's own as a logo... then maybe bringing in some of the graphic requirements as a secondary component might help prioritize things.

just my 2 cents
 

---

Posted by Rick Beisiegel (Member # 3723) on :
 
I think the letterstyle works ok for the main line, but goes stale after that. I am thinking a companion letterstyle might do the trick along with the other comments. Great start though!



edited cause I can't spell

[ November 23, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Rick Beisiegel ]
 

---

Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
 
I think one thing that most of us, including myself, fall into sometimes is letting the computer design for us. It's always a good idea to break out the pencil and paper for thumb quick thumbnail sketches, before turning on the computer. (I'm not suggesting that you didn't, just thinking out loud here, so to speak.)

I'd also suggest mixing up the typestyles a bit. A single font is monotonous and makes it a difficult job to lead a viewer's eye through a layout.

Vary font widths and weights, to aid in creating foreground, middle ground and background. The name of the company should almost always be the foreground.

I also agree that the graphic shouldn't overpower a layout, but compliment it. Perhaps a small graphic will work better. And without so much pictorial detail. You'll find that logo graphics work much better as abstract shapes. Too much going on in a graphic inevitably directs the view to look at it first, instead of the message, which is the name.

Lastly, the contour and dropshadow on the telephone number cause it to compete with the logo, which should be avoided.

Sorry, just some rambling thoughts on this design, several of which were already covered well or better by others here.
 

---

Posted by Jill Marie Welsh (Member # 1912) on :
 
I like Kelsey's point about the manicured lawn....
Perhaps try LAWN CARE in all caps...
Bringing the name down lower might help.
Why the black dots in the pic? Is it my monitor?
To me, this doesn't look like a logo, but more like a sign.
The chosen alphabet seems dated to me.
As others have said, highlight one element not all.
I'm just rambling too.
Love.....Jill
 

---

Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
 
Just playing around with it a bit, just to show the same thing from another angle. It probably sucks. But, I'm not getting paid, so it's allowed.



[ November 23, 2005, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: Don Coplen ]
 

---

Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
 


Happy Birthday, Mark.
Rapid
 

---

Posted by Steve Shortreed (Member # 436) on :
 
Hi Mark. There's a readability problem with many of these oval and/or circle designs. Placing your lettering inside a panel restricts your letter size. Here's an example.

Let's assume the image below is placed on a truck door. We'll also assume the oval size is 12" in height to fit your format, with is the truck door

How big is your main copy? A one inch high letter can be read from 25' away, but it isn't going to have much impact.



A logo has many uses. It has to work on vehicles, signs and printed medium. You can't always use the color version, so it has to look good in black and white as well. Shades and detailed pictorials can "clutter up" a logo making it hard to read.

I recommend a trip to the local supermarket. Look at packaging and learn why some designs have more impact than others. Examine your newspaper and yellow page ads. Notice how the simple bold logos stand out more than the others?

Dan Antonelli has written 2 excellent books on logo design. You can purchase them, along with other books and videos, from SignCraft Magazine. Use this link.

Hope this helps.

[ November 23, 2005, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Steve Shortreed ]
 

---

Posted by Dan Marquis (Member # 87) on :
 
Hey Ray, I recognize that tree. Is that out of Coreldraw?
 

---

Posted by Todd Gill (Member # 2569) on :
 
Ray - I like that tree! Did you do that yourself...or like Dan asks - did you get it somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Jill Marie Welsh (Member # 1912) on :
 
Here's my pathetic attempt.
Love....Jill
 

---

Posted by Patrick Whatley (Member # 2008) on :
 
Mike, I know you didn't ask for redo's of your logo but looking at everybody else's interpretation of the job made me want to make my own.

To me, Sedgwick and sons is not the most important part of the message, LAWN CARE is. More potential customers will identify with Lawn Care than the owners name.


 

---

Posted by George Perkins (Member # 156) on :
 
I like Don's and Pat's renditions. Pat's could have some of the grass trimmed to make it even more effective.
Geese trim grass, but they are way too slow, plus they $hit a lot.
 

---

Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Whatley:
Sedgwick and sons is not the most important part of the message, LAWN CARE is. More potential customers will identify with Lawn Care than the owners name.

---

quote:

---

Sedgwick and sons is not the most important part of the message, LAWN CARE is. More potential customers will identify with Lawn Care than the owners name.

---

This is a very valid point, but sometimes a very tough sell. Many customers insist that everybody knows them by name and that is how they will be recognized. But the folks that know you don't need your sign. The sign is for those who need your services. Getting past the vanity can be tricky.
 

---

Posted by Stevo Chartrand (Member # 2094) on :
 


I spelled Sedgwick wrong!

[ November 24, 2005, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: Stevo Chartrand ]
 

---

Posted by Ray Rheaume (Member # 3794) on :
 
Yup, it's a Corel clipart tree.

Rapid
 

---

Posted by Tom Bahr (Member # 2925) on :
 
With more lawn & less sky, could you try making the "Lawn Care" in a style that would resemble the letters actualy being mowed out of the grass, (or should I say mowed in the grass). I don't know how I would do this, but it would be cool if somebody who is better than I would try.
 

---

Posted by Don Coplen (Member # 127) on :
 
So, did we chase Mark off? Hope not.
 

---

Posted by John Lennig (Member # 2455) on :
 
Stevo, that's COOL! takes you up and over the Horizon to BETTER DAYS... with your lawn and yard looked after by Sedgwick & Sons!!
 

---

Posted by Mark M. Kottwitz (Member # 1764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Don Coplen:
So, did we chase Mark off? Hope not.

---

UBB.classic™ 6.7.2