Comments on: Battle of the logos. Should we change?

By: Logo Redesign - Part Two | The Logo Factor Design Blog

Logo Redesign - Part Two | The Logo Factor Design Blog — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:11:41 +0000

[...] the stupidly exhaustive process of redesigning a logo. After overhauling The Logo Factory house (long overdue) I set about incorporating the icon into a servicable word mark. I thought we were on the right [...]

By: Logo Re-design. The Final Chapter? | The Logo Factor Design Blog

Logo Re-design. The Final Chapter? | The Logo Factor Design Blog — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:10:05 +0000

[...] month, you’ll be familiar with the subject of this post. If not, let’s recap quickly. A little while back, we decided it was time for a face lift of The Logo Factory logo. Over the years it had been [...]

By: Changing a logo design. Step by step. | The Logo Factor Design Blog

Changing a logo design. Step by step. | The Logo Factor Design Blog — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:52:42 +0000

[...] in October, we tinkered around with redesigning The Logo Factory logo (see Battle of The Logos for more). We were originally thinking about a complete overhaul – a new factory [...]

By: Richard, Peacock Carter

Richard, Peacock Carter — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:28:09 +0000

I like the newer one (although, like David, was wondering if the underscored ‘o’ was really necessary – feels a bit gimmicky) – feels cleaner, and is easier to read (for me, at least).

By: Gerard Syms

Gerard Syms — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:00:57 +0000

First of all, as a newbie to the biz, I’m drinkin’ in all of this in and thinkin’, ” Maybe they could follow their own advice concerning tinkering or perhaps tweaking a logo: tread carefully, very carefully.”

However… if change is to be made, I agree with Mr. Airey on the vertical type and the underscored ‘o’. I don’t mind the ‘new’ eye-level perspective, but would suggest, (humbly, of course) that the company name fill in the shape of the factory’s yard, you know?, ‘The’ from the bottom of the step to the outer wall, left to right; ‘Logo’ below that from left to right and so on. The imagery, as Jaz said, is easily recognized.

Btw, I really appreciate all the wise and learned counsel from you vets and standard bearers on the ‘how to’s of logo design. Your work is outstanding!

By: Jaz

Jaz — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:08:10 +0000

I prefer the new version, but I reckon the underscored “o” is a bit distracting and unnecessary, other than that I think it is a big improvement. It still uses the same imagery, so will still be easily recognized, but it’s a more refined and clean, and loses the battered 90s font. I notice it also loses the “.com” which might be something you would want to keep depending on your business’ actual name.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:21:06 +0000

I personally like the newer version. Its an updated look which I feel takes your image into the modern times. Just my opinion but the new look captures the audience.

By: David

David — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:15:44 +0000

Keep the old one, It’s a lot less rigid and more unique. I would say If you have any doubt, you already have your answer.

By: David Airey

David Airey — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:48:10 +0000

Wonderful insight into your logo. Really helps understand your thought process.

Personally, I favour much more simplistic designs, so I’d not be adverse to a change. That said, it’s you who has to look at it every day for years to follow.

I’m not keen on the vertical type, and find it impairs legibility. What’s the thinking behind the underscored ‘o’?