It would be better if the word wasn’t in the title. Having seen the word before opening, it was what I saw.

cheers I’ll try and change it

I read ’EQUATE’. Is that it?

even as a non-native english speaker i instantly got the idea and found it easy to read, and i think that it is a clever concept. just think about the fedex-logo, after you’ve once found out the trick you’ll never forget the brand.

i don’t find that confusing in the least. i feel it is a clear and smart visual message. don’t change it.

Totally agree with Thierry and I think it’s brilliant.

I understand it and like it (for the simplicity and strong message). While I DO understand it, I can imagine how/why people don’t.

I guess it depends on what it’s for and how visually literate the audience are.

What is it for?

I got it right away and think it’s very cool. But this audience is not made up of civilians.

ER

Very simple and clever. Good work!

yeah thats right it just gets worrying sometmes when someone asks what is Equals Quate!

Thanks for the feedback so far. it seems 95% of people get it. Thats a relief as I really like the concept. By the way its for an accountancy company

I like it very much. I hope you don’t mind I had a break on your logo, I was thinking that a vertical bar on the left might work for your reification concept (the constructive or generative aspect of perception), and also it creates a mark which can be use separately from the logotype.

thanks Alessandro, I’d already tried that during the development process but thought it detracted from the = part of the logo although it does let you see the E easier. I thought this was important for the link to accountancy. I know what you mean though!

the vertical bar does not help the recognition of an E shape. IMO

Along similar lines, perhaps this is something worth exploring ...

—————
Paul Ducco
Solid Creative
Communication Design, Melbourne

I saw it straight away. I like it. The vertical bar actually
makes the E harder to see imo.

Phil

I really like it, but I had to think to get it…

peace

Jerome, I understood it immediately. I have the same question as Paul, though, who is the intended audience?

My training is in electrical and electronics engineering, not graphics, and it’s crystal clear to me, and I like it.

I don’t like the vertical bar because it means “NOT” in many programming languages (“!=” means “NOT EQUAL”).

Hi Andi

The company is an accountancy firm so the audience is business managers small and large, financial directors etc.

hmm, the fact that it’s an accounting firm causes a bit of concern for me given that the source of peoples confusion is most likely the visual redundancy and phoenetic overlap between the symbol and first three letters...i certainly wouldn’t want an accountant who unwittingly repeats and isn’t precise to such a degree. petty and splitting hairs, but thats waht you want an accountant to do.
so, although i find it clever, i believe it’s too ’cute’ and fussy to be appropriate. it’s one of those ones to be proud of discovering, but better off not pushing if there is an uncomfortability.

First glance got it. No problem.

What about adding a solid vertical bar immediately to the right side of the equals sign? (To define the right edges of the three legs of the first E?)

(Hope that made sense...)

—Michael.

———————————————————————————
// love what you do or do something else. //
Michael Ebert — graphic designer, jazz saxophonist, horror movie devotee
http://homepage.mac.com/mwebert
mwebert@mac.com
———————

a bit late (and a bit rough) but what about this?

This is one of those things that is meant to be read in layers. Some people will get it right away, but if they don’t it isn’t a bad thing. Jerome, stick to what you have. I think most people enjoy things with an “aha” moment in them.

Dear Jerome Iveson!

Your first version was the best!!!
Readable & understandable for the first sight.
So don’t change it! :)

I got it at first glance – reminded me of the logo of a Swiss internet provider, though (upper left corner – excuse the messy homepage).

I get it & like it!
My only thought is to maybe add a little weight to the ’=’.

I like your original conception to use an Equal Sign as the letter E. But... I can understand the confusion of people not understanding it.

The Equate seems to come through to those that are educated. Unfortunately, that is not so true of the masses. Fifth grade educations only get a person so far in this world.

Perhaps you’d consider using the three bars to get the idea of the E across - and then one of the bars as an equal sign. Does that work for you?

I think the original version is best. I got it at once, albeit with a tiny “tick” of having to think about it, which is surely a good thing for a logo.

hope this one geths through...

You know Tim, I’m thinking that looks more like “= Quate”.

quote - The Equate seems to come through to those that are educated.

A very interesting elitist observation based on?

The original logo is the best…

peace

>A very interesting elitist observation based on?

tsk, tsk, tsk, we don’t use the word elitist around here, we’re all esoteric, remember?

This last one by Ahrens is interesting but the original one is still the most forward looking in terms of style. Very basic and cool. And making them think just a little bit is a good thing, they’ll feel all smart when they get it, and they will.

ER

Based on comments i think I’ll leave it as it is. I wasn’t expecting this amount of comments. Thanks to everyone who has posted so far

It might be my screen (or my eyes) but the open counters of your E look sharper on the inside than the outside corners, it might be worth trying that on the equals symbol to reinforce the origins of the letter, then again it might be too subtle to bother with.
I did read your logo first off and it’s a nice wordplay, I wonder if the kerning between =Q needs to be tightened a bit (or QU needs loosening a touch).
Tim

I like your original conception to use an Equal Sign as the letter E. But… I can understand the confusion of people not understanding it.

The Equate seems to come through to those that are educated. Unfortunately, that is not so true of the masses. Fifth grade educations only get a person so far in this world.

People with 5th grade educations are rarely in a position to choose an accounting firm. The extra bars make it more confusing while taking away the simple cleverness of the original.

What about

The initial ideas are all still there, and it might be more “readable” for the general audience...

(In addition, the stem of the ’T’ provides the extra help to form the subliminal ’E’)

Stick with your original. It works.

i’d say stick with your origional but i felt like messing around also:

Here’s a visual for my previously convoluted explanation...

—Michael.

———————————————————————————
// love what you do or do something else. //
Michael Ebert — graphic designer, jazz saxophonist, horror movie devotee
http://homepage.mac.com/mwebert
mwebert@mac.com
———————

Overall, I prefer Miguel’s solution to the original for legibility’s sake. Nobody is going to read that as a logo for “EQUAT” while there is some chance that he or she could read the original as “QUATE.”

Hope that makes sense...

—Michael.

———————————————————————————
// love what you do or do something else. //
Michael Ebert — graphic designer, jazz saxophonist, horror movie devotee
http://homepage.mac.com/mwebert
mwebert@mac.com
———————

Miguel’s solution has something to it. In many ways it does what the original does while avoid all of the outlining, shadowing and/or other tricks which should be the goal. IMHO

Just the first one. It works.

I saw it and my first thought was: What’s this?
It struck me by its simple and powerful looks.
After a split second, I got the meaning of it.

It’s quite a blunt design. I like it. :-)

Still like the original. Miguel’s solution is insightful, but has its own, potentially worse, problem:
An intelligent person notices that “Quate” isn’t a word, finds the “=” and says “Oh, it’s “EQUATE.”

But, in a world with companies like “Compaq,” “Equat” (pronounced “equate” or rhymes with “squat”) is a potentially valid company name. In fact, www.equat.com is a Web design page.

They might google for “equat accounting.”

Don’t change your original idea. It’s clever so don’t mess it up.

> An intelligent person notices that “Quate” isn’t a word, finds the “=” and says “Oh, it’s “EQUATE.”

And a (less) intelligent person notices that “Equat” isn’t a word, finds...

> But [...] “Equat” [...] is a potentially valid company name. In fact, www.equat.com is a Web design page.

That also doesn’t hold as an argument. Google for ’quate’ and see what you get...

Funny thing

doesn’t seem to work (sorry, done in a hurry).

It occurred to me because I just saw the campaign for the II week of sexual diversity on TV (in Brazil) and they used the unequal sign as a logo to represent diversity. Unequal=diverse, get it?

You’re going to find that we designers love the idea because visually and symbolically it’s simple but clever-as-hell.

You mentioned, though, that it’s for an accounting agency of some sort, which causes a problem. Have they seen this concept yet? My worry simply stems from the fact that accountants are less likely to appreciate a clever logo and more likely to want some pretty typography with serifs and a few little swashes here and there.

You will also continue to find that some people get the word and some people don’t. If this were a night club, it’d be one thing. But since it’s an accounting firm, you’ll have to make sure their title is clear and 100% obvious so people can take them seriously.

> An intelligent person notices that “Quate” isn’t a word, finds the “=” and says “Oh, it’s “EQUATE.”

And a (less) intelligent person notices that “Equat” isn’t a word, finds…

> But […] “Equat” […] is a potentially valid company name. In fact, www.equat.com is a Web design page.

That also doesn’t hold as an argument. Google for ‘quate’ and see what you get…

Miguel,

I apologize if it sounded like I was sharply criticizing your design. Your idea was a very clever solution, and I liked it. It was certianly (in my opinion) the best alternative submitted. You are correct that “quate” gets more Google hits than “equat.”

My intent was to point out that your alternative is also not idiot-proof. I don’t see either design as a problem, but it is fair to say that each alternative has some possibility of confusion.

[liquisoft]
“My worry simply stems from the fact that accountants are less likely to appreciate a clever logo and more likely to want some pretty typography with serifs and a few little swashes here and there.”

I’m only posting in this thread because it discusses the perspective of non-designers.

My background is electrical engineering, and engineers are considered to be almost as aesthetically retarded as accountants. I LOVE THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. I’m a bit offended at your patronizing stereotypes of non-designers.

“But since it’s an accounting firm, you’ll have to make sure their title is clear and 100% obvious so people can take them seriously.”

As an entrepreneur (from the Old French for “person who hires accountants”) I would take a firm with this simple and brutally clever name and logo far, far, far more seriously than I would a swashy “Mary’s Olde Tyme Accounting” or a brain-dead firm that called itself “CPAs Plus” (in Arial or Cooper Black with a big “+” sign).

Your original is the purest. It is quite poetic with its playfullness.
Congratulation!

My problem is its too cute for the type of business you are creating a logo for. I don’t want anything cute to do with my accounting. I want solid and safe. This is a case of overthinking the solution. Leave the cleaver stuff for an Ice Cream brand. I personally never use =QUATE for my accounting.

The accountancy firm wanted a forward thinking name and visual brand, which was modern and proactive. Thats the reason I stayed away from the normal train of thought when designing the logo i.e. serifs etc. I was very suprised to find that in the UK at least no one had used Equate as a name for an accountancy firm.

I’m please that people have taken time to post their opinions, all are valid obviously some more than others! I’ll definitely post some of my other work its great to get feedback from designers and non designers alike.

The electrician is sticking it to you guys! I love it! Give ’em some more. That’s what you get for saying crap like this:

“Unfortunately, that is not so true of the masses. Fifth grade educations only get a person so far in this world.”

I don’t think you people actually know anyone with a Fifth grade education.

Jerome, look what you started man.

ER

You can tell it’s a good logo by how many people have
posted here.

“I don’t think you people actually know anyone with a Fifth grade education”

Edel: why does it always have to be The People vs Edel Rodriguez? You talk about typophile members like they are the same, man. Relax, nobody’s on trial here. So your CA cover has been criticised by some Typophile members. So what? Take it on the chin and move on.

Oh, lore, I have no beef with everyone here, my skin is much thicker than you think. There’s just so much talk here about the illiterate masses, and the uneducated folk, and hardly anynobody calls people on it. It takes an electrical engineer to do so. My parents both have 5th grade educations, they’re the greatest people I know, so I’m sensitive about the matter.

ER

“I’m a bit offended at your patronizing stereotypes of non-designers.”

That’s from kitekey, his/ her take on the matter, so I don’t think I’m alone on this.

ER

“I’m a bit offended at your patronizing stereotypes of non-designers.”

Yes, that was me.

EQUATE’s partners likely have graduate degrees, and their customers are also going to be educated, intelligent, and affluent people, hardly the 5th grade dropouts that someone mentioned. I grant that the concept might not work for an AIDS awareness campaign for low-income populations or an ultra-low-price off-brand peanut butter package, but there are many non-designers who appreciate good design.

It also makes me angry, as someone who has hired designers, to think that someone might sandbag like this on work that I paid for. I sympathize with the founders of EQUATE, who, having put thought into their name, browse portfolios and hire an excellent professional like Mr. Iverson request a visual identity that suggests a uniquely fresh, “proactive,” “forward thinking” positioning. To think of some of you (not Jerome) sneering behind their back, “Oh, this is really clever. But those stupid non-designers won’t understand, so I’ll dumb it down to their 5th-grade-dropout level. Cooper Black should do it” is infuriating.

If the client rejects it saying his customers aren’t ready for it is one thing. But to withhold your best work from your clients due to your disdain for their occupation is unethical and unprofessional.

No wonder sometimes we are so disappointed when we compare the portfolio with the designs we see. Someone said that accounting firms are not nightclubs. Well, if your portfolio is full of designs for trendy nightclubs, we’re intentionally hiring you to look trendy. We’re not wringing our hands saying “I sure hope that that nightclub guy can come up with something that is just as ugly, nerdy, and boring as all our competitors.”

Oh god, keep givin’ it to ’em! :) thanks, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Here is the real world talking to us, take some time to listen, and perhaps, learn some things that have everything to do with what we do. The person here took some time out of their lives to write, the least we can do is answer. This is not at all out of place in a thread about how our work is viewed by our customers.

And LORE, this has nothing to do with my CA cover. Will all my opinions on this site be tossed aside just because you have a wrong headed impression that I’m ticked off about something? I may be confrontational, as is “kitekey”, because we feel passionate about something.

ER

1) I’d seriously consider adding another graphical element to boost the negative “E”. It’s too vague. Maybe a slight hairline in certain key outline areas. As a brand logo, designers will always tend to love “smart ideas”, as a company you’d want the logo to be a firm voice. Be pragmatic, not trendy. It’s an accouting firm, not starbucks.

sometimes, due to unknown reasons to anyone, a logo can be very abstract and still retain a strong anchor to a brand, unfortunately the amount of money you dump onto the public to get to this doesn’t really benefit anyone but the marketers.

2) the logo is geared towards a “higher intelligence” demo. Does the company want to chance confusing anyone else? as an accounting firm , I’m sure certain demos are still an interest, even though they might not have the capacity to get this concept without help. I regard everyone on this site with an above average intelligence, hence you haven’t gotten any feedback from other demos.
Ask friends, ask your mom, ask everyone you know to actually spell the company name out after they glance at it quickly, with no help from you , I bet many will be a bit confused and have to think. don’t ever make your target audience guess, unless it’s worth the effort. I don’t think it is. Push this further.

3) how strong of an anchor is the idea. the “=” play with words is a fun and whimsical effect. How does this relate to the company? Does it associate itself well with the brand or is it just there because it’s cool for typographers and designers:) Basically make sure the design idea is adding to the brand, not just adding to the logo.

“But to withhold your best work from your clients due to your disdain for their occupation is unethical and unprofessional.”

Well of course but if the work doesn’t taylor to the target audience then despite the fact that the designer likes it the most it is not his best work... This is a very “confusing logo” because the main question, i suppose, is whethar the message is clear enough for the intended audience and If the clever execution is more important than a direct/ clear message.

I don’t think the logo works well just because It is not explicitly clear. What about when the name is used in copy? Are you going to sugguest they still use an equal sign or substitute it with an E? If you substitute it with an E then you don’t carry across the brand identity so why not just have an E in the logo?

It doesn’t matter if you have a 5th grade education or are the CEO of GodzillaSoft inc, the message should still be effortlessly clear. And I think people use the term 5th grade education meaning that you can never underestimate the stupidity of anyone, sad as it is true, not that they are trying to target specifically people with a 5th grade education.

Also anyone posting on this forum, electrician, business owner someone with a 5th grade education, etc. is far more computer/ design literate than the majority of the public. no?

Sorry, this is on-topic:
Jerome, try an “E” with two middle bars.
Or maybe an “E” with a thin horizontal line bisecting the middle bar.

hhp

Jerome,
I think your original is just fine as is. If, and only IF, you are concerned that it may not read at first, try reversing it in a box just for the first year untill your whole target audience “gets it”. After you have established your brand, going back to your original will be a snap. Here is a quickie example. Notice how the counters of the far right “E” reflect in reverse to the “equal sign” at left.
By the way, I don’t think your design is “way out” or even too edgy for the accounting business. Don’t sweat it, go for it.

ChrisL

I have to say I like Chris’ last image. Best of both worlds.

An idea I had was very similar to Chris’:

I like that too! And I don’t think anyone wouldn’t get it.

>“My worry simply stems from the fact that accountants are less likely to appreciate a clever logo and more likely to want some pretty typography with serifs and a few little swashes here and there.”

>“But since it’s an accounting firm, you’ll have to make sure their title is clear and 100% obvious so people can take them seriously.”

Jerome,
I think these blokes have a point. I stayed a little late at work and polished something up for you, maybe the kerning could be worked on a bit. *

* Simply an attempt to lighten the load folks, do not take offense please.

The way te is hanging out there, it almost makes Equar seem like a Spanish verb.
; )

Rani, on the logo you did, could you do another similar, but with the end E reversed direction to mirror the first ?
Sounds confusing but who knows, it may work.

Like this?

Yes, that is what I was thinking. Reality doesn’t quite live up to imagination, unfortunately, but I still like it.

Rani, what about contracting the black box behind the QUAT so it aligns with tops and bottoms of the characters... Thus is would only serve to define the negative spaces...

—Michael.

———————————————————————————
// love what you do or do something else. //
Michael Ebert — graphic designer, jazz saxophonist, horror movie devotee
http://homepage.mac.com/mwebert
mwebert@mac.com
———————

Every new version people have posted is simply weakening the
original idea. The reason the original works is because of its
simplicity. Adding gradients, knocking letters out or adding
anything else for that matter is going to weaken the idea.

I don’t think anyone here posted saying they didn’t get it, and to
assume that only the design literate would understand the idea is
incredibly patronising. Designers need to give the general public
more credit. Many people may not be able to create good design
or even recognise why some design is so bad , but in general, if
they are faced with a piece of good design and a piece of poor
design* they will recoginse which is better. A case of people not
knowing they need it until you give it to them I suppose.

* I’m using good and bad loosely here as I know they are very
subjective terms.

Phil

Hate to address the subject after the horse may have been beaten, but isn’t a clear, simple marque precisely what the client was asking for? If so, then there isn’t a problem with your original design. Weighting and colour look pretty good, maybe tighten up the space before the Q and ensure that the bars on the “=” are the same length as the spaces in the E.

How about sticking with your original iteration but using the application of the logotype to reinforce the E shape? It might look interesting forced tight into a left-hand corner or really tight left to the edge of the page (obviously leaving the negative space where the body of the E would be). That might help solve the problem, and, because it’s not bleeding off the page due to the negative space, it shouldn’t get chopped off by photocopies/faxes and anything else that doesn’t output to the edge of the page.

Just a thought.

Si

I beg to differ.
The original logo is playing with the abstract and went to far.
why take chance? do you like rolling the dice. I don’t. Not with the CLEAR representation to the public of a brand at stake.

As a designer, I like the idea but question the use for such a radical subliminal expression,I doubt an accounting firm can relate to this effect. Actually, I’m quite sure they want reliability and straight-forwardness rather than the sublime.

The logo is great but not for the client. the designer should consider making at least 5-6 versions, each with a more clear logo and get feedback. Anyone that can gander their thoughts on why an accounting firm needs to communicate with a semi-subliminal logo can reply to fullofcrap@nuts.com

It might look interesting forced tight into a left-hand corner or really tight left to the edge of the page (obviously leaving the negative space where the body of the E would be)

This is a very creative idea for letterhead or business card. But how would this work in a partial page ad, or on a pen, coffee mug, t-shirt, etc.

...do accountancy firms give out t-shirts? If they had this sharp logo they might.

But how would this work in a partial page ad, or on a pen, coffee mug, t-shirt, etc.

That depends on how your advertising works. On a mug, you could run it at a right angle, using the top of the mug as the edge. Anything with an edge you could use, but I’ve not thought it through totally, I must admit, it does add a layer of complexity to it all ;)

Maybe it’s one of those unfortunate situations where you have to put that approach behind you and keep the concept until you find a suitable time to use it. It’s a contentious issue, whether or not to use it, and looking at the 70-odd posts on this, I’d be very tempted to go a ’safer’ route.

I do like the ’reversed out of a block idea’ posted earler - I think it was Chris’ idea. It keeps the logotype as a solid unit and allows you to get away with using it, but personally, if this were my problem, I’d put this concept to one side and have a look at something else. It’s a shame because it’s quirky and the design is right up my street (I wish I’d thought of it), but I think that as Mac_Designer put it above, the company needs something without the ambiguity (and therefore potential confusion) that this could create.

Si

The only alternative to the original that even came close was offered by Michael Ebert.

But I still like the original…

peace

http://typophile.com/files/equate_3768.png

Well done! This solution doesn’t harm the original, it only makes it stronger. Really powerful, less esoteric and hence more useful as a logo for an accountancy firm.

It’d definately choose this one, if I had to choose between all alternatives.

Mac_Designer is right: you have to be more conservative/obvious.

hhp

Please...

Keep the original, it’s brilliant.

I agree with many others, the original version was just perfect. “less is more”

Cheers

Now that we’ve clarified that for the poor guy...
: )

lol oh well its ultimately his decision and then the companies. It’s all just friendly advice...

“People in general ask advice not for the sake of taking it, or so that if they do take it, it is to have someone to blame for having given it” :P

So you can just blame us for all the confusion if the client doesn’t like it or you end up having to change it!

Seems like there is a joke here somewhere...”How do you get 2 or more typophiles to agree on something?”

First off i have to admit I’ve always had faith in my original design. Secondly there are two many posts for me to reply to everyones differing views and ideas of what they think the final answer should be, although I’d like to. Some ideas have weakened my original concept, some have come close to improving it in ways which I didn’t even think of myself. Thanks to all who have taken time top post!

As I’m new to typophile and forums in general and as a whole have found this process an extremely useful tool to gain feedback be it positive or negative. I definately wasn’t expecting people to be so passionate about it!

I’ll look forward to posting more in the future.

Jerome

That’s excellent Jerome. Keep the faith!

peace

Maybe this is too late..

but have you thought about using the symbol “=” for the last “e”
instead of the first?

equat=

as opposed to

=quate

This way people still read the word pretty quickly and when
they see the switch, there is still a payoff.

Damn, I just realized Miguel wrote the same thing
on page 1. Apologies! I’ll have to read more carefully next time!

I am at work, and limited in fonts, so I used Gill Sans, probably not the best, but wanted to show a variation on Rani’s design that struck me as worth thinking about. (Although perhaps a bit hackneyed.)

*sigh*

The original was clear to 95% of the target audience (smart rich people looking for clever accountants) and very clever.

The “=” sign in the new post is unclear to 95% of the target audience. The backwards “E” has very, very negative connotations to 95% of the audience.

I would NOT trust accountants who don’t know which way to point the letter “E.”

Moderator’s Note:

I’ve moved this thread to the critique section, since it is a critique discussion about a new logo design in progress, rather than a general design discussion about an existing logo.

Even it’s too late, what about this?
Probably this idea might be not so original,
but i think it very legible, isn’t it?

Sorry for reviving a dead horse, but I found this an interesting thread.

One bit of confusion seems to be people thinking ’clever’ is synonymous to ’highly educated’. A person can be clever and never have finished the 5th grade.

There also seems to be an assumption that people hire accountants based on their logo. I find that hard to believe.

I just want to add that the original was cleverly simplistic. I immediately read Equate.

nice job.