Not feminine enough?

Primary tabs

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
Not feminine enough?
0

So here's the deal:
I put this together for a wedding guide put out by my publishing company. I had a few hours to design it, and this is what I came up with. I thought I was being clever with the black/white space, and it gave me an opportunity to use Garamond Premier Pro.

Here's the catch:
Every guy who looked at it thought that it was ok. Cool even. But the design was UNIVERSALLY LOATHED by every woman who caught sight of it.

We have a freelancer who also happens to be a wedding photographer, and she shot it down immediately. She said it was not "feminine" enough.

ARGH! That's what I thought I was making!

What do you think? How do you make something (more) feminine?

Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
0

Here's the .pdf if anyone is interested...

www.dangayle.com/weddingguide.pdf

Satya Rajpurohit's picture
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 - 3:31pm
0

either change its colors to pink/magenta...or change the photograph to something in which female hands comes first.
Right now it looks like someonez showing his hands to a finger's doctor;)

**and plz increase the space between I and D in I Do...It reads IDo.

Eric West's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 - 8:43pm
0

Don't even show a man. Men are subservient (they think). Just show the bride with a goofy grin surrounded by her girlfriens.

Bingo!

James Tung's picture
Offline
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 - 11:33pm
0

'I do' looks a bit menacing. I hope your audience isn't looking for Snell Roundhand, but it may just be a case of the type size choices you made. Weddings tend to be sensitive and intimate affairs.

Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
0

I was told "classy." An elegant font, a sepia-toned photo... What more can you ask for?

Josh's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 Nov 2005 - 1:46am
0

Dan, I've had this same scenario several times with a particular client. They're very democratic (in the worst way possible), and everyone gets a say. Invariably, the women line up on one side of the aisle, the men on the other. If one side likes it, the other doesn't.

Of course, the strong opinions could have something to do with the topic of weddings. As most designers know, anything wedding-related is a nightmare project, and should be avoided at all costs, even if it's not directly connected to your family.

Josh's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 Nov 2005 - 1:46am
0

Photoshop a giant wedding ring around the Space Needle! Or even better, Photoshop a tuxedo onto an outline of the state of Washington!

missgiggles's picture
Offline
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 - 4:29am
0

The Bosch tools were turned pink and DIY women wanted to buy them but not all women are feminine enough to go buy pink frilly things. The script typeface works though. Flirty, flowing...just like women.

miket's picture
Offline
Joined: 11 Mar 2008 - 10:18am
0

Picture looks good but I think I would have gone with a guy putting the ring on the girl at the wedding, just my opinion other wise everything looks great colors, fonts, layout. I'm not sure if I could ever use a wedding planner with all the stress involved of making sure things are done how you want i don't think I could let someone put the wedding together if anything went wrong I can just see my self in marriage counseling real soon trying to explain what went wrong why and how i'd fix it.

Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
0

Bump.

It was a resource guide to help people plan their own weddings.

And this thread used to be 2 or 3 pages long. When did the Typophile boys change the amount of posts that forced a second page?

Tiffany Wardle's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Jul 2001 - 11:00am
0

Dan, I think it happened with the last upgrade.

Nick Shinn's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Jul 2003 - 11:00am
0

I'd like to see the avatars stay the same as when the post was made.

Chris Lozos's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 - 11:00am
0

It may just look a little bit too corporate for the wedding planning crowd. Hopefully some women will post and help with the feminine angle. It just may need to have a softer photo and use the italic version of Garamond. Maybe women want to see more clothes and catering kind of stuff? Sorry, I am not of muchhelp with this.

ChrisL

Eric West's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 - 8:43pm
0

Dude. I swear. NO DUDE. Just the WOMAN...Watch the indent w/South District Journal. Cut it in half.

Maybe the Garamond isn't the best choice. Do you have any single titling faces, like mmm...like perpetua titling...something reeealy elegant.

Patricia Fabricant's picture
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 - 9:40am
0

A wedding planner should look romantic more than feminine and this just isn't either. I think the font is ok but the photo is all wrong - you can't tell at a glance what's going on and the design is, as Chris said, too corporate. I think you should check out some wedding magazines, Brides or Martha Stewart, to get a sense of what might appeal to women.

Think FLOWERS. You don't have to go over the top with pink and script, sepia could be quite nice and elegant but you have to soften the design. Lose the hard edges.

(Even tho I'm a woman, I'm not exactly the target audience since I think romantic is a quick hookup at city hall on your way to the airport for your honeymoon)

Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
0

I had a hard enough time just asking a close friend for her old Vogue magazines so that I could look at the designs. Now I have to look at Martha Stuart and all of the Bride-Zilla magazines?

First of all, I'd have a hard time explaining it to the cashier who is giving me wierd looks. Second of all, don't those magazines cost something like $40 a pop?

Sigh...

Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
0

As to the "soft" part,

I thought I WAS making it soft!!!!

ARRGGGGGHHHH!!!

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

Daniel, you're not married, are you.

Sigh...

hhp

Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
0

How often do I hear THAT question...

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

> Bride-Zilla

Now that's funny.

hhp

Blank's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Sep 2006 - 2:15pm
0

I'll just toss some big gay advice your way. If this needs to be feminine, the photo needs to be of a man putting a ring onto a woman's hand, and a big rock needs to be visible. Or even better, get a picture of a bride. Picking a prettier typeface is a must–Garamond may be aesthetically pleasing, but it's still a workhorse, and looks like one. Get Zapfino Extra or House Holliday Script out for this one.

And yeah, flowers.

paul d hunt's picture
Offline
Joined: 5 May 2005 - 8:44pm
0

it's all very somber. i would say you need smiling faces and a typeface with a bit more flourish. if shooting for classy, i'd go for Splendid Script or ***shameless plug*** Allyson. or at least a serif with some well-placed swashes.

Bram Pitoyo's picture
Offline
Joined: 23 May 2006 - 2:18pm
0

Hmm,

I wouldn't even go play on the white/black space. I'll just do a big, full bleed, full color, 'honest' photo.

Have a look. Got what I mean by 'honest'? I'll leave the further work to you, all I could think of at this hour is to put a ring in her finger to make the image work :)

Then I would use an ultra light curvy sans like Bryant . For extra sugary effect, use pink or baby blue (the thin weight, then, becomes optional).

Mili Carr's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 Jun 2005 - 1:36pm
0

Hmm, maybe more funeral than wedding...

As others have already said, it should be softer, swashes, italics... romantic, but not overtly sweet. And I think focusing on the bride is a good idea, they are the ones who decide on the wedding plans, after all!

Tim Daly's picture
Offline
Joined: 11 Sep 2003 - 9:04am
0

Surely that should read
Seattle says…
I do

Tim

Andrew Drummond's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 - 4:30am
0

This has been hinted at in previous comments, but one issue may be that the image is headless ...
It is also a little ambiguous but I think a major problem is the lack of heads (the "smiling faces" that others have commented on).

Shouldn't there be a space between the ellipsis and the 'I'?

Andrew Drummond's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 - 4:30am
0

Aah, yes. I think Tim's comment is better:

Seattle says ...
I do.

Martin L'Allier's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 May 2005 - 8:06pm
0

Garamond's italics would maybe do the trick...

Patricia Fabricant's picture
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 - 9:40am
0

Dan, go to the d**m store and buy the magazines, they're not $40 a pop. Or at least look at them. Do you really care what the cashier thinks? It's not like you're buying hemorrhoid medication.

Be clever with the black/white space on another project.

As I said before I (personally) don't think you need to go all pink and swashy but it has to look romantic and inviting. If you don't want to show the bride's face I'd either go for flowers or more of a closeup of the ring. This photo looks like she's doing hand reflexology.

Chris Lozos's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 - 11:00am
0

The photo looks al lwrong, it looks confusing to see that sea of fingers (looks a bit too sausage package).

ChrisL

Eric West's picture
Offline
Joined: 20 Mar 2005 - 8:43pm
0

he he . Sausagefingers

Nick Shinn's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Jul 2003 - 11:00am
0


This sort of thing seems to work quite well these days.

Patricia Fabricant's picture
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 - 9:40am
0

Reminds me of these

http://www.phaidon.com/travel/

good for the *wallpaper set but maybe not for the girl who's been planning her wedding since she was 5.

Alessandro Segalini's picture
Joined: 5 Oct 2005 - 5:14pm
0
Geo Ben's picture
Offline
Joined: 13 Oct 2006 - 6:48pm
0

well... it all depends.

if yer target audience is gonna be predominantly corporate drones, I would think this appropos. You might as well have a picture of them signing the license.

but, for regular folks... too design school rigid. What "guys" think borders on the irrelevant... women plan weddings, for the most part.

and too... consider the sexist stereotype imagery, unfortunately, unavoidable. A man slipping a ring on a womans finger... surrender ('cause he love her so). Reverse it and the woman is claiming her prize. Get rid of the ring thing.

In fact, get rid of the people altogether. Marriage is an abstract and is a lot more palatable in the abstract. Consider decorative materials including, yes, flowers. A combination of floral Script caps and italic. Disperse the 'color'. The image as a whole is bottom heavy.

Magazines, sure. (What? You dont have a library within a few miles?) But consider that other staple of wedding 'promotional material'; find the classiest wedding invitation and study THAT.

and avoid listening to advice from dedicated bachelors.

geo.

and btw, patty... i like the way you think.

Patricia Fabricant's picture
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 - 9:40am
0

thanks Geo ;–) tell that to Lorenza!

Dan, there's also this lovely — and free — thing called the internet. Try typing "brides" or "weddings" into Google and see what you get.

Nick Shinn's picture
Offline
Joined: 8 Jul 2003 - 11:00am
0


Sorry Patty, I forgot the frilly bit.

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

Now that's funny.

hhp

Casey Bohne's picture
Offline
Joined: 26 Oct 2006 - 11:56am
0

I thought the same thing as an earlier suggestion, if you love the design as is but need femininity, the easiest and most effective change would be a rose duo-tone. Also, a Woman's hand taking the forefront is a great suggestion.

______________________

CLB

Design should never say, "Look at me." It should always say, "Look at this."

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0
James Tung's picture
Offline
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 - 11:33pm
0

^ Ha. Wedding kitsch.

Try Tobias Wong's Killer Diamond Ring.

Wong makes engagement rings that can kill you. The razor-sharp diamond point is set into the ring so it can't get knocked out when you smash someone's face in, and the edges of the ring are really soft so it won't cut into your skin during the pounding. It's romantic because it means, "Will you marry me?" but it also means, "I can't always be there to protect you so if some jerk won't stop bothering you, puncture him with this." The diamond sharp edge will also cut skin down to the bone (with a minimum 1 karat stone - but the larger the better). Or it may simply be used to tag hard surfaces, like cars and windows for S.O.S. messages or that last will and estimate when pen or paper (or lawyers) aren't conveniently around.

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

> it also means, “I can’t always be there to protect you ...

I suspect it means "Break off the engagement and
you better go shopping for an eye-patch, bud".

hhp

Chris Lozos's picture
Offline
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 - 11:00am
0

Now that was a cut above the rest :-)

ChrisL

Linda Cunningham's picture
Joined: 26 Jul 2006 - 3:55pm
0

Well, as a hetero woman who's walked down (and back up) the aisle more than once, and to echo others, this is far too "businesslike," but that doesn't mean you need all the mushy-gushy Martha crap either.

Yes, some romance would be useful -- even after my experience, I'd like to think most people marry for love and not necessarily for the tax break -- but even making the picture four-colour instead of sepia would be a big improvement. And if there's only the budget for one colour, go for a one that is well saturated (a rich, dark blue/green/wine/rust).

Oh, yeah, and a typeface that's a little more casual. Doesn't have to be terribly swishy, y'know: even Optima would be an improvement!

Linda

Lorenza Pavesi's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Mar 2006 - 1:10pm
0

thanks Geo ;–) tell that to Lorenza!

ohhhhhhh...Pat, I don't hate you, silly. I just wouldn't like to work for you (I don't respond well to torture)

and since I'm here: to me it's the creepy hand that comes out of nowhere and the woman that has got a big "I do" instead of a head.

Hrant H Papazian's picture
Joined: 3 May 2000 - 11:00am
0

Yes, the "I Do" is supposed to replace the man's head.

BTW, I could go into this thread full swing, but there's something nobody's mentioning and I can't help it: women prefer to receive hand massages; and if they ever give one they certainly don't like the middle finger to be overly eager for its turn like that.

hhp

Patricia Fabricant's picture
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 - 9:40am
0

"the woman that has got a big “I do” instead of a head."

I know so many women like that, unfortunately...

Jason Pagura's picture
Offline
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 - 6:19pm
0

On a side note:

That Pacific Publishing Company logo resembles the "parental advisory, explicit lyrics" badge placed like it is.

Maybe its not something you can do something about as easily as the rest but it's worth thinking about.

Lorenza Pavesi's picture
Offline
Joined: 12 Mar 2006 - 1:10pm
0

That Pacific Publishing Company logo resembles the “parental advisory, explicit lyrics” badge placed like it is.
Brilliant side note: it's like the warning on fags. Warning: marriage is bad for your health.

The thing about flowers is that...even if you add flowers it could still remind a funeral. I would be careful what kind of flowers you pick.

Dan Gayle's picture
Offline
Joined: 17 May 2006 - 7:00pm
0

Don't get me going on our logo. The "Pacific" part is the exact same font as the "Publishing Company" part. Only stretched to be-jesus.

So I take it that the photo is a large part of the mess. (By the way, the original photo that I had chosen was of a large diamond ring on white. But NOOO, we did that last year they said. Think of something new they said... BAH!)

I chose that photo precisely because it wasn't a boring old wedding photo. I am certainly kicking myself now over the missing heads, but I thought the basic premise of a woman putting the ring onto the man's hands symbolized the empowered Seattle woman. And I also thought that the older-style dress would appeal to an older re-marrying generation.

I still don't understand the Garamond thing though. I know that it is a workhorse font, but I was under the impression that it was a little too "precious" for a lot of applications. Hence, "wedding"="precious".

Anyone care to elaborate on why Garamond doesn't fit in this situation?