I am new to Typophile and would appriciate any constructive critisisms for the logo. It is for a business analysis company. Cheerz! Dave
I’m new here as well, and I can’t see the logo you are referring to. But that could just be me
The ole .unk problem. That’s what I’m seeing. How about this?
well, well, well…this is way too much FFcocon used in three diﬀerent identities (one by a Romanian friend of mine, one by another dutch designer and this…) within one week beats my power of understanding. To me, this font (an original fontsmith font designed for durex collateral) would never do for a logotype … it has too much distinctiveness in itself to ever make a good choice for a corporate identity … george //.
I tought distinctiveness is good in identity, looking like everyone is death, isn
Durex condoms? Interesting. It does look a little rubbery. I think it suits logotype better than text, but it does have too much character. Perhaps a little reﬁnement could personalize it. Is that “s” part of the typeface? It looks a little wonky, particularly leading to the spurs. The logotype looks a little tight in the “sim” or loose in the “pro.” The proportion of “simpro” to “solutions” is too extreme. If the logotype gets any smaller, “solutions” will become specks. The molecular metamorphosis occuring on the left half of the “o” looks a little lumpy and complicated. The forms could be smoothed and simpliﬁed to better eﬀect. Hope that helps! Cheers.
I think it would look nice with just a dot pattern making the left half of the “o” — without the weird connectors and ambiguously shaped blobs. I agree that “solutions” is too small. I would try putting it after “Simpro” in a font that is one to two-thirds the size. In dark blue, of course. Paul