Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

waloshin

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Oct 9, 2008
3,528
331
I am trying to be seen as a premium photo /document scanning business. I have therefore choosen black and gold. I believe I used pantatone 851.

received_10156431267830634.jpg
 
My suggestion is not to show the scanner. It's just a very basic scanner, which doesn't reflect "gold standard".

As the old saying goes, you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.

You're showing them the steak, and it's not Grade A.
 
For the visual part (the scanner), I would try to "abstract" it into a more simple iconic image. The present scanner image is too detailed and distracting. Basically you want an image that can stand on its own, without the typography, if necessary.
 
My suggestion is not to show the scanner. It's just a very basic scanner, which doesn't reflect "gold standard".

As the old saying goes, you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.

You're showing them the steak, and it's not Grade A.

you're right in saying not to show that scanner......it's not an image that suggests "high quality"
 
  • Like
Reactions: til1p
you're right in saying not to show that scanner......it's not an image that suggests "high quality"

Agree with everyone who's saying this - drop the scanner. I would rethink your approach a bit and maybe throw around some more diverse ideas. You probably want a versitile logo that will look good online, but also printed on business cards, as a masthead on stationary, a little favicon or profile picture on social media. To be able to do all that, you'll need to simplify simplify simplify. Think about other companies' logos that you really like - it's usually a simple design and sometimes the company name, or the company name as a unique typeface.
 
Logo1.jpg



Logo1_white.jpg


Logo_Fb_B_10.jpg


Logo_FB_10.jpg


The two squares would be for the favicon, social media.
Okay, so I honestly think this is a step in the right direction. Bold, catches your eye with the blue glow, only problem is that it clashes with the gold text. But it has some depth, makes you think about it for a second until you realize it's supposed to be a scanner. I would roll with that, take it a bit further.

The actual font though makes me think of JG WENTWORTH 877 CASH NOW! (877 cash now)....... which is not good.
 
Okay, so I honestly think this is a step in the right direction. Bold, catches your eye with the blue glow, only problem is that it clashes with the gold text. But it has some depth, makes you think about it for a second until you realize it's supposed to be a scanner. I would roll with that, take it a bit further.

The actual font though makes me think of JG WENTWORTH 877 CASH NOW! (877 cash now)....... which is not good.

Haha thanks yeah the font is a little odd. And the idea is the blue glow is a scanner. I am glad you noticed :)
[doublepost=1452732844][/doublepost]Updated font.

Logo1_TEXT.jpg


Social media use:
2016_social_small.jpg


Logo1_hand_white.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not keen on the 'The Gold (S/s)tandard in Photo, Document Scanning' tagline. Firstly, the use of a comma rather than 'and' seems very 'American newspaper headline-ese'. Secondly, it's too wordy for constant repetition. Thirdly, and obviously it's an entirely personal reaction, the reference to 'gold standard' seems both old-fashioned and a little vainglorious.

But, if you're committed to your gold standard, why not make your JW logotype echo a hallmark? For example...

Tq1nqVE.jpg

Not that I've got a clue what a US gold mark looks like, and subsequent Googling has left me none the wiser.

All the same, that'll be $2500. Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulenspiegel
Not keen on the 'The Gold (S/s)tandard in Photo, Document Scanning' tagline.

I had the same impression as well. "The gold standard" feels more time-honored and old fashioned, where digital archiving is anything but that.

It seems to me that speed is the selling point here. This is more about fast and easy turnaround than it is about quality. Of course the quality has to be there, but it's not what will catch the customer with the 10,000 pages of documents that they want done in two days.
 
I agree on the gold standard.

Logo1_hand_white_diamond.jpg
At the risk of offending you, which I am not intending to do, all of your logos are in need of significant improvement. A company that's the "gold" or "diamond" standard would hire a skilled designer. Centering is seldom a good design solution, and the typography choices you've made look amateurish. The tag line isn't adding much to your idea; with a company name that includes "digital archiving," it's obvious what the business does, and you telling me it's the gold/diamond standard isn't proving anything to me. Also, while the term "gold standard" has a definition, "diamond standard" is a meaningless term.
 
At the risk of offending you, which I am not intending to do, all of your logos are in need of significant improvement. A company that's the "gold" or "diamond" standard would hire a skilled designer. Centering is seldom a good design solution, and the typography choices you've made look amateurish. The tag line isn't adding much to your idea; with a company name that includes "digital archiving," it's obvious what the business does, and you telling me it's the gold/diamond standard isn't proving anything to me. Also, while the term "gold standard" has a definition, "diamond standard" is a meaningless term.

Constructive criticism is what I need thanks.
 
I agree with the statements above. Those are very generic, but I am glad you threw the scanner image away though as that was screaming not-at-all-gold-standard.

Also, write "Photo and document scanning", don't use a comma to seperate two terms, and don't introduce captial letters at random. ...But why not just write something like:

(Fancily made) JW
Digital photo and document scanning and archiving

? You have two different ways of writing what you are doing, both which are essentially the same thing, just formulated differently. It would also be much easier to make a logo with just JW. If you want to expand in the future, you don't have to redo your logo either.

And a dark gold on a black background is just a no no. Either a light gold color, or use a different color.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonitornado
Also, you should not be thinking too much about color. A good logo design needs to be readable in black and white, in small print, on the web, in all kinds of less than ideal situations. Color is a great add-on, but never make color choices your first step in the design.
 
  • Like
Reactions: opeter
Hire someone. Really.
If you want to do it on the cheap even if you just find someone who's still studying design looking to earn a bit of cash.
I agree with above. None of these are close to a professional logo.
I agree with the statements above.

Honestly, this is the answer. The logos are simply not up to par. The font choices are terrible. And it's frightening how casually you switch from one bad choice to another.

At this point you either need to hire a designer, or just typeset the thing in Helvetica and be done with it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.