Very You-Tubey. Did the client request a Web 2.0 style logo?

- Lex

The 3-D effect is inconsistent - in more than one way. First, the gradient suggest the letters are on a curved surface, yet they’re not slightly warped as they should be — if you put a chess board on a spherical surface, the squares won’t be square any more, right? Second, the letters “DOCK” are plain white without any gradient, which is wrong — just like the black background, even originally plain white area get a gradient if the surface isn’t flat.

3-D effects are tricky to get right, and they’re guaranteed to give you headaches to get printed right. So unless your logo is primarily used on screen (which doesn’t seem to be the case according to your description), you should re-think at least three times if it’s worth the trouble.

> Second, the letters “DOCK” are plain white without any gradient, which is wrong — just like the black background, even originally plain white area get a gradient if the surface isn’t flat.

I think you’re misreading it — I take the white to be not a different color on the surface of the curved thing, but rather cut-out empty space. So the PROMO is like a plug that will go into the DOCK socket. (But maybe the designer should take this misreading as a warning.)

It’s odd - I feel like the gradient on PROMO is very dated looking (in a kind of early-80s-Radio-Shack home-computer-ad way), and the one around DOCK is very trendy looking (kind of iPhonish).

The interpretation of a cutout isn’t making any more sense than a white paint. Since the surface is curved, it suggests that the black “block” has a certain thickness. A cutout would reveal the inside edge of the cut — which isn’t there (or maybe it is, but the image is *way* too small for me to see it — why do so many people post poststamp-sized image for critique as if to make sure that the details are lost?).

This is definitely a web company logo not a promotion personnel providing company logo. I think you should try working on it from the scratch.

And while designing the logo try to avoid any effects like gradients and reflections or even colour.

Why do you think it should be sophisticated? Look at great logos around the world. The best ones. Are they sophisticated or simple? Let me give you some very nice examples:

• Apple
• Audi
• Nike
• Nokia
• easyJet
• Olympics
• etc.

Most of very good logos of the world are very simple but they do have the character to present the brand behind it. Yours doesn’t do that yet. But if you will continue and work on it probably will.

You really need to understand that design isn’t pure art, it’s applied art, and as such, the basic principle is: “simplicity = good, complication without absolute necessity = bad”.

To be clear, we’re not talking about “sophisticated”, but “complicated” in this case. The word “sophistication” should be used to describe an inevitably complex solution to a complex problem. Obviously, that requires great skill. But the more basic and more important skill is to recognize how complex the problem is in the first place. Intentionally aiming for a solution that is more complex than the problem itself, is — without exception — a very wrong course.

Ok guys, I fully agree with what you’re saying. I shouldn’t have used the word “sophisticated”. It’s just that I’m aware that my current logo needs some improvement but I don’t know exactly which one! That’s probably because I’m not as experienced in logo design as guys are.

(By the way, my favourite logo is the McDonalds logo. It’s probably the simplest logo I know. And that’s exactly why it’s so instantly recognisable all over the world.)

So, any more ideas on how to improve my logo? Any input is much appreciated!

The “D” being pushing right t0 the edge of the “dock” looks optically disturbing to me. I do understand the idea of “docking”, and I think it’d be better to put half of the “D” into the white part — so it really “docks”. The “docked” half of the D should be in black, of course.

Right now this looks like a logo for an electronics store, not a modelling agency.

It seems to me that you just jumped right into designing the logo without thinking about what you want the logo to convey. Throw this iteration out and think about the logo again from scratch. Who is the audience? What do you want them to think of when they see the logo? Are there any other businesses providing the same service? What do their logos say to you? &c.

After you’ve done this, start sketching on paper.

- Lex

Hey guys, thanks for all your comments. You are certainly right, especially about the gradients... Actually, I like the idea of the “plug” going into the “dock” socket, as eliason mentioned. That’s what I’m trying to convey in my logo. I removed all those 3D-effects, and now the logo looks very simple. Too simple? What can I do to make it look more sophisticated?

I think it’s your font choice and the enclosure. Try something with less weight and break away from the enclosure. And I’m not getting the plug idea. Good luck.

>Sophisticated vs. complicated, complexity vs. appropriate solution

Perhaps the right word here is shibui.

>The word “sophistication” should be used to describe an inevitably complex solution to a complex problem.
>Sophisticated vs. complicated, complexity vs. appropriate solution

Why can’t something be sophisticated yet simple? The implications above are that anything that is sophisticated is therefore complex, and anything complex, that is executed well, is therefore sophisticated. I’ve seen plenty of good design that is complex, yet not sophisticated. I feel sophistication is more like elegance or boldness. While it is a trait often desired, it is not inherent in every (good, complex) design, nor should it be. Similarly, elegance is something to be admired, but it is not necessarily appropriate in every situation.

>Are they sophisticated or simple?
I think your list includes many logos that are both, and some that are one or the other (easyJet, for example, while simple, is more casual than sophisticated).

I agree with hola that the font choice is a little too heavy. Maybe even try a serif? Although knowing more about the company and its personality would certainly help.

Cassie, please just look into a dictionary, for example the Merriam-Webster, and you’ll see that the primary definition of “sophisticated” is:

Deprived of native or original simplicity, highly complicated or developed, complex.

I understand what sophisticated means, but in relation to design, I think the key word there is “developed.” Yes, it may be complex, but that is not a requisite. However, something that is highly developed doesn’t have to be complex (nor does it have to be sophisticated, for that matter). I just don’t think one can pass judgment on the sophistication of a mark based simply on its relative complexity or simplicity. That is a completely separate matter, IMHO.

Cassie, I think you’re confusing the process with the outcome. A very complex concept can lead to a very simple result — that’s entirely possible and even quite usual in high-class design. This is basically what you’ve been talking about — a simple result that indicates a sophisticated concept and/or creation process. However, being able to *indicated*, *reflect*, *embed* something sophisticated isn’t equal to *being* sophisticated itself — the result still cannot be simple and sophisticated at the same time.