Have you maybe thought about just using one of the M in your logo?

Put it on its side, as you have it at the moment, so it looks like a capital B without the vertical stroke.

Make sense?

I know exactly what you mean Matt. I have made countless attempts at my own logo and it's super frustrating. I just stuck to a recent idea and did it because I realized I'm not Nike or Apple so it's not reeallly going to matter. I can change it a year from now and probably no one will realize.

I believe this is what peter is talking about. I think this could very well work with some adjustments.

Kikkoman's sketch is a better direction. Much more interesting and makes more sense. Also, no cheap effects like drop shadow please.

penn

Sorry, but in MrKikkoman's sketch I see a butt. :-\
Maybe it's just me, etc.

Shame on you Nina :-) Just kidding, me too!

Michael

Maybe the butt idea isn't so bad either....as burns almost looks like bums.

Thanks guys, helps a lot. Really appreiciate it.

Well I see boobs but that's just me =). Also, you can combine Ma(tt) with (Bu)rns and make Butt. So...you can roll with that too.

For the MB monogram, how about something along these lines:

Haha. Maybe it is destiny that I am to be involved with butts.

Epsilicon: that is actually really cool. I like that a lot. Thank you kindly.

Actually, I think Peter meant something more like this:

I can't help but see the number 3 though unfortunately.

I can’t help but see the number 3 though unfortunately.

Well, you're absolutely right.
And while inserting meaningless body parts is a common (and successful ;-) practice in marketing and communication, I agree this unrelated 3 probably overcomes any immediate reference to either m or B.

Just don't kern Burns too tight.

so to speak.

;)

----------
Paul
Design Studio Melbourne

If only the term 'bums' could be something more appropriate to take advantage of.

Just my luck...

Thoughts?

A large blue fish about to eat 'thoughts'.

First thing that came to my mind was the Moving Brands logo, http://www.movingbrands.com/

riccard0: That's exactly what I meant. But I agree with you Matt, it does look like a 3 and might need some work to move it away from that.

Playing with fire, Mr. Burns? Eat something spicy, then combine the burning with the butt sensation that typically follows and you have your conceptual connection. :)

best regards,
daniel

Hahahaha. Only down fall would be the restriction of my market to Indian food outlets and whoopy-cushion manufactures.

Bit of an update. Maybe I have lost the 3 now?

I like it! I saw a 'B' right away, definitely no '3'.

- Lex

Somewhat it reminds me of this:
http://www.dailyillusions.com/2007/11/14/3-pillars-impossible-shape/
;-)

all reminds me a bit of this Marcus Evans brand.

riccardO: do you think that is a good thing? bad thing? or just something in general? I am guessing the latter of the three. But yes, I do see where you're coming from. Definitely similarities.

Nick Job: Yeh I see your point. I think, if I were to use this concept, I could live with it. Quiet different markets also. Thanks for passing it on though. Good to know what is out there. A current job of mine may be facing some IP issues.

And thanks for everyone's comments thus far. Extremely helpful and inspiring.

I like it. definitely an M and a B without the three. nice clean and simple – perfect, and much better than the marcus evans brandmark

Thanks a lot geeza. Very kind words.

do you think that is a good thing? bad thing? or just something in general?

Just something to be aware of. Another level to play with, if one wants.
(think of the subtle play of the so often and never enough cited FedEx logo)

riccard0: yes, definitely food for thought indeed.

Your name is 'burns'. Have fun with that! Fire. Flame. Light. Bright. Speed. Torch. Hot. Spicy.

Aluminum: Yes I have to say I agree with you. I have explored the path countless time in the past though it never really worked out.

I quiet like what I currently have. Though I would seem like a fool to not utilise 'burns' somehow.

Maybe I need to incorporate both...

Thanks again everyone.

Yeah, just take the mark and light it on fire.

:D

Briän

http://typophile.com/node/62761

I agree with taking advantage of the "burns" approach. There's a lot you could do with that.

>Throwing my hands up.

Which is better than throwing up on your hands. I like the last version, (Nov. 9) clever and well done.
But "Matt Burns" what? I'd like a little more information than, "what a clever logo".

Cheers!

yeah, i like just the nov 9 version. but i would just leave it like the sideways m from the original logo, just grey, not a white outline. outline weakens it if you ask me, make it a solid object. i think it's fine straight up not tilted. if people think it's a 3, then tell them you have 3 testicles or something. then it's 3 concepts in one. maybe im kidding about that. maybe not.

Mr Berlow,

Thanks for your kind words.

Well, as for the logo, I am looking to set up a litte online home for the various amounts of stuff I have put together on a hobbie basis. It is kind of geometric, illusionistic type based. I think this logo would be an appropirate face.

As you can tell by the little display pic, I have decided to stick with the last design posted.

Good team effort guys. Thanks a lot.

I have taken every suggestion with full value and apprieciation. This has been a really good experience and I am very delighted with my final product.

Looking back at the start of the post against what I have now is just fantastic.

THANK YOU.

I'm kind of late for dinner, but the Nov-9 version is indeed very nice. Memorable and unique. It did however remind me of Thomas Cannon logo. Not literally, but the general concept of two interlocking letters that sit at 45 degree angle.

Wow the Thomas Cannon logo is really nice.

Thanks though mate. Never too late.