This looks really fun, but it would be nice to see some kind of variation in the "e". The "e" appears five times and they are all identical. The letters are so organic, it would make sense to mix it up a little.

Aloha!
Scott

PS: Do I get some chocolate for this critique?

Scott,

Haha... lemme see how the client pays us

Good point on the 'e's. I don't care for using stock letterforms on custom logos (particularly because it encourages theft) but we had to whip this design up in less than a week, so, unfortunately, we sacrificed creativity to alacrity here. But, that's a great observation. Thanks.

Bill B

sweet! ;-D

but i would ditch the dolphins type. it (to mee, i see it everywhere nowadays) just seems overused, or maybe it is a good thing . . .
it just seems too characteristic, and thus it makes the design more the oposite of it.

so i would suggest maybe another 'curvy' type?

William I wouldn't change anything but I would do testing to make sure it worked on a variety of sizes. Does it work tiny? If not you might need a variation that is simplier. I'd also research the name. Another big nasty corporate giant might have a TM on Sweet Revenge. Just some thoughts

Dragan is right, that "dolphins" type is used a lot, but I think in this case, it's just too darn perfect for the application to lose it in lieu of popular overuse.

In regard to the "e": I feel for you on the quick turnaround, but I think even a tweak as subtle as slight rotation might help a little, or even chopping just a little bit off the curly end of a couple of the "e's"; otherwise, I love it!

I'm still craving chocolate. My wife is pregnant, and chocolate is one of my cravings.

Aloha!
Scott

not creazy about the typeface either. with thousands of curly type out there, you should be able to find some unique with very little effort.

Thanks to everyone for all the feedback. You guys are a great help!

Here are two more ideas we just presented today for their "healthier" line of chocolate (healthy chocolate - oxymoron?!? Ha ha!)

Thoughts anyone?

Bill B

(p.s. - The client has Trademarked Sweet Revenge)

William the first option has a very playful type, but the name is too long. I think the second option would do a better job with the name and on the shelves. What would happen if you copped of the "for you" appendix.

Hmmm�So "Sheryl's" is the brand, but it doesn't appear to be a brandmark in itself�Interesting. Is there a reason for that?

i really like the last two! good work man!

William if trends continue look to have to make a design for either no carb or low carb chocolate. I agree with Scott, no brandmark on Sherl's? Try making Sheryl's a logo mark, TM or �. My last thought is have you tested the designs within the environment they will be sold in? You can have a good design and it can totally be lost in the clutter of the retail environment.

I'd ditch the "Austin Powers" type (way overused) and go for something more contemporary and exclusive, like Sauna or Bello from Underware:

http://www.underware.nl/site2/index.php3?id1=fonts

Bert,

Gotta disagree with you there. Those fonts you suggested look like they belong on the front of a kids little league shirt (haha)

They don't convey any "edginess" and there is little potential for intertwining them, or adding the little devil tail. These were specific requirements from the client, which we had to keep in mind when selecting a font.

I don't see any problem with using common typefaces in logo design, as long as they are personalized to the job at hand. Many well known logos use popular typefaces which are just modified. Look at the letters in logos like Pepsi, Jurassic Park, The Crocodlie Hunter, Honda, or Playboy magazine, just to name a few.

From a psychological marketing viewpoint, I think there are advantages to using familiar letterforms, particularly in logo design, as the public sees something different, yet familiar. Going for the obscure or radical isn't always best.

Tiffany,

There are hundreds of typefaces that could convey a sense of well-made chocolate, but this client specifically asked for something "edgy", that brought together, mischeiviously, the concepts of good & evil.

I like bouncing ideas around. This was a quick throw together, and really doesn't do your suggestion justice, but wouldn't you agree the general feel, on first glance, is not "edgy"?



That was an important design criteria.

While well crafted, I don't find any of Underware's type to be edgy, so I wouldn't consider it a good choice for this job.

Tiffany,

Margo Chase's clients have budgets in the thousands (if not tens of thousands) of dollars. My guess is, they can afford whatever they want.

In this case, we weren't hired to create a marketing campaign, or educate our client about the impact of a logo design on sales. They had a trade show. We had a week to work, and a few hundred dollars to spend. That precluded going through numerous incarnations.

There are many directions you can go in when creating a design. In this case, we showed our client three ideas. The halo/devil tail turned out to be their favorite. It was an easy solution, given the limited budget. I was happy, they were happy. I hate defering artistic spirit to job constraints, but the reality is, it happens more then it doesn't. Will it win a Clio? No. Did it solve their problem? Yes. Such is the world of production artwork.

I sincerely appreciate your feedback though. Thanks.

What is going on with that figure on the 'simply good for you' logos, it took a while to identify, I rejected footprint and plant so it must be a girl dancing on an air grate � la Monroe. As for 'edgy' design, and this is the kind of wording that can be easily misinterpreted, I would suggest that your pallette shouts chocolate while your type supports that � neither is 'edgy'.
Tim

William:

This is not a suggestive question, but I am curious�Did you post your design on here strictly for commentary, or in an effort to make improvements?