99octan logo

Jan's picture

So I drew this, based on an existing logo (extended). I tried to make it a bit more tech-looking to match the actual name better. If I would have had the choice I’d have done something different, but - well...
It doesn’t matter much what it’s for. It’s all about matching the name.
So, what do you think? Any major flaws, or suggestions? Actually, I really don’t know if this any good or not. Any input welcome.

Jan's picture

Wow. This seems to be the most indifference provoking logotype design I’ve done so far.

;-)

aurelie's picture

can you do the 99 a different color?
It looks good. Logos can be difficult because they don't always elicit a response, but if they serve their purpose, they are still doing their job.

Jan's picture

Thanks for your response Aurelie. This is actually just a plain black on white view of the the logo. Eventually it’s going to be white on orange most of the time.

all about seb's picture

Jan,

i would take the lack of responses as a good sign. If there is nothing wrong, people are less likely to post...
Having said that, I like it - it's clean & techy (without looking cheap).
If anything, do you have any alternate versions for the 'a'?

Jan's picture

Thanks seb.
The original logo had a two-storey a. I tried it, but it didn’t work very well on screen at small size (web).

eeblet's picture

I find the "a" problematic - ambiguous and/or ugly.

I don't particularly like it in a void - just not my type of aesthetic - so without knowing the context I have no way to give feedback. Context is all.

After looking at the website, I think your changes are good, but I do prefer the two-story a - more legible to me.

aurelie's picture

I like the 2 story "a" too. It balances the 9 better.

Jan's picture

Thanks for everbody’s input.
So here is a version with a two-storey a for you to compare.
I still think it looks like a blob, especially at small sizes on screen. That’s why I don’t like it. Also the t’s horizontal stroke lengths vary now to the right. That kinda disturbs the uniformity I’d like to achieve.
What I’ll do is, I’ll increase the vertical stroke width by a tiny bit, but leave the a, although it’s not perfect, as it is.

Jim Stafford's picture

It's better in context, but the whole thing is so nothingy it's no surprise you've had no feedback.

You say it doesn't matter what it's for (which is bizarre) and should match the name, but I for one can't figure out what the name means -- so no idea how it's reflecting it.

Jan's picture

Oh, the octan(e) rating is a measure of the autoignition resistance of gasoline (effectiveness). There’s Super (high octane) and Normal (less octane).
It’s for an ad agency which has to keep this name (established) although nobody really likes it or can relate to it much (long story). That’s why I said it doesn’t matter and that’s probably where the certain nothingness comes from.

all about seb's picture

Jan,

after seeing the 2-storey 'a', I actually prefer the single storey one as it looks more in sync with the rest of the letters.
So I think you should stick with that - put a _final at the end of the filename and move on :)

Seb

eeblet's picture

I recant - at small size, the single-storey is good. At a larger size, I still don't like it - but that's probably not relevant. :)

Ratbaggy's picture

madness. chiming in late I know, but your interest and enthusiasm in this project is reflected in the responses you've received ... minimal at best.

----------
Paul Ducco
Graphic Design

innovati's picture

I won't lie, I had an image pop into me head when I read the word's '99octan' and your logo wasn't it.

I'll share a rough copy of what I envisioned with you, maybe it will help you think of some stuffs or maybe be an example of what not to do (who knows)

Syndicate content Syndicate content