New design to a corporate logo

rose's picture

This is a new design to a corporate logo.

The company name has changed.
In the briefing the partner said that the doctor into the elipse couldn't change.

"Berkeley Healthcare Intelligence and Simulation" and "Berkeley Medical Equipment" are two companies that forms a group.

I show the old logo and the new:

Thank you!

rose's picture

Image:

blank's picture

I think your letters look dated in this context. It has the feel of a tech logos from the 1990s that used futuristic typefaces to imply their technology. I don’t think that approach is appropriate for medical technology, which could benefit from a responsible blue-chip feel that says “Our stuff won’t kill patients.” These letters also don’t connect with the style of art in the ellipse/doctor, and the colors you’ve chosen feel very dull.

Kirs10's picture

Can the oval shape be tweaked at all? It seems extreme/awkward. The new font is very modern but the image of the doctor looks dated.

The icon and the type are too disjointed items with no real relationship. A first obvious step would be to put Berkeley in the same color as the oval, however I think this may need a little more work than just that. Also on your second posting the colors are too close in tone/value. It's fine to keep them in the same blue-green family but at first glance they look the same. Or perhaps it's just my screen, on your earlier posting they had more contrast.

rose's picture

"I think your letters look dated in this context. It has the feel of a tech logos from the 1990s that used futuristic typefaces to imply their technology. I don’t think that approach is appropriate for medical technology, which could benefit from a responsible blue-chip feel that says “Our stuff won’t kill patients.”"

The expertise of the company is medical simulation, working high tech, not human. This is the contrast between an organic form (the doctor) and the futuristic typeface.

See http://www.berkeley.com.br/companyinfo/

litera's picture

I'd make the ellipse more round and make "the doctor" bolder. Lines are very thin whick is not that good for small reproduction or vinyl.

Have you tried different shapes? Like circle?

If you're goging to use a circle you may consider slanting your type for about 5° to make some dynamism. I think your type may be appropriate but I'd shorten extenders. Maybe not on the L, but definitely on Y.
___________
Robert Koritnik

rose's picture

Robert,
The owner said the ellipse cannot be changed! This is the problem that makes the redesign difficult... How to express a lot of ideas

Ratbaggy's picture

ah well ... design by committee very rarely works.

good luck.

I personally can;t stand the image of the doctor, it's creepy and sexist

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

timd's picture

The unicase/lower case mix of the new typeface is peculiar, some of the glyphs don’t appear to be designed to be together. The B sits well with the e and r but not with the K, l or y. I share the same misgivings about the “techno”-quality of the type, for the reasons that it is already dated by some standards and will not age well. The relationship between icon and type isn’t working yet, they just aren’t tied together whether this can be sorted is a tricky problem since you have two strong directions – horizontal and diagonal, this is especially evident in the centred versions. The next area to look at is the sub, you have a long line to work with and used at a small size (business card for example) it might be just too small to read easily, but as noted the lines in the icon will also need consideration if they aren’t going to fill in at small size – so, given that it cannot be altered, that minimum safe size is going to dictate, to some extent, the form of the logo.

The website has that web 2.0 emboss, highlight effect that some web designers feel free to throw at every carefully designed (or not) logo – not pertinent to your project, just something that really annoys me, especially when I am forced to comply with poorly constructed guidelines.

I don’t see the sexism in the icon, it doesn’t seem to have a specific gender, maybe that’s just me.

Tim

goldfishSarah's picture

Yes - I agree with Paul that the doctor image is sexist. It is clearly a man. Why would you specify either male or female in a logo that represents an entire company?

Make that case to whomever you're designing for, and they'll let you change it for sure. It is DEFINITELY sexist. Anyone who argues otherwise may not be worth working for.

goldfishSarah's picture

Maybe to back up your claim - conduct a large, informal poll. Ask people if the image is a man or a woman. Report your results to the person you're reporting to for this redesign. Hopefully they'll see the light and let you start afresh.

Lex Kominek's picture

You are crazy. I agree that the image looks more like a man than a woman, but that doesn't make it sexist. What am I missing here?

Are you personally offended by this image, or are you worried that others may become offended by it?

- Lex

timd's picture

>conduct a large, informal poll. Ask people if the image is a man or a woman.

That would reveal more about those questioned – in a cod-psychology way.

You can see an ear, a neck, a mask and a cap – what on earth makes that masculine or feminine?

But this is not about persuading Roseane’s client to change the icon, it has already been said that it is not to be changed, so within those restrictions what can be done to answer the brief.

Tim

Ratbaggy's picture

Lex - it's nothing personal ... just an opinion. Doesn't make either of us crazy.

To help you understand ... perhaps sexist is too strong a word, maybe "gender bias" is better.

it's for a training centre - where (presumably) both genders will attend to advance their careers in medicine - I think it odd to include an image of either gender as the visual icon/identity.

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

goldfishSarah's picture

Yes - perhaps "sexist" is not the right word. I was just making an observation that the image, at first glance appears more masculine than feminine. Careful design can be used to make an image like this truly gender-neutral, but in this case, it might still need a little bit of tweaking. If it solicited this strong of a reaction in me, it might do the same for others.

In any case, all I was saying that it was one other thing to consider besides the type.

BeeBrains's picture

It's that lowercase r that is really bugging the hell out of me. I don't mind this typeface since you it does an effective job at making the point that this is a medical technology company, but there is that huge white space under that r, specifically in the first logo, that is just making my eye not want to look at it anymore.

I think tying the oval doctor logo (which is also awful, but since you can't change it I'll skip my rant) in more with the Tagline or the company name would definitely give this logo a much tighter and precise looking quality. Maybe try something other than a completely linear looking logo, make the oval work for you, rather work for it.

Good luck!

Syndicate content Syndicate content