Template Driven Website Creation - Logo for Critique

jhindley's picture

Hi Guys,

Given the great feedback I got on my first post I have submitted another logo here that I would like your C&C on.

This isn't my work - this is a friends work and I mentioned I had signed up here and submitted a logo for c&c - he is curious to see what you make of this.

See attached files.... AND to see this in context www.imonline.eu


imonlinelogo.jpg21.84 KB
riccard0's picture

Some random thoughts.
Colours don’t blend well together: the “im” blue is too bright.
Grey on grey, seriously?
Shape-wise, “im” stands out too much, while online.eu is too uniform. If the intent is to promote the url, “im” shouldn’t appear as something separate. If the intent is to promote the brand, “im” and “online” should work better together while .eu should be de-emphasised.

blaze.online's picture

on a first glance: I'd probably strip down on the colors. You've got a fully blue first two letters (IM), then you get online with a blue to blue gradient, and then you get the grey .eu . It seems to me that it was done randomly.

edit: there was a very long story above, but to get to the core: I agree with riccard0.

When looking at the webpage I think there are to(o?) many different shades of blue incorporated. same goes for the fonts. There is a clearly distuingishable difference between webfonts and normal typography, and although webfonts / -typography can be treated like normal typography for a great deal with css, and other tricks, keep in mind that not everything works like normal typography. (Like the IM for Sole Traders)

Charles Leonard's picture

It may just be the size of the image but the character spacing appears a bit off. I think the disconnect between the script m and sans o is too wide. Also the round o and e in online appear slightly offset from the more uniformly spaced nlin.

jhindley's picture

wow - gold already - im gonna pass on the comment to my guy and see what he has to say -

This is all good stuff -

This is really not my style and I wouldn't have approached it like this -
I think this is what happens when web developer opens photoshop.

Ill have a chat with the creator and see what the options are -

Keep it coming - if there is anything else I am keen to hear your thoughts -

Cheers Guys

cfig's picture

I don't really see "i'm online" with this, I see "i squiqqle squiggle online". Agreed on the color thoughts as well, in general it just comes off as a "this is what I figured out in ten minutes" logo.

apankrat's picture

It's weak in a sense that it is hardly memorable at all. As someone said in another thread, it looks like it was put together in 15 seconds in MS Paint. It is unremarkable and lacks any kind of "AHA moment".

Secondly, is it IM or I'M ? Technically IM is Instant Messaging, especially if it's an "online" context.

If you are set on using just the typography, I'd probably stick with a single typeface, heavier than you use currently and then just play with a letter decoration to make the logo stand out a bit more.

Ed_Aranda's picture

Aside from what everyone else has said, I feel that it is somewhat cold and uninviting. This is probably due to a combination of the font and color choices. I would steer clear of geometric sans faces in this case. Maybe something more humanistic in style. As for the script, I understand the effect he was going for, but I think that face is too angular to be friendly. If this is supposed to be for a website that makes it easy for the average user to create visually appealing websites, I feel like the logo should be warmer, friendlier and more inviting. I can picture this on some type of store-brand cosmetics product.

Syndicate content Syndicate content