add comment

If you are commenting on a logo, please focus on concrete suggestions for improving the logo. Cheers or jeers won't get published.

Name (required)
Email (required, will not be published)
Website

Enter code (required): 4261

comments

Still the best. Stand back from your computer and see which logo jumps out at you and can still be read. This is it. It's a great logo and yet it stills has personality and a roughness about it. The condensed lettering make this easy to read at any size. It says blog and yet I know it's more about ads. Good luck on your final choice. A shortlister.
(Curtis D. Tucker at 2005/09/30 07:55:52.539 GMT-5)

Someone suggested in your unrevised logo to put the block below the O on top of it. I would like to see that. Perhaps also try making all of the text black, except for the text with blocks underneath them, making them orange.
(Angela Chastain at 2005/09/30 13:39:53.768 GMT-5)

Wouldn't moving the dot above the "o" ruin the whole point of incorporating an ellipsis into the logo? That was probably, in my mind, the best part of a logo I was otherwise not that enthralled by.
(Brian Ford at 2005/09/30 13:51:00.408 GMT-5)

This is very smartly executed giving the original logo a "facelift." Very nice stationary as well, however I still stand by my comment about this looking too fake chisled/flintstones.
(Ken Lonseth at 2005/10/01 09:01:56.618 GMT-5)

This is mainly a response to Ken's comment. What's different about this version? I thought that "for opinion makers" was enlarged, but didn't notice much of a change, other than that. Though, as that was a big issue I had with the other version (small tagline) it was probably a good choice. I realize I included one with my logo revision, but I still feel that a tagline isn't necessary in a logo. Again, other than the cleverness of the "..." there's just not that much to recommend this logo, in my mind. It's not all that memorable, even if it is "more" memorable than a lot of the other entries. Ken, in regards to your (biased?) comment about your entry... I think there are at least two that are better... this one... and I'll let you guess my other personal favorite. ;)
(Brian Ford at 2005/10/02 10:53:38.264 GMT-5)

Being memorable and "standing out" are indeed great qualities to have in a logo, but, in my opinion, being flexible, bold, and clean are much more important factors. One common mistake I've seen many companies make when selecting a logo is choosing one that might "look cool" on the surface, meanwhile, having very little flexibility at smaller sizes. With my logo, you can go large or small and not lose an ounce of boldness (see the 88x31 gif url i posted above). There's really no limit to my design, as they can easily incorporate it into just about anything. For example: displaying the logo inside each advertisement (http://www.graphicnet.com/blogads/ad.jpg), allowing bloggers and clients to post an "ads powered by" tile without taking up much space, and just about anything really. A few designs have this flexibility (Kim Fitzgerald's, Ty Walters', to name a few), while some logos completely lose their affect and can even visually disappear at these sizes -- a quality you most definitely don't want in a logo. Especially an online company dealing with advertisements. If they choose a design that isn't flexible with these smaller sizes, then they've pretty much eliminated their opportunities to promote themselves using traditional online advertisements (468x60, 81x33, 234x60, and so on). No, my logo isn't the most creative logo out of the bunch, but, does it need to be? The most effective and powerful logos in the world don't rely much on creativity, but rather, boldness and flexibility. There are many logos here that have a lot of potential, making it very difficult for Henry and the gang to choose from. But, since they're choosing from a handful of great logos, it only means that they'll most likely end up with a great logo to represent their company. It's a good problem for them to have. =)
(Carm Hodzic at 2005/10/03 10:20:29.676 GMT-5)

Let me say right off the bat: If I weren't involved in this contest, I'd probably pick your logo over the other entrants. However, I disagree that your logo is easily legible in the link you provided. The orange half tends to blend together at that size into a blurry mush. I happen to feel that my logo is memorable, stands out, is flexible, bold, -and- clean. ;)
(Brian Ford at 2005/10/03 16:53:19.311 GMT-5)

Turns out i used a non-rasterized version of the logo when I shrunk it down to that size. Even in it's current non-rasterized state, you can still make out BLOGADS. Maybe it's not as clear as it would be at a larger size, but the point is it's still legible even at only 15 pixels in height. Brian, thanks for the compliment, and I wouldn't expect you to pick any other logo than your own as being the best. :) We've moved on from being designers to salesmen at this stage of the contest.
(Carm Hodzic at 2005/10/04 10:13:46.047 GMT-5)

To answer Len's questions: I'd use the extra space inside a banner with a message, or graphic, or anything really. The point of a banner is to deliver a message. My point of mentioning those banner sizes is you don't want to handcuff yourself when it comes time to develop banner ads or any promotional material, for that matter. And you don't want to run back to your logo designer whenever you plan on designing new material. Coming up with a message or a design to fill up empty space around a logo is a much better problem to have than not being able to fit your logo in those advertisements. This isn't a shot at your logo (or anyone else's), but rather something Henry and his gang should keep in mind during these final stages.
(Carm Hodzic at 2005/10/04 10:52:08.004 GMT-5)

Too aggresive in my opinion because of the size of the letters. To make this work, would need to make the letters slightly thinner, I think. Might work well if it were not so heavy. The essence of blogs is that they move with the speed of light.
(Jeff Harper at 2005/10/04 17:27:36.315 GMT-5)

I like this one, but it's too frenetic. Can the font be changed so it's a little cleaner? With a little fine-tuning, this one has punch.
(E Weis at 2005/10/07 06:07:31.531 GMT-5)

For those of you who would like to see a cleaner version of this font... http://www.graphicnet.com/blogads/logo3.gif
(Carm Hodzic at 2005/10/08 08:07:35.541 GMT-5)

the one you like is not readable, this makes a statement! The other looks too retro.
(Doryn Wallach at 2005/10/13 06:24:37.453 GMT-5)

Out of the 3 you have chosen, I'd have to say this one is the only choice. One of the others looks WAY too much like the ford logo, the other is too childish IMO. Good luck Carm, even if its not picked, if its any consolation, I think this one should definitely be the winner out of the 3 options.
(Angela Chastain at 2005/10/14 08:37:59.515 GMT-5)