5 ms·

How we designed our logo for $30

27 points by ohashi 14y ago

davesmylie 14y ago
Nice idea. I never thought of using fiverr for this. Previously I have gone the 99designs route and been less than thrilled with the end result vs the money put in. I'm going to give this a try next time I need a logo.
josscrowcroft 14y ago
No offence intended, but I just sicked up a little in my mouth
- ohashi 14y ago
  That's fine. I didn't like a lot of the results, but I am quite happy with the one we chose. For $30, it was a really low risk experiment to begin with.
  - abeh 14y ago
    It may cost you more in the long run if you update/replace the logo you got for only $30 now. The branding and visual elements for your site and company should work with your logo; so whatever branding assets you have (site, business cards, stationary, ads) will all have to be updated if you change the logo later. I would not consider this to be a low risk experiment.
    - ohashi 14y ago
      abeh, You discount the value of time. If the startup fails anyways, it's a moot point. If it's successful, I will be able to afford it. I'd rather need to pay more money later for a startup that is doing well than spend a lot of money now on a speculative return later.
      - abeh 14y ago
        Sounds logical. If it fails, hopefully the reason for failure is not the logo, or an accumulation of things done quickly and cheaply.
davidandgoliath 14y ago
And the results are priceless^. Branding is sometimes worth the extra few dollars. :) ^: Or should have been given the lack of quality.
highace 14y ago
My thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ
- gruseom 14y ago
  Please don't post that kind of comment here. It's against local custom.
evoxed 14y ago
As a designer, this makes me cringe so hard I'm worried a blood vessel might burst. $5 is not, I repeat, is not "hiring a designer". I'm glad that you found a solution that was satisfactory, but seeing people continuously take this route (on both sides of the equation) is well... I'm not quite sure how to describe it at the moment. > Logos are a trap. Let me explain that statement: they are a place many startups get stuck. A logo is what identifies you. It's the symbol that takes up space in a customer's mind when they think about your company. There is no symbol that is more connected to your company than a logo. This traps entrepreneurs because it drives many of us to want the perfect logo. If I hadn't just started eating (and replacing my chopsticks– the tip of one succumbed to the aforementioned cringe) I would love to go more in depth with this statement, so I hope another reader will tune in and maybe have something to say (whether they agree or not). Edit: also, I didn't mean any funny business about breaking my お箸– it actually happened. Since you're ohashi... and... oh, well.
- bennyg 14y ago
  As a fellow designer, I always cringe at stuff like this too. What if I hired a programmer for $5 to write a few web services that could scale to infinity? Luckily, I've taken the time and still take the time to improve on both of these qualities in my own professional development. Quality matters, and I'm trying to provide that across all creative outlets I partake in. The logo IS important, very important, but it's just part of a web of important shit your business has to do. Having a great logo with a terrible or unready product means it's going to be even harder to acquire new people if they already recognize you by your "symbol" as not executing, or almost there, or the idea's good, etc.
  - jsnk 14y ago
    > What if I hired a programmer for $5 to write a few web services that could scale to infinity? No developer will work for $5 in the first place, whereas there are plenty of designers who will work for $5 on logo design. For small Saas businesses, logo may not be as important as how designers see them to be. Why is it hard for designers to accept that there are plurality of opinions on the value of design?
nvk 14y ago
LOL, it looks like a $30 logo.
- dromidas 14y ago
  That is really all startups need. Startups will either have a product that is so awesome that they get popular on their own merit and can fix the logo later (Facebook), Or their technology is desired by someone else and they get bought up by someone who doesn't care about the logo cause it'll just go away (Many startups), Or they'll be a semi-successful company that fades into the obscurity of the semi-successful startup army in which case a solid but not stand-out logo is just fine.
snuze 14y ago
You should have the designer rotate the signal pictogram slightly clockwise. Here' an example: http://i50.tinypic.com/2mfgody.png http://i50.tinypic.com/2mfgody.png
- ohashi 14y ago
  Thanks for the idea!
kylelibra 14y ago
Revisions = 1 Good to hear you're realistic here. I always feel bad after hearing about people asking a designer from elance for 50 revisions to make it just right.
- ohashi 14y ago
  It's generally their terms, but it's $5. It's crazy to expect the world for that price.
dylanrw 14y ago
And it shows...
generalcalm 14y ago
Proof that you get what you pay for.
jiggy2011 14y ago
$5 for a logo design, wow. I'm sure if there was a post saying "how I built an iphone app and backend rest API for $100" we'd all be screaming. It's interesting that more of these crowdsourcing / task based websites are appearing with very low prices. How long before we see contract writing for $50 and medical diagnosis for $100? It will be interesting to see what will happen as professional skills are driven down to commodity level.
- andreyvit 14y ago
  Just wanted to say that $100 gets you pretty high-end medical diagnosis here in Russia. Unlike in US, doctors and lawers are not highly-paid professionals in here (unlike, say, IT guys).
- davidandgoliath 14y ago
  Companies will continue to separate themselves from the chaff based on price alone. Price defines what you're worth to the recipient and much more. It also often dictates quality & what you see here is representative of that. Could you get a great $5 logo? Certainly. Nike did alright with their $35 one (ignoring inflation & stock later granted to the designer).
  - leadholder 14y ago
    Don't forget that Nike's original logo was accepted due to time constraints. The swoosh was combined with an incredibly badly aligned logotype that was altered later before finally arriving at "swoosh only." http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php Nike has since paid huge amounts of cash to refine and iterate their logo.
    - ohashi 14y ago
      But it didn't stop them or kill their brand. No reason you can't launch with a $30 logo and iterate later if/when the need arises.
epaik 14y ago
It's surprising how many times I've seen tech companies use an 'i' with a signal symbol at its top.
jarintabata 14y ago
Lol at the logos on that page
nivla 14y ago
I see a lot of comments about cheap logos. Serious Question: how do you define/identify a cheap logo? I mean look at logos of most popular brands like Google, Facebook, Ebay, BBC, Microsoft, Paypal, Yahoo etc they are all extremely simply, just fonts with colors on them, nothing that could be called creative. Maybe even a non-designer could replicate them in five minutes. However despite all the simplicity, these logos are still stuck in our mind and do represent their respective products. So it really worth spending $$$$ on logos while starting up?
- matthewowen 14y ago
  Quite easily; you look at them. If there were a way to programmatically define a good logo, there wouldn't be so many bad logos. I don't mean for this to sound facile, but it is like looking at art, or writing: it is very difficult to create a meaningful definition of what good is, but it is often very easy to classify things as bad and not-bad (if not good and not-good). It probably isn't worth spending $$$$ on logos. But you should care about design as an extension of caring about UX. If your design taste is sufficient that you can produce a simple, acceptable logo - great! If it isn't, it is possibly a warning sign that you need to involve someone who does have that design taste - and not just on your logo. To head it off at the pass - yes, some start-ups have succeeded with weak design (although far fewer than you think - simple is not necessarily weak), but start-ups have succeeded under all sorts of circumstances. It doesn't invalidate the principle that a good user experience is very valuable to any product.
- realscreen 14y ago
  It's not about money. Big budget logos can suck too. Often simplicity is the beauty of it. For example, simple code that works effortlessly isn't necessarily creative but it could be and when it works, it's beautiful. Because it's simple should it be cheap? Expensive? I don't think there's a correlation there. Beauty can be the intricacy of simplicity.
columbo 14y ago
> they are a place many startups get stuck. Yeah sure, this is true. Anyone remember the dotcom swoosh era (http://lekowicz.com/library/logohell/logohell.html http://lekowicz.com/library/logohell/logohell.html )? Startups also get stuck on UI (custom, bootstrap, jquery-ui, yui), backend (node,ruby,java,groovy,php) and database (mysql,postgresql,redis,mongo). For most businesses the logo is just something that shows up in the top left corner of the website, it really doesn't matter all that much as long as it is clean. I bet if you took this logo (http://kevinohashi.com/sites/default/files/Review%20Signal.png http://kevinohashi.com/sites/default/files/Review%20Signal.p...) and had it up on your site without mentioning you paid $30 nobody would have noticed/cared. What you have is just a cheap logo. And that's OK. Like a cheap car or a cheap UI it serves a purpose. Just like if you built a web application using out-of-the-box bootstrap the majority of end users will not even notice. That doesn't mean logos should only cost $30, or that for the $30 you spent that you have a great logo. Then again, maybe you don't need a great logo. A great logo should be instantly recognizable and fit with the message that is your company. http://speckyboy.com/2011/06/15/30-of-the-most-iconic-logos-and-brands/ http://speckyboy.com/2011/06/15/30-of-the-most-iconic-logos-...
- jcfrei 14y ago
  yep, they might have been better off with a 0$ logo if they had basic inkscape skills (since they already knew what kind of message they were trying to get across). on top of that I believe they didn't even choose the best one.
- ohashi 14y ago
  You put that a lot more eloquently than I did.
- mnicole 14y ago
  I agree with your message, but I'd argue that the logos in that Speckyboy link aren't necessarily good design. They just have the marketing budgets behind them to become ingrained in your brain.
- realscreen 14y ago
  > nobody would have noticed/cared. Exactly. It's OK. Not the end of the world to have a bad logo. It can evolve. There are plenty of examples of this evolution from bad to memorable. When your resources are thin, put them where they matter. But, put two equitable products up against one another and it will matter.
proexploit 14y ago
You might be right in general that logo matter very little to a number of startups and they shouldn't spend a lot of money on a logo before they're successful. However, your startup is one that need to appear trustworthy to a consumer and appearance / design actually matters a lot. When I look at your logo, I don't feel reassured that your web hosting reviews will be professional / trustworthy. Other niches need not worry as much about the trustworthiness of their product but you would have more success with a stronger logo design.
- ohashi 14y ago
  Do you think your opinion is biased based on reading this article first?
rtcoms 14y ago
Here is a nice list of famous logos and their costs : http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-much-did-they-cost http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-much... interestingly twitter's first bird logo costed only $15.
- cschmidt 14y ago
  You realize the high costs on the list aren't really for the logo. They're for the whole rebranding exercise. For Accenture, that includes advertising to introduce the new name and logo. For BP that includes new signs at thousands of gas stations, repainted trucks, and advertising, etc.
NahcDivad 14y ago
You should spend another $30 and replace the Drupal favicon on your site.
realscreen 14y ago
This is not a logo. Ok, maybe in today's world of photoshop=designer, but typing the company name, setting it in two opposed weights, two complementary colors and adding a bit of cliche clip art over (of course) the 'i' ...does not make a logo that is worthy of praise. Does it look terrible to most people? Probably not. Does it look good to anyone? Probably not. Memorable? Probably not. If this were my logo, would I be bragging about what a great logo I have and for $30? Probably not. Obviously there's a market for both approaches. Designers say they cringe at this type of work, and I do, but we've done it to ourselves by lowering the bar without anyone sticking up for the standards. And you want to talk about a trade war? Another topic for another time.
JoelMarsh 14y ago
Senior designer here... There is an old adage among designers, which couldn't be more appropriate for this post: "work for free or charge full price; never work for cheap." Same goes for clients. Get it free or pay full price. Everything else is a rip-off for someone. Or everyone. As a "we-can-barely-afford-to-keep-the-lights-on" start-up, a logo is the least of your worries. For the sake of avoiding any more "design is only worth $30" posts, follow these steps to create the Minimum Viable Product version of your brand: 1) Pick a font that is easy to read, but has a bit of character — just a bit! Type your company's name in it. That's your logo. Facebook's logo, for example, is a font called Klavika, slightly modified. www.myfonts.com is a good start. 2) Pick any color you like. 3) Pick a second version of that color (lighter, darker, richer, paler, whatever). 4) Use #2 for everything that is important. 5) Use #3 when you need to add some definition to your look & feel. 6) Get back to work. Come back when you can afford to do this properly.
- nanijoe 14y ago
  I like your 6 steps...As an experienced designer, would it not take you less time to get that done than most other people? Would it then not be worth your while to charge for say 2 hours of your time to provide , say 2 revisions to anyone who pays for your "hungry startup" package?
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  This is good advice for unsticking, but remember even the folks we consider great artists today often worked for 'cheap' when they were starting out. There is nothing compelling someone to participate on Fiverr, and there is nothing compelling someone from using their services and then not using the logos. Sometimes design challenged people (like me) like to have some ideas tossed at them so that I can begin to understand what I do and don't think would be useful in a logo.
leadholder 14y ago
Sure it is a bit of an overpayment for a cheap logo. Like any bad logo though, it just sits there and waits for refinement. With all of the "X Corp got their now-famous logo" comments, what isn't mentioned is the way the logos evolve over time. The original Nike logo would be a complete embarrassment for a high-value sporting goods brand today: http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php Guess how much it's cost Nike to hire designers and agencies to refine that logo over the years? Not to mention the various forks for separate marketing projects. When you pay a designer a lot of money up front for a logo design, you are hopefully paying for a highly-refined solution set to a problem or group of problems. Nike did this as they moved forward from their original logo. They are paying for the "hin" concept (Japanese for refinement). Product designers understand this better than any other group--you have to continuously refine as you go forward, or somebody else will eat your lunch. Someone who knows their design principles instinctively should be able to take a bad logo and detect the sound principles behind it, filter out the other noise (non-essentials to the problem at hand) and propose appropriate changes. As the author of the post says over and over, he is paying for something that serves a purpose. He is paying for something that he doesn't know how to create, or even use properly (see website alignment issues). So this situation isn't some grand thumbs-down at the design industry. It's just a set of circumstances that taxes one's thought process a bit too much and usually results in (hopefully temporary) sloppy work.
cschmidt 14y ago
Yuck, that is clearly a $30 logo. You got what you paid for. I find it hard to think that you're going to be happy with it in the long run. Here's the approach that I took. As a startup, you don't have a huge budget or a lot of time. Design firms cost more than freelance people, so you probably want a freelancer. I hired a freelance graphic designer (It was Ty Wilkins if you're curious, www.tywilkins.com). You should have a budget of $750-2000 or so. Fundamentally, you're hiring their time, so the less you pay, the less time they can put into it. I tried hard to give him efficient feedback, and we came to a final logo fairly quickly. I probably spend three phone calls with him, and some time reviewing his ideas. It was a good process, maybe a week in elapsed time, and a got a great outcome (see www.predictobot.com). Where do you find a freelance logo designer? I found Ty by looking on dribbble.com (note that has 3 b's in it). That's a designer hangout where they post recent work. Find a few you like, check out their websites, and then email one. See if they're available in the short term, and are interested in jobs with your budget. If you have no budget, then I agree with JoelMarsh's comment. Set your name in a nice font, pick a color, and you're done.
incision 14y ago
I think the equalizer-like option that wasn't chosen had the best concept. Problem is, it would actually require more refining that anyone should/would be willing to do for $30. Also, the mixing of fonts / styles on the actual ReviewSignal site is pretty nasty and the chosen logo feels quite out of place. This possibly goes to a show a real designer is actually worth something.
run4yourlives 14y ago
...and this thread will never be much more than butt hurt designers. Happens every time someone suggests that perhaps monstrous 'identity' projects aren't a good value to a lot of businesses.
- ohashi 14y ago
  It seems like it must have been flagged into oblivion because it dropped like 60 spots. I suspect you may be right.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lk145 14y ago
Well it definitely looks like a $30 logo... I see a lot of people here saying an early stage startup doesn't need good design. That's funny because I heard the exact opposite advice from Tom Preston-Werner of Github at YCombinator Startup School last weekend. With so many startups competing nowadays, success usually comes down to who executes the idea the best, and a huge part of that is design and user experience. An amateur logo is just going to make you look like an amateur company to users. I say this as a programmer: skimping on design is just as likely to cost you users as skimping on engineering. There's a reason why top designers are becoming just as sought after as top programmers in the startup world.
eckstein 14y ago
Funny how this story is a great ad for the site.. with topics on hn and reddit growing

27 points by ohashi 14y ago

Nice idea. I never thought of using fiverr for this. Previously I have gone the 99designs route and been less than thrilled with the end result vs the money put in. I'm going to give this a try next time I need a logo.

josscrowcroft 14y ago

No offence intended, but I just sicked up a little in my mouth

ohashi 14y ago
That's fine. I didn't like a lot of the results, but I am quite happy with the one we chose. For $30, it was a really low risk experiment to begin with.
- abeh 14y ago
  It may cost you more in the long run if you update/replace the logo you got for only $30 now. The branding and visual elements for your site and company should work with your logo; so whatever branding assets you have (site, business cards, stationary, ads) will all have to be updated if you change the logo later. I would not consider this to be a low risk experiment.
  - ohashi 14y ago
    abeh, You discount the value of time. If the startup fails anyways, it's a moot point. If it's successful, I will be able to afford it. I'd rather need to pay more money later for a startup that is doing well than spend a lot of money now on a speculative return later.
    - abeh 14y ago
      Sounds logical. If it fails, hopefully the reason for failure is not the logo, or an accumulation of things done quickly and cheaply.

davidandgoliath 14y ago

And the results are priceless^. Branding is sometimes worth the extra few dollars. :) ^: Or should have been given the lack of quality.

highace 14y ago

My thoughts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ

gruseom 14y ago
Please don't post that kind of comment here. It's against local custom.

evoxed 14y ago

As a designer, this makes me cringe so hard I'm worried a blood vessel might burst. $5 is not, I repeat, is not "hiring a designer". I'm glad that you found a solution that was satisfactory, but seeing people continuously take this route (on both sides of the equation) is well... I'm not quite sure how to describe it at the moment. > Logos are a trap. Let me explain that statement: they are a place many startups get stuck. A logo is what identifies you. It's the symbol that takes up space in a customer's mind when they think about your company. There is no symbol that is more connected to your company than a logo. This traps entrepreneurs because it drives many of us to want the perfect logo. If I hadn't just started eating (and replacing my chopsticks– the tip of one succumbed to the aforementioned cringe) I would love to go more in depth with this statement, so I hope another reader will tune in and maybe have something to say (whether they agree or not). Edit: also, I didn't mean any funny business about breaking my お箸– it actually happened. Since you're ohashi... and... oh, well.

bennyg 14y ago
As a fellow designer, I always cringe at stuff like this too. What if I hired a programmer for $5 to write a few web services that could scale to infinity? Luckily, I've taken the time and still take the time to improve on both of these qualities in my own professional development. Quality matters, and I'm trying to provide that across all creative outlets I partake in. The logo IS important, very important, but it's just part of a web of important shit your business has to do. Having a great logo with a terrible or unready product means it's going to be even harder to acquire new people if they already recognize you by your "symbol" as not executing, or almost there, or the idea's good, etc.
- jsnk 14y ago
  > What if I hired a programmer for $5 to write a few web services that could scale to infinity? No developer will work for $5 in the first place, whereas there are plenty of designers who will work for $5 on logo design. For small Saas businesses, logo may not be as important as how designers see them to be. Why is it hard for designers to accept that there are plurality of opinions on the value of design?

nvk 14y ago

LOL, it looks like a $30 logo.

dromidas 14y ago
That is really all startups need. Startups will either have a product that is so awesome that they get popular on their own merit and can fix the logo later (Facebook), Or their technology is desired by someone else and they get bought up by someone who doesn't care about the logo cause it'll just go away (Many startups), Or they'll be a semi-successful company that fades into the obscurity of the semi-successful startup army in which case a solid but not stand-out logo is just fine.

snuze 14y ago

You should have the designer rotate the signal pictogram slightly clockwise. Here' an example: http://i50.tinypic.com/2mfgody.png http://i50.tinypic.com/2mfgody.png

ohashi 14y ago
Thanks for the idea!

kylelibra 14y ago

Revisions = 1 Good to hear you're realistic here. I always feel bad after hearing about people asking a designer from elance for 50 revisions to make it just right.

ohashi 14y ago
It's generally their terms, but it's $5. It's crazy to expect the world for that price.

dylanrw 14y ago

And it shows...

generalcalm 14y ago

Proof that you get what you pay for.

jiggy2011 14y ago

$5 for a logo design, wow. I'm sure if there was a post saying "how I built an iphone app and backend rest API for $100" we'd all be screaming. It's interesting that more of these crowdsourcing / task based websites are appearing with very low prices. How long before we see contract writing for $50 and medical diagnosis for $100? It will be interesting to see what will happen as professional skills are driven down to commodity level.

andreyvit 14y ago
Just wanted to say that $100 gets you pretty high-end medical diagnosis here in Russia. Unlike in US, doctors and lawers are not highly-paid professionals in here (unlike, say, IT guys).
davidandgoliath 14y ago
Companies will continue to separate themselves from the chaff based on price alone. Price defines what you're worth to the recipient and much more. It also often dictates quality & what you see here is representative of that. Could you get a great $5 logo? Certainly. Nike did alright with their $35 one (ignoring inflation & stock later granted to the designer).
- leadholder 14y ago
  Don't forget that Nike's original logo was accepted due to time constraints. The swoosh was combined with an incredibly badly aligned logotype that was altered later before finally arriving at "swoosh only." http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php Nike has since paid huge amounts of cash to refine and iterate their logo.
  - ohashi 14y ago
    But it didn't stop them or kill their brand. No reason you can't launch with a $30 logo and iterate later if/when the need arises.

epaik 14y ago

It's surprising how many times I've seen tech companies use an 'i' with a signal symbol at its top.

jarintabata 14y ago

Lol at the logos on that page

nivla 14y ago

I see a lot of comments about cheap logos. Serious Question: how do you define/identify a cheap logo? I mean look at logos of most popular brands like Google, Facebook, Ebay, BBC, Microsoft, Paypal, Yahoo etc they are all extremely simply, just fonts with colors on them, nothing that could be called creative. Maybe even a non-designer could replicate them in five minutes. However despite all the simplicity, these logos are still stuck in our mind and do represent their respective products. So it really worth spending $$$$ on logos while starting up?

matthewowen 14y ago
Quite easily; you look at them. If there were a way to programmatically define a good logo, there wouldn't be so many bad logos. I don't mean for this to sound facile, but it is like looking at art, or writing: it is very difficult to create a meaningful definition of what good is, but it is often very easy to classify things as bad and not-bad (if not good and not-good). It probably isn't worth spending $$$$ on logos. But you should care about design as an extension of caring about UX. If your design taste is sufficient that you can produce a simple, acceptable logo - great! If it isn't, it is possibly a warning sign that you need to involve someone who does have that design taste - and not just on your logo. To head it off at the pass - yes, some start-ups have succeeded with weak design (although far fewer than you think - simple is not necessarily weak), but start-ups have succeeded under all sorts of circumstances. It doesn't invalidate the principle that a good user experience is very valuable to any product.
realscreen 14y ago
It's not about money. Big budget logos can suck too. Often simplicity is the beauty of it. For example, simple code that works effortlessly isn't necessarily creative but it could be and when it works, it's beautiful. Because it's simple should it be cheap? Expensive? I don't think there's a correlation there. Beauty can be the intricacy of simplicity.

columbo 14y ago

> they are a place many startups get stuck. Yeah sure, this is true. Anyone remember the dotcom swoosh era (http://lekowicz.com/library/logohell/logohell.html http://lekowicz.com/library/logohell/logohell.html )? Startups also get stuck on UI (custom, bootstrap, jquery-ui, yui), backend (node,ruby,java,groovy,php) and database (mysql,postgresql,redis,mongo). For most businesses the logo is just something that shows up in the top left corner of the website, it really doesn't matter all that much as long as it is clean. I bet if you took this logo (http://kevinohashi.com/sites/default/files/Review%20Signal.png http://kevinohashi.com/sites/default/files/Review%20Signal.p...) and had it up on your site without mentioning you paid $30 nobody would have noticed/cared. What you have is just a cheap logo. And that's OK. Like a cheap car or a cheap UI it serves a purpose. Just like if you built a web application using out-of-the-box bootstrap the majority of end users will not even notice. That doesn't mean logos should only cost $30, or that for the $30 you spent that you have a great logo. Then again, maybe you don't need a great logo. A great logo should be instantly recognizable and fit with the message that is your company. http://speckyboy.com/2011/06/15/30-of-the-most-iconic-logos-and-brands/ http://speckyboy.com/2011/06/15/30-of-the-most-iconic-logos-...

jcfrei 14y ago
yep, they might have been better off with a 0$ logo if they had basic inkscape skills (since they already knew what kind of message they were trying to get across). on top of that I believe they didn't even choose the best one.
ohashi 14y ago
You put that a lot more eloquently than I did.
mnicole 14y ago
I agree with your message, but I'd argue that the logos in that Speckyboy link aren't necessarily good design. They just have the marketing budgets behind them to become ingrained in your brain.
realscreen 14y ago
> nobody would have noticed/cared. Exactly. It's OK. Not the end of the world to have a bad logo. It can evolve. There are plenty of examples of this evolution from bad to memorable. When your resources are thin, put them where they matter. But, put two equitable products up against one another and it will matter.

proexploit 14y ago

You might be right in general that logo matter very little to a number of startups and they shouldn't spend a lot of money on a logo before they're successful. However, your startup is one that need to appear trustworthy to a consumer and appearance / design actually matters a lot. When I look at your logo, I don't feel reassured that your web hosting reviews will be professional / trustworthy. Other niches need not worry as much about the trustworthiness of their product but you would have more success with a stronger logo design.

ohashi 14y ago
Do you think your opinion is biased based on reading this article first?

rtcoms 14y ago

Here is a nice list of famous logos and their costs : http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-much-did-they-cost http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-much... interestingly twitter's first bird logo costed only $15.

cschmidt 14y ago
You realize the high costs on the list aren't really for the logo. They're for the whole rebranding exercise. For Accenture, that includes advertising to introduce the new name and logo. For BP that includes new signs at thousands of gas stations, repainted trucks, and advertising, etc.

NahcDivad 14y ago

You should spend another $30 and replace the Drupal favicon on your site.

realscreen 14y ago

This is not a logo. Ok, maybe in today's world of photoshop=designer, but typing the company name, setting it in two opposed weights, two complementary colors and adding a bit of cliche clip art over (of course) the 'i' ...does not make a logo that is worthy of praise. Does it look terrible to most people? Probably not. Does it look good to anyone? Probably not. Memorable? Probably not. If this were my logo, would I be bragging about what a great logo I have and for $30? Probably not. Obviously there's a market for both approaches. Designers say they cringe at this type of work, and I do, but we've done it to ourselves by lowering the bar without anyone sticking up for the standards. And you want to talk about a trade war? Another topic for another time.

JoelMarsh 14y ago

Senior designer here... There is an old adage among designers, which couldn't be more appropriate for this post: "work for free or charge full price; never work for cheap." Same goes for clients. Get it free or pay full price. Everything else is a rip-off for someone. Or everyone. As a "we-can-barely-afford-to-keep-the-lights-on" start-up, a logo is the least of your worries. For the sake of avoiding any more "design is only worth $30" posts, follow these steps to create the Minimum Viable Product version of your brand: 1) Pick a font that is easy to read, but has a bit of character — just a bit! Type your company's name in it. That's your logo. Facebook's logo, for example, is a font called Klavika, slightly modified. www.myfonts.com is a good start. 2) Pick any color you like. 3) Pick a second version of that color (lighter, darker, richer, paler, whatever). 4) Use #2 for everything that is important. 5) Use #3 when you need to add some definition to your look & feel. 6) Get back to work. Come back when you can afford to do this properly.

nanijoe 14y ago
I like your 6 steps...As an experienced designer, would it not take you less time to get that done than most other people? Would it then not be worth your while to charge for say 2 hours of your time to provide , say 2 revisions to anyone who pays for your "hungry startup" package?
ChuckMcM 14y ago
This is good advice for unsticking, but remember even the folks we consider great artists today often worked for 'cheap' when they were starting out. There is nothing compelling someone to participate on Fiverr, and there is nothing compelling someone from using their services and then not using the logos. Sometimes design challenged people (like me) like to have some ideas tossed at them so that I can begin to understand what I do and don't think would be useful in a logo.

leadholder 14y ago

Sure it is a bit of an overpayment for a cheap logo. Like any bad logo though, it just sits there and waits for refinement. With all of the "X Corp got their now-famous logo" comments, what isn't mentioned is the way the logos evolve over time. The original Nike logo would be a complete embarrassment for a high-value sporting goods brand today: http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php Guess how much it's cost Nike to hire designers and agencies to refine that logo over the years? Not to mention the various forks for separate marketing projects. When you pay a designer a lot of money up front for a logo design, you are hopefully paying for a highly-refined solution set to a problem or group of problems. Nike did this as they moved forward from their original logo. They are paying for the "hin" concept (Japanese for refinement). Product designers understand this better than any other group--you have to continuously refine as you go forward, or somebody else will eat your lunch. Someone who knows their design principles instinctively should be able to take a bad logo and detect the sound principles behind it, filter out the other noise (non-essentials to the problem at hand) and propose appropriate changes. As the author of the post says over and over, he is paying for something that serves a purpose. He is paying for something that he doesn't know how to create, or even use properly (see website alignment issues). So this situation isn't some grand thumbs-down at the design industry. It's just a set of circumstances that taxes one's thought process a bit too much and usually results in (hopefully temporary) sloppy work.

cschmidt 14y ago

Yuck, that is clearly a $30 logo. You got what you paid for. I find it hard to think that you're going to be happy with it in the long run. Here's the approach that I took. As a startup, you don't have a huge budget or a lot of time. Design firms cost more than freelance people, so you probably want a freelancer. I hired a freelance graphic designer (It was Ty Wilkins if you're curious, www.tywilkins.com). You should have a budget of $750-2000 or so. Fundamentally, you're hiring their time, so the less you pay, the less time they can put into it. I tried hard to give him efficient feedback, and we came to a final logo fairly quickly. I probably spend three phone calls with him, and some time reviewing his ideas. It was a good process, maybe a week in elapsed time, and a got a great outcome (see www.predictobot.com). Where do you find a freelance logo designer? I found Ty by looking on dribbble.com (note that has 3 b's in it). That's a designer hangout where they post recent work. Find a few you like, check out their websites, and then email one. See if they're available in the short term, and are interested in jobs with your budget. If you have no budget, then I agree with JoelMarsh's comment. Set your name in a nice font, pick a color, and you're done.

incision 14y ago

I think the equalizer-like option that wasn't chosen had the best concept. Problem is, it would actually require more refining that anyone should/would be willing to do for $30. Also, the mixing of fonts / styles on the actual ReviewSignal site is pretty nasty and the chosen logo feels quite out of place. This possibly goes to a show a real designer is actually worth something.

run4yourlives 14y ago

...and this thread will never be much more than butt hurt designers. Happens every time someone suggests that perhaps monstrous 'identity' projects aren't a good value to a lot of businesses.

ohashi 14y ago
It seems like it must have been flagged into oblivion because it dropped like 60 spots. I suspect you may be right.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

lk145 14y ago

Well it definitely looks like a $30 logo... I see a lot of people here saying an early stage startup doesn't need good design. That's funny because I heard the exact opposite advice from Tom Preston-Werner of Github at YCombinator Startup School last weekend. With so many startups competing nowadays, success usually comes down to who executes the idea the best, and a huge part of that is design and user experience. An amateur logo is just going to make you look like an amateur company to users. I say this as a programmer: skimping on design is just as likely to cost you users as skimping on engineering. There's a reason why top designers are becoming just as sought after as top programmers in the startup world.

eckstein 14y ago

Funny how this story is a great ad for the site.. with topics on hn and reddit growing