Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:00 AM
1. The logo flows well, and has a good color palette.
2. It is well balanced and has a modern and elegant feel just as the owners had intended (this is made clear by the way they have styled their website).
1. The logoâ€™s main pitfall is the concept itself. When you look at this logo, there is not a lot you can derive from the image other than by looking at the word â€˜innâ€™. This is a flaw that is very common in the world of identity design.
2. The word â€˜innâ€™ has clearly been stretched width-wise. Many designers donâ€™t realize that this is usually akin to defacing the font, and thereby the logo.
3. The lines that outline the word â€˜innâ€™ are that of a different style from the rest of the logo, and therefore break the logo into two distinct sections.
If indeed this logo was meant to represent the building itself, I think that a more life-like representation would have been helpful in capturing that companyâ€™s service. The squares that are there now are quite generic and only vaguely suggest the shape of a structure (and other than that, donâ€™t add any emotion to the piece). Companies have different values, and itâ€™s not very clear, with a very straight forward graphic such as this, as to what those values are.
The stretching of fonts should rarely be implemented in any logo design, it is practically taboo in the design world, and only those who have a reason for doing this (and know what they are doing) should attempt this. The main reason for this is that most fonts are created by designers, and are therefore designs themselves. You wouldnâ€™t stretch a famous painting (unless it was a necessary design decision), for example, so treat fonts the same way.
The upper portion of the logo has a very contemporary, artistic, feel to it, but the bottom is very traditional. This creates a rift that makes the bottom portion look out of place. A design should stick to either one style or a combination of two or more styles throughout, and should not be broken up in the above fashion. This fragmented look also takes away from the emotion put out by a piece via a loss of consistency, which truly is â€œthe keyâ€.
Personally, I find that this is quite a nice looking design. The few things that it lacks, however, will make it seem â€œoffâ€ to any keen eye. With these above suggestions in-mind, however, this design could be much stronger.
Posted 13 February 2006 - 05:24 AM
Last time I was in there (2-3 years ago) the entire building/interior of it was very outdated. If this is still the case, then I don't think the rebranding really works, because the website/logo both portray an elegant feeling - and as far as I can remember the Blackfoot Inn isn't that elegant.
Posted 14 February 2006 - 06:20 AM
Posted 16 February 2006 - 02:55 AM
I don't find anything particularly wrong with it besides the points you mentioned, but just out of curiosity, have you been inside it lately?
No, haven't been there in a while now, but, indeed, it would be pretty inappropriate if they didn't tune-up the place.
Posted 17 February 2006 - 02:39 PM
Posted 24 March 2006 - 04:23 PM
Posted 24 March 2006 - 06:39 PM
Posted 24 March 2006 - 09:02 PM
Posted 04 April 2006 - 12:31 AM
Posted 28 May 2006 - 10:45 AM
I dont thik I should discus this logo at all, I find it very "pale". I think that is the right word, it don`t distract any attention to me, i didn`t even bother to visit their website. There are to many typefaces on a small amount of space in a bottom part of the logo and everithing is poorely positioned, like designer tryed to say that the place is crowded. But if it is true what Neupix wrote about interior, then this logo absolutely fits.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users