Hello I work for a company that deliver food and they use this

Start over

>>258127
I didnt make it.

File: gps-logo.jpg (33KB, 654x572px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 654x572px

>>258123
that's really ugly.
but i think this one is worse.

File: play-snake-game-online-youtube-gmail-facebook.w654.jpg (11KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 320x240px

>>258130
> G P S
>Game Preservation

Ia that supposed to be Snake?

File: 15-Years-Separate-Mosaic-and-Internet-Explorer-8-Beta-1-2.jpg (36KB, 546x546px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 546x546px

>>258135
haha dunno but it's their official logo.
>http://www.gamepres.org/

< here's another awful one. this allegedly was the most popular web browser back in the day and supposedly microsoft develop internet explorer.around it's source code.

>>258135
If it is an allusion to Snake, then it's immensely relevant and perfect.

>>258123
Hey! I'm from SA, my parents live in Namibia.
Why do you want to redesign the logo? Bidvest is HUGE!

>>258181
Yes it is huge company. They have storages in Europe too. But everytime when I see it Im like "who the hell did this and who the hell approve it". They have it on their cars, even they have own brand of food with this logo. I wanted to ask what do you think about it and how would you guys redesign it.

>>258200
>and how would you guys redesign it
So basically, you're asking us to do the hard work for you. Fuck off.

The actual advice I'd give is research what other delivery companies do, how long this logo has been around in the first place, and articulate better why you think that logo isn't very good.

It's a fine logo. It's scaleable, doesn't have lots of unnecessary colors, and highlights A) the B in Bidvest, and B) forward momentum.

>>258203
So basicaly Im not their designer so fuck you too

>>258295
No, pal. You're asking us to do the work for you.

>>258203
>It's a fine logo. It's scaleable, doesn't have lots of unnecessary colors, and highlights A) the B in Bidvest, and B) forward momentum.

But it's really not. It's clunky and uncomfortable. I also have no idea what it's selling. Fonts are lazy, not even 1 color ready, I mean it's functional by the standard of lowest common denominators, but given how ugly it is I gottta go with no.

File: 1456319151159.jpg (33KB, 654x572px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 654x572px

>>258135
>>258169
It can't be snake.
The whole premise of snake is you cant touch any part of the snake, let alone cross it.

Maybe if they put a small square with a small gap on the "S" it'd read as snake better.
Or not, I don't know.

>>258403
You're not looking at it from the perspective of the little things nobody notices, but unconsciously reinforces their identity.

Things like embroidered shirts and jumpsuits, letterheads, business cards, unimportant collateral/swag. It's a simple design, if unappealing to designers, which is memorable for the people who actually use the services they offer.

OP's complaining about the design, but it's simple, easy to recreate, could easily be rendered in two colors, and easy to identify when you see a delivery truck hauling whatever that truck is hauling at the moment.

The point I'm trying to get at is, think about the audience. Who are actually Bidvest's customers? Do they care that it's ugly? Is Bidvest trying to appeal to people who aren't using their services?

Or are you just complaining because it's not what _you'd_ do?

>>258412
>Things like embroidered shirts and jumpsuits, letterheads, business cards, unimportant collateral/swag
>You're not looking at it from the perspective of the little things nobody notices, but unconsciously reinforces their identity.

Nope. I'm a printer, I completely understand the fundamental elements for universal and consistent reproduction.

This logo certainly passes the reproduction test, but it doesn't pass the aesthetically acceptable test.


We have 100 people a month posting stuff that is more aesthetically pleasing and reproducible in any format. A company like this can certainly equal or excel on that kind of standard.

This is still a very ugly, weak logo.