Hello fellows /gd/ers I stumbled upon this agency's logo

Firstly, I will agree that your version is an improvement over theirs and that their original is generally pretty awful.

But you sending them a "corrected" version of their own logo implies theirs is no good to begin with (which probably won't go down well with whoever designed it) and that their designer's job can be done better by some random on the internet who works for free.

Also, logo changes aren't always a quick "oh this looks better let's use this now" kind of affair. Any changes to the brand will most likely require deliberation from company owners/shareholders, not to mention the need to change any stationary, signs, business cards, brand guidelines or anything else with their logo currently on it. Which takes time and costs money.

Out of curiosity how did you word your email when you sent it to them?

are you serious?

File: goodsamartian.png (138KB, 236x214px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 236x214px

>>285124
>Out of curiosity
Well I didn't present it as a "corrected" version. I said it was a more contemporary take at their identity and that I liked their name and it inspired me to do this and it's free and they can do as they please with it, no questions asked.
Something along those lines.

>>285128
Logo alone isn't enough, you should've presented them with a whole new brand identity out of the blue.

>>285127
Sure I'm serious
Working for free is wrong but in this case, they do that work themselves, so they weren't gonna paid anyone
It's like helping a blind man cross the street, I took the job of a helping dog.

Theirs isnt the best logo i've ever seen, but its still far better then your attempt I'm afraid. Yours is very blunt and heavy handed.

reads like jsland
the original does as well, but that's no excuse

>>285169
original reads islano

>>285165
This.
Op its like you didn't even pay attention to why they made the choices they made.

6/10 try, try again.

>>285119
I don't understand why you didn't extend the bottom right curve of the "d" to the black area outside the white circle. That is obviously the "aim" (implying this logo has one) graphically, and you honored that for the "l" of long and the "i" if island, but you ... for some reason disregarded it for the "d"??? Fucking why.

Anyway, good on you for just jumping at a company like that. I think that should be done more often. I've done it. I also didn't get a reply though, and it is most likely for reasons like: >>285124

>>285184
>>285180
>>285169
OP here. Thanks for your inputs.

I have to admit I did think about the end of the "d" and I still made it that way knowing that it would mess with all the OCDs out there.
Just so you know, I have mild OCD so It bothered me too at first.

Regarding the "js", I also thought about it and this company being a communication agency web-oriented and trying to have a modern look to it, I chose to let it appear as "js" because it's a reminder of javascript used to enhance user-experience in websites.
Kinda like the arrow of Fedex, it's a gimmick but I like it.

>>285119
you sending a revised logo to an agency without actually having a specified brief or understanding of the brand messaging, speaks more to your adolescence than your ability to update a logo.
Anyone can make a nice looking logo, that is a baseline skill in the industry.