2009-10-14 | Mogul

Really Cool… great logo!

The only mystery to me is why does the M looks like to Rs run together? I don’t think this design achieves any of the goals listed above. Sorry.

It is funny how different people can see and view elements like this. I don’t see two R’s at first glans but instead a tight use of font and a great minimalistic approach on joining the m and o. Cool really cool.

The thing I like most about the logo is the g, that looks really nice.

yeah, I saw the m first, but I could see why someone would see two r’s. I also agree with EJ, I don’t really see any of the goals in logo itself, maybe more in design of the website I do, but not the logo.

Though, I do like it overall, there seems to somewhat of a disconnect (at least to me) between the m-o and the g-u-l because the letters interact with each other well, but the two halves interact with each other in completely different ways (the mo are physically connected, and the gul are all cut off at the bottom), which I think hurts it a little.

Yea the m and o are connected, but what I think connects the whole logo is the associates below cause it lays below “the two parts” of the logo. I really like the first look and feel you get when seeing it. Yea especially the cut of the g is cool.

Overall I like it a lot.

The way I see it, M and O look like the letter ‘g’ facedown!

Yea that was my first thought too. It looks like the designer has taken the g as the “centerpiece” and turned it 90 degrees and modified it into the m and o.
Very cool

I’m trying to decipher the reason “m” and “o” are bled together. I can’t make out why, even in light of their industry. The rest of the letters of the logo should somehow echo the connectedness of “m” and “o” but don’t. I think it draw attention to itself (the connection) but does the logo a bit of disservice. If they were separated, I think it would present that much more nicely.

I think the logo is interesting. It should be noted that the background stuff isn’t going to really work on small sizes like a business card. It also appears to be inconsistent with the logo or “tagged” on.

Perhaps the mystery is why the m, g, u, and l are stylized as such. If that is the case, I guess an objective is achieved; otherwise it confuses me. I think something dark, mysterious, black rope, secret and most important minimalistic would be better achieved without the “lavish” text modifications. The name is mysterious enough to be pretty self standing, imo. It appears that the designer felt the need to “add stuff”. I think its good overall but needs revisiting, keep it up!

I mostly agree with Mike P on this. It does seem as if the designer was just adding elements to the typeface just for no real reason beyond it looking cool. Overall I think it is a fine logo.
Associates might get a little small at smaller sizes, but would you really want to make it any smaller than this anyway?
The background is interesting, though I question, is it considered part of your logo? I mean, is it always supposed to be on this background or is it just another thing to make it look cool?

I have just been to http://www.icon22.com – the website of the designer/company – and there is a case with this logo. And there the background is not an item that is a part of the logo. As far as I can see it the background is use on the website of the company.

So I don’t think you shall consider the background to be part of the logo since they also presents it on a white background on the website.

I am not sure I am as focused on the “adding of elements” as you are. I think sometimes you don’t have to have 1000 explanations on why something is done, but also focus on the look and feel it gives you. And if that is the case I think it is a job well done.