Like No Other Productions 2

Mar 11, 2009 / Erik Peterson
Like No Other Productions Logo

Like No Other Productions

Andrew from Like No Other Productions submitted this logo for critique. Along with his submission, he mentioned that his company

“...will be making showreels, trailers, commercials, and other misc editing jobs, as well as making my own short films and creative endeavors.”

Andrew went on to say,

“I was drawn to pixel art because it has the interesting property of being able to be scaled to virtually any size without losing its shape; this fits with the sort of work we will be doing; anything for anyone in any medium.”

It's always nice to get some perspective on the designers thoughts before beginning a critique. So without further ado, the following critique is based on one designer's opinions and experience.

Design Principals

The first thing that strikes me when I see this logo is that is hard to read. It really does take a second to make out the word ‘Productions’. I think the left edge is part culprit here, but it is also the positive and negative space juxtaposition that is going on within the mark/text. There is a plastic look to the logo, which is created by the effect applied to the letters. It creates dimension and space within the logo, but I'm not feeling it. Does plastic have something to do with video production? I'm not against having depth and dimension within a logo, but in this case it reads as plastic to me, and I don't see it as a good fit.

Functionality / Versatility

The mark is bold and blocky. It should reproduce quite well at most sizes. Just as Andrew mentioned in his submission, it can be scaled to virtually any size and retain it's legibility. However, the effect on the type could present a problem at small sizes or when reproduced in mediums like silkscreen. This could easily be resolved by removing the effect or creating an alternate version for certain mediums.

Does the Logo Work for the Audience?

This is a tough one for me. I would tend to think the people creating the work that Andrew will be editing and doing production on are creatives and producers. But, the logo also represents Andrew's own creative work and “other creative ventures”. This is a broad audience, and makes me wonder if there should be two separate companies. Just a thought. I think the logo is somewhat generic when looking from an audience perspective. There is nothing in the mark that identifies it as ‘video production’, but at the same time, there is nothing that says otherwise. To your defense, this is often the case when choosing to create a wordmark. Think Crate & Barrel, Coca-Cola, or Microsoft. I do get a sort of tool and die feel. The effect and shape remind me of plastic model parts where all the pieces are attached to the plastic supports that they were cut out of.

Uniqueness

The company name “Like No Other Productions” speaks of being unique and set apart. I'm not convinced the logo does a great job of portraying that. What sets “Like No Other Productions” apart from other production companies? Is there something there that might translate into this logo?

Typography

Andrew mentioned his attraction to “pixel art” and how it influenced his design. My concern is that this interpretation comes across dated and out of style. It harkens back to the late 90's when flash intro pages and aliased fonts were plastered across the internet. I get the idea that working with video and all things on-screen deal with pixels, I'm just not sold on this dated approach. If you decide to stick with this particular typeface I suggest, at a minimum you adjust the kerning. If you are working with a square pixel to build the letter the kerning should match that square. Right now it appears to be a little wider than the width of the 'pixel'.

Like No Other Productions Typography

I also find the missing pixels in the ‘k’ of ‘like’ and the ‘r’ of ‘other’ to be distracting to the eye. The ‘k’ in particular is distracting because it reads as a ‘k’ or possibly an ‘h’.

Possible Improvements

So what is the best way to improve the logo? Well I think have made some comments above that can certainly offer some direction. So, here's a list of actionable items.

  1. Readability: The juxtaposition of the positive and negative space makes the viewer trip-up when reading. Consider some options to help define the negative space a bit further in order to increase the readability.
  2. Precision is important when dealing with pixelized or aliased typography. Place the logo over a grid and adjust the letterforms and kerning accordingly so everything is consistent and precise.
  3. Think about the type effect and whether it is adding to the mark or distracting. Possibly, consider other effects as well.
  4. Lastly, is the pixelized typeface the right choice for your company and audience?

I hope you have found the above critique and review useful. My intention is not to hurt feelings, but rather to offer constructive feedback and critique. Best of luck, to you and your company Andrew.

I appreciate & welcome your comments, and look forward to hearing from you soon. I purposely don't cover every possible improvement that can be made to this logo, so go for it if you think I missed anything. All I ask is that you keep your comments clean and appropriate.

Like what you read here? Subscribe to the Logo Critiques News Feed.

We enjoy your comments

2 Comments so far. Keep 'em Coming.

#1

By Jonathan Wagener

03.13.2009 at 07:41 AM

Jonathan Wagener Profile Image

I think you gave a very good critique of the logo. I would say that if you tool out the “plasticky” look and made it flat that it would already be much better. As was said before you need to make sure that all the letters follow a square of the same size, like a mono-space font like courier new.

I found that the logo looked like a squiggle when i first looked at it a few times, it was only when i really looked it properly that i could identify what was being said.

I think that one has to decide on a design by looking at your company, your audience and readability. If your logo does not convey a message to your audience about your company and what you do as well as being highly readable - then it is a failure.

Perhaps you could add a symbol to your logo?

Sorry if i offended you with my thoughts, but i think that what i pointed out are valid.

#2

By Andrew J Clark

03.13.2009 at 12:28 PM

Andrew J Clark Profile Image

Thankyou Erik and reader(s) for your super constructive analysis and criticisms.

Honestly I’m overjoyed at being featured on this site because, design-wise, I have been stuck in a corner. I’m now liberated to openly show people and throw some new ideas around to try and figure out what I actually want this logo to say, and also what I want this company to do exactly (I have a hard time finding direction when all the possibilities are so interesting).

My (fiery) rebuttal is here:
http://tinyurl.com/andrewjcblog

Cheers, andrewjclark


Leave a Comment:

Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:

Please answer the question below:

Is fire hot or cold? (3 character(s) required)

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Support Our Sponsors
Illustrator CS4 Ebates Books from Amazon Theme ForestAdvertise Here 500 Premium Business Cards only $1.99 Unlimited Online Backup $4.95

Follow me on Twitter

 Followers