360angles

Remember that kid in the back of the class who would draw anything and usually get sent to detention? Well now he’s all grown up. . . kind of.

Comic Artist D.J. Coffman is gaining quite a following after offering to draw literally anything for $2. Why would he do such a thing, you ask?

Number one, it’s fun. Number two, it’s practice to make me faster and keep me sharp drawing various things I wouldn’t have thought to draw. Number three, it was originally meant to be a cheap way to give something quick back to donors of the Yirmumah comic. It’s not about making money, as you can tell by the cheap price tag, it’s mostly just for fun. I’ve unexpectedly gotten other bigger paying commission work out of people seeing these little drawings pop up, and some people actually pay me more than 2 bucks and I put a little more time into their drawings… so I guess it’s a happy accident for now. I’d probably do it even cheaper….. I upped the price to 2 dollars due to inflation and the price of gas and… well, 2 dollars sounds funnier.

So, what exactly is the ‘correct’ price for a piece of art anyway? Is it only art if it costs a lot of money? To find out, we commissioned a small work of art – a Voltage Creative logo killing the Comic Sans font. Check it out. Clearly it’s worth every penny – it did just create a conversation piece for us here, after all.

Now this is great logo design. It has a distinctly Japanese vibe, and it should: Open Trace is one of three companies representing Japan at TechCrunch 50 this year. They want to be a Wikipedia of food production information, helping people find out where their food came from and what kind of impact that journey has on their environment.

The dragon speaks to their heritage and position as gatekeeper of information with the tree imagery nicely tying in the environmental aspect of their business. It’s a simple shape riffing on the “O” glyph, but the detail is very good up close, as well. Hooray for a modern startup without a shiny, bubble-licious web two-point-lame logo design!



The mark Voltage created for dry ice supplier Allied Refrigeration will appear in the 2008 Design Annual from Print Magazine. Woohoo!

Here’s a little background: Allied Refrigeration, an established supplier of dry ice products wished to create a brand for their consumer product. While the brand was new, the product has been available to consumers for decades. The team at Allied wanted to convey the history of the product and catch consumers eyes.

Solution: Focusing on retro typefaces and classic illustrations styles, our team developed a mark that speaks to product use, the longevity of Allied Refrigeration and product quality.

Voltage Founder Ryan Lorei directed the project. Nice job, Ryan!

After staring sadly at the number of reality show competitions on TV these days and longing for a show that would truly touch my soul, I’m frightened glad to hear that designers (in this case digital artists) finally get a show of their own. I know, its hard to believe that MTV would produce a show thats not about music, but believe it or not, thats where you can find this program in September. The show is called Engine Room, probably because it sounds cool. Anyway, it looks to be interesting at the very least, so check out the Engine Room website and keep your eyes open. We’ll try too keep you posted on when this show premieres, so check back every single day like you already do.

I’m also intrigued by the unique partnership with HP as well. HP makes nice laptops, I’ve got one at home, but the majority of digital artists use Macs to do their work, so this is kind of like seeing Snoop Dog selling acoustic guitars. I can understand that HP is trying to sell their brand as design savvy and that’s cool, I just wish I could have seen the look on the designers’ faces (many of whom have probably never used a PC) when they were told they would be doing everything on an Hewlett Packard.

Oh, by the way, that sure is an awesome logo for Engine Room. I enjoy the use of the lightning bolts and the circle with the white ring. Boy, that sure looks familiar. (For those who don’t look at our awesome logo every day, heres an “Engine Roomified” Voltage Creative logo next to the one for Engine Room for you to check out.)

Careful with that font, Eugene…

In a gas station today.
The candy bar doesn’t scan, so the cashier holds up the bar and, in a thick accent, calls to the other employee:

“Spunow is same price as Snickers?”

It took me and the other employee about a minute to get what she was talking about.

via Blogdilla

I recently received an email to vote on the new, improved athletics logo for UMKC, my alma mater. (That’s University of Missouri – Kansas City for anyone wondering.) I was confused at first. How often do logos need to be updated? The year after I graduated they came out with a new logo. I’d say somewhere around 2005. This brings us to somewhere around 3 years ago. And it’s already time for another logo?

It seems that the athletic department has decided that “to create a more comprehensive athletics program, they need to have a more consistent identity, which is something that hasn’t been visible in the past.”

I guess the logo they designed a few years ago wasn’t consistent enough. I’m pretty sure the invisibility of the past was lack of marketing, not the identity. I thought the logo they used from 1987 to 2004 was pretty consistent.

It wasn’t used very well and kind of reminded me of the KangaROOS shoe brand logo, but I thought it was consistent. Re-branding is a common method used to spike interest, so I guess I can handle it. A logo design should be timeless and if anything be able to last more than 3 years. Changing your logo constantly isn’t going to help “consistency”.

After saying all that, I’m still excited to see the options I’ve been given to choose between. I click the link that takes me to the voting page. Uhhhh… really? The two logos shown aren’t what I was hoping for to say the least. Quick critique time!

Option One (on left): I like that they show the whole kangaroo. Even though it says roos, it’s nice to know what it is with a quick glance and with just a head or upper body it’s hard to tell exactly what it is. I understand that the Roo is supposed to have an illustrated feel, but it seems incomplete. The bigger issue is the typography. “Roos” is hard to read. The “R” looks very close to an “A” and the “s” looks like a “5″. The text shouldn’t be angled. When this gets printed on a T-Shirt, it will look like a bad print job. I can hear it now. “Is this supposed to be angled?”

Option Two (on right): I really want to like this one. Overall I wish it were more symmetrical to give it a stronger and more stable look. Especially being a sports logo. The boxing gloves are a nice concept, but I’m not sure if it reads very well. The typography here is better starting with a more traditional and less trendy font choice than option one, but still needs some work. It looks like they tried to have the same arch baseline for “UMKC” and “ROOS”, but were just off from matching it and “ROOS” being italicized doesn’t help it fit either.

Maybe we should look to our new arrivals in the Summit League, the South Dakota State Jackrabbits. They recently redesigned their logo as well. I think I’ll write in a vote for it.

I have some bad news. Deep breath, designers. Here it is:

The Nike logo isn’t the greatest mark ever created.

There, I said it. I feel better, but chances are you disagree with me or are slightly uncomfortable with my blasphemy. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s a quality mark, but in my humble opinion it is certainly not the end-all, be-all in corporate identity.

Why is it so popular then? Three reasons; (1) Nike sells quality products and good looking products to boot, (2) their advertising rocks, and (3) Nike’s brand equity has been well managed. If Nike sold toilet brushes on late-night TV via shoddy homemade style commercials with a guy in a bad suit shouting tired slogans, I doubt as many people would be drooling over the swoosh.

So now you might be saying, “Ok, point taken, but why do you think it’s lame, logo-critic?!?!” Well, I don’t think it’s lame. I just don’t think it’s that great, and here’s my reasoning:

1. Shouldn’t a mark communicate something about the entity it represents? I think so. (Nike’s doesn’t)
2. Without the mountains of advertising would you know what the swoosh represents? (You wouldn’t)
3. It’s a glorified check mark. (Old news)

Note: I’m typing this as I wear my Nike shoes and prepare to run this evening with my Nike watch. I simply feel as if the logo has been elevated to stardom through quality brand management versus the merit of the mark itself.