Visual identity or visual confusion?
This post written by Stephanie Fader, Marketing & PR Manager
In my role at MyPunchbowl I think a lot about our brand. Two of the major elements of our brand that I focus on are our messaging (how we talk about ourselves–in our ads, on our site, in the press) and our visual identity (logos, colors, fonts, imagery, etc).
When I joined MyPunchbowl there was already an established logo and fonts. Since September we’ve been transitioning our color palette on our site to more subtle colors. The logos on the left below represent our earlier web/logo colors (darker blue), while the ones on the right show our current colors (lighter blue):
While we think the site looks great with the newer, softer color palette, our logo doesn’t necessarily stand out for other purposes, such as in ads. What’s the right approach here? Do we go with one color or the other, or is it possible to have multiple colors (or shades) of our logo without diluting our brand? Let us know your thoughts and which one you like best.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
I like the older bolder background blue over the subtle grey blue that makes it harder to read the text.
That said, most company logos don’t worry about the background color and use whatever is needed for the specific purpose (black background for TV, White for web, powerpoint template background for presentation, etc).
The issue of capitilization is another thing. mypunchbowl is harder to read than MyPunchbowl. Since Punchbowl.Com is taken I think it is important to promote the MY part of punchbowl software.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Full agreement with Stephen. Gotta be able to read the text, and right now the name is a big string of indistinguishable lower-case text. One disclosure - I confess to have found the site while doing market research for a potential business idea. You rascals have many of the features I envisioned before laying eyes on MyPunchbowl. Well done. That said, there’s always room for improvement, so don’t get too comfortable :-).