While designing my brand logo, I was also continuing to improve my wordmark in the background.

we last left off our wordmark in this design;

Having shown this to my teacher, something was still not quite right with it. We decided that it is still a bit too complicated.

Feeling a little lost as to what direction I should go next, I went back and relooked at some of the resources provided to me in class and study them a bit more.

I found some more logos with an added “twist” to them, and compared them to my wordmark;

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the end, I can finally see why my wordmark was way overcomplicated. All these logos with a “twist”, although the twist is obvious, it does not overpower the wordmark. The font choices remind clean and simple, and the added twist is also clean, such as a clean cut with “tease” or a clean loop for “THREAD”.

With this in mind, I backed tracked a little. I went back to a cleaner sans serif typeface, and while in class designed the final versions of the wordmark;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the end, I went with the third idea from the top;

 

 

 

 

 

 

( changed to a thicker font)

I’m very happy with this design, it is clean, and simple. The important thing is that now twist is just a clean cut line through the middle to represent the light coming out of the prism. One big thing I have learnt from this wordmark project is that the font comes first, an

I also decided that I wanted to keep my wordmark all in all capital, I like that it gave a more serious feel to the brand. After all, it is a bank that I’m designing for, the trustworthiness and

Once I’m happy with the design, I did try my hand at kerning. I watched a few videos on youtube about kerning, and read a very helpful article called ” The Art of Kerning Typography: 10 Tips for Kerning Like a Pro” which explained kerning in detail. However, I still find the process to be a bit confusing, as there are no set rules, and kerning depends on many factors such as typeface, font size and what letters are bedside each other. All the tutorials I watched stressed the importance of practising, how only with time and practice will a designer gradually develop an “eye” for kerning. Nevertheless, I decided to give it a try for my own wordmark;

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t think much has changed, and I am a little confused as to whether I have made it better or worse. Asking around class it seems that no one could really tell the difference. Perhaps it was kerned well, to begin with. I definitely need to practice this skill more.

Back to the logo. After showing my logos in class, I  decided that this was the best option;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I decided this because this logo fits the criteria that my teacher has set out for us;

1. Is the mark simple in its concept and therefore easy to understand – yes the logo is simple in concept, it is not obvious what it stands for, but fits my brand name well
2. Can the mark be used in all desirable applications? Does it work at very, very small sizes? (Scale) – yes, I have tried this in different sizes and the simple triangles allow for wide application
3. Does the trademark distinguish itself from other marks? – yes, I have done some research on other banks, and this mark is very unique
4. Is the ‘feel’ of the mark in keeping with the ‘product’? – yes, the triangles are very much in
5. It is contemporary? Is it likely to lose relevance over time? – because of how simple the wordmark is, and it is made of basic geometric shapes, I think it is not likely to lose relevance for a good amount of time.

 

Next was to decide on the colour of my wordmark and logo.

Frist the logo, because I already have an idea in mind. While flipping through Aaron Draplin’s book I came across this logo;

At first, I was thinking about how the logo looked similar to mine, but then I noticed the colour. I realised that the colours were the 3 primary colours.

Then I came across another one of Aaron’s work. The gradient in the type was really eye catching;

 

Thinking about how the prism gives out a spectrum of light, and how when mixed together the three primary colours gives a spectrum of the rainbow. I thought about making my own logo’s triangle with the 3 primary colours, and allowing the application of these 3 colours in my branding, just with 3 colours I can make a whole spectrum of different colours;

I first tested out my theory in Figma;

The outcome was good, but defiantly not as nice as I first thought it would be. I was a little confused as to why it wasn’t like a rainbow gradient as I expected. Going onto the internet did some digging into colour theory;

I realised that what I’m actually looking for is the subtractive colours magenta, yellow and cyan. A quick test on Figma showed great results;

I’m very excited about this finding, and I can’t wait to see the applications of these gradients in other aspects of my branding. And therefore my logo mark colour was decided;

 

I did do some experimenting with colours to determine my wor mark colour ;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I chose mainly blue for my colour experiments as I learnt in class that blue conveys trustworthiness. With my logo being so colourful and bright, I do want to convey a sense of seriousness and trustworthiness in my branding.  I wanted I try to keep the colour as dark as I can to not clash with the logo.  I did try green as well, which I liked a lot. when I see green in branding I think of nurturing, caring brands.

In the end, I couldn’t really choose between blue or black. I like the blue because I think it might appeal more to the younger audience and makes the branding a bit more unique. However I also like the black, it makes the logo pop.