
How we designed our logo for $30 - ohashi
http://kevinohashi.com/26/10/2012/how-get-logo-30
======
JoelMarsh
Senior designer here...

There is an old adage among designers, which couldn't be more appropriate for
this post: "work for free or charge full price; never work for cheap."

Same goes for clients. Get it free or pay full price. Everything else is a
rip-off for someone. Or everyone.

As a "we-can-barely-afford-to-keep-the-lights-on" start-up, a logo is the
least of your worries. For the sake of avoiding any more "design is only worth
$30" posts, follow these steps to create the Minimum Viable Product version of
your brand:

1) Pick a font that is easy to read, but has a bit of character — just a bit!
Type your company's name in it. That's your logo. Facebook's logo, for
example, is a font called Klavika, slightly modified. www.myfonts.com is a
good start.

2) Pick any color you like.

3) Pick a second version of that color (lighter, darker, richer, paler,
whatever).

4) Use #2 for everything that is important.

5) Use #3 when you need to add some definition to your look & feel.

6) Get back to work. Come back when you can afford to do this properly.

~~~
nanijoe
I like your 6 steps...As an experienced designer, would it not take you less
time to get that done than most other people? Would it then not be worth your
while to charge for say 2 hours of your time to provide , say 2 revisions to
anyone who pays for your "hungry startup" package?

------
evoxed
As a designer, this makes me cringe so hard I'm worried a blood vessel might
burst. $5 is not, I repeat, _is not_ "hiring a designer". I'm glad that you
found a solution that was satisfactory, but seeing people continuously take
this route (on both sides of the equation) is well... I'm not quite sure how
to describe it at the moment.

> Logos are a trap. Let me explain that statement: they are a place many
> startups get stuck. A logo is what identifies you. It's the symbol that
> takes up space in a customer's mind when they think about your company.
> There is no symbol that is more connected to your company than a logo. This
> traps entrepreneurs because it drives many of us to want the perfect logo.

If I hadn't just started eating (and replacing my chopsticks– the tip of one
succumbed to the aforementioned cringe) I would love to go more in depth with
this statement, so I hope another reader will tune in and maybe have something
to say (whether they agree or not).

Edit: also, I didn't mean any funny business about breaking my お箸– it actually
happened. Since you're ohashi... and... oh, well.

~~~
bennyg
As a fellow designer, I always cringe at stuff like this too. What if I hired
a programmer for $5 to write a few web services that could scale to infinity?
Luckily, I've taken the time and still take the time to improve on both of
these qualities in my own professional development. Quality matters, and I'm
trying to provide that across all creative outlets I partake in.

The logo IS important, very important, but it's just part of a web of
important shit your business has to do. Having a great logo with a terrible or
unready product means it's going to be even harder to acquire new people if
they already recognize you by your "symbol" as not executing, or almost there,
or the idea's good, etc.

~~~
jsnk
> What if I hired a programmer for $5 to write a few web services that could
> scale to infinity?

No developer will work for $5 in the first place, whereas there are plenty of
designers who will work for $5 on logo design.

For small Saas businesses, logo may not be as important as how designers see
them to be. Why is it hard for designers to accept that there are plurality of
opinions on the value of design?

~~~
evoxed
> Why is it hard for designers to accept that there are plurality of opinions
> on the value of design?

Really? As if that doesn't apply to literally _every other profession_? I
certainly don't mean to say that the logo is the end-all solution to a user's
experience– that's ridiculous. People can pay $1000, $10k, $100k even and
still end up with shitty branding but the point isn't that quality necessarily
scales to how much you pay. It's the fact that on the other side is a person
providing a dedicated and unique service who is effectively being bet against
(1/6) for less than minimum wage.

And unfortunately, yes there are developers who will work for practically
nothing. Unsurprisingly, they are quite underrepresented in places like this
and on virtually every other plane because the work they can do for that sort
of money is just like 99.999% of $5 logos– total garbage. And what kind of a
living do you make when all you can make is garbage?

~~~
nanijoe
Not really sure what you are ranting about. The website itself exists to
provide services for $5. Surely these designers are able to place what they
think is a fair value on the use of their time and resources. Why do you think
its a bad thing to take advantage of that? FWIW I also hire programmers for
less than $10 an hour and I get stellar work from them. Price is a signal, but
there isn't always a direct correlation between price and quality (or
effectiveness) . To leave you with an anecdote, I have between $5 and $1000
for App icons (iphone), my best selling app is the one with the $5 icon and no
custom UI elements.

~~~
evoxed
My reaction was surprise (at jsnk's comparison), not intended to be a rant.
But I'll explain further: I completely understand why this site and many
others like it exist. They have a purpose, which is to provide a quick and
painless service at practically no cost. I don't think that the service itself
is necessarily bad. Rather, I think the _way it's used_ is wrong. You don't
use them to 'hire a designer' (or a dozen). You use them to get a couple
people with either too much time, too much software, too little skill, or too
little opportunity to show something off in hopes of getting a few dollars. In
this case, there is a startup which needs a brand so that they can forget
about it as they build their business. My feeling is that regardless of the
cost, there is a better approach to getting this sort of work done especially
if you claim to value this step of the process. I understand the desire to cut
costs, and I am perfectly aware that quality doesn't scale with cost. On top
of that, I've done my share of cheap-ass logos to pay for a little gas. But
this is hacker news, I think it's worth putting in this perspective. In the
most basic sense, I see it as a simple professional courtesy to pay a proper
wage, even when you're getting closer to squashing costs and risk.

------
columbo
> they are a place many startups get stuck.

Yeah sure, this is true. Anyone remember the dotcom swoosh era
(<http://lekowicz.com/library/logohell/logohell.html> )?

Startups also get stuck on UI (custom, bootstrap, jquery-ui, yui), backend
(node,ruby,java,groovy,php) and database (mysql,postgresql,redis,mongo).

For most businesses the logo is just something that shows up in the top left
corner of the website, it really doesn't matter all that much as long as it is
clean. I bet if you took this logo
([http://kevinohashi.com/sites/default/files/Review%20Signal.p...](http://kevinohashi.com/sites/default/files/Review%20Signal.png))
and had it up on your site without mentioning you paid $30 nobody would have
noticed/cared.

What you have is just a cheap logo. And that's OK. Like a cheap car or a cheap
UI it serves a purpose. Just like if you built a web application using out-of-
the-box bootstrap the majority of end users will not even notice.

That doesn't mean logos should only cost $30, or that for the $30 you spent
that you have a great logo. Then again, maybe you don't need a great logo. A
great logo should be instantly recognizable and fit with the message that is
your company. [http://speckyboy.com/2011/06/15/30-of-the-most-iconic-
logos-...](http://speckyboy.com/2011/06/15/30-of-the-most-iconic-logos-and-
brands/)

~~~
realscreen
> nobody would have noticed/cared.

Exactly.

It's OK. Not the end of the world to have a bad logo. It can evolve. There are
plenty of examples of this evolution from bad to memorable. When your
resources are thin, put them where they matter. But, put two equitable
products up against one another and it will matter.

------
cschmidt
Yuck, that is clearly a $30 logo. You got what you paid for. I find it hard to
think that you're going to be happy with it in the long run.

Here's the approach that I took. As a startup, you don't have a huge budget or
a lot of time. Design firms cost more than freelance people, so you probably
want a freelancer.

I hired a freelance graphic designer (It was Ty Wilkins if you're curious,
www.tywilkins.com). You should have a budget of $750-2000 or so.
Fundamentally, you're hiring their time, so the less you pay, the less time
they can put into it. I tried hard to give him efficient feedback, and we came
to a final logo fairly quickly. I probably spend three phone calls with him,
and some time reviewing his ideas. It was a good process, maybe a week in
elapsed time, and a got a great outcome (see www.predictobot.com).

Where do you find a freelance logo designer? I found Ty by looking on
dribbble.com (note that has 3 b's in it). That's a designer hangout where they
post recent work. Find a few you like, check out their websites, and then
email one. See if they're available in the short term, and are interested in
jobs with your budget.

If you have no budget, then I agree with JoelMarsh's comment. Set your name in
a nice font, pick a color, and you're done.

------
nivla
I see a lot of comments about cheap logos.

Serious Question: how do you define/identify a cheap logo? I mean look at
logos of most popular brands like Google, Facebook, Ebay, BBC, Microsoft,
Paypal, Yahoo etc they are all extremely simply, just fonts with colors on
them, nothing that could be called creative. Maybe even a non-designer could
replicate them in five minutes. However despite all the simplicity, these
logos are still stuck in our mind and do represent their respective products.
So it really worth spending $$$$ on logos while starting up?

~~~
matthewowen
Quite easily; you look at them. If there were a way to programmatically define
a good logo, there wouldn't be so many bad logos. I don't mean for this to
sound facile, but it is like looking at art, or writing: it is very difficult
to create a meaningful definition of what good is, but it is often very easy
to classify things as bad and not-bad (if not good and not-good).

It probably isn't worth spending $$$$ on logos. But you should care about
design as an extension of caring about UX. If your design taste is sufficient
that you can produce a simple, acceptable logo - great! If it isn't, it is
possibly a warning sign that you need to involve someone who does have that
design taste - and not just on your logo.

To head it off at the pass - yes, some start-ups have succeeded with weak
design (although far fewer than you think - simple is not necessarily weak),
but start-ups have succeeded under all sorts of circumstances. It doesn't
invalidate the principle that a good user experience is very valuable to any
product.

------
snuze
You should have the designer rotate the signal pictogram slightly clockwise.
Here' an example: <http://i50.tinypic.com/2mfgody.png>

~~~
ohashi
Thanks for the idea!

------
jiggy2011
$5 for a logo design, wow.

I'm sure if there was a post saying "how I built an iphone app and backend
rest API for $100" we'd all be screaming.

It's interesting that more of these crowdsourcing / task based websites are
appearing with very low prices. How long before we see contract writing for
$50 and medical diagnosis for $100?

It will be interesting to see what will happen as professional skills are
driven down to commodity level.

~~~
davidandgoliath
Companies will continue to separate themselves from the chaff based on price
alone. Price defines what you're worth to the recipient and much more. It also
often dictates quality & what you see here is representative of that.

Could you get a great $5 logo? Certainly. Nike did alright with their $35 one
(ignoring inflation & stock later granted to the designer).

~~~
leadholder
Don't forget that Nike's original logo was accepted due to time constraints.
The swoosh was combined with an incredibly badly aligned logotype that was
altered later before finally arriving at "swoosh only."
<http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php>

Nike has since paid huge amounts of cash to refine and iterate their logo.

~~~
ohashi
But it didn't stop them or kill their brand. No reason you can't launch with a
$30 logo and iterate later if/when the need arises.

------
davidandgoliath
And the results are priceless^. Branding is sometimes worth the extra few
dollars. :)

^: Or should have been given the lack of quality.

------
davesmylie
Nice idea. I never thought of using fiverr for this.

Previously I have gone the 99designs route and been less than thrilled with
the end result vs the money put in. I'm going to give this a try next time I
need a logo.

------
incision
I think the equalizer-like option that wasn't chosen had the best concept.
Problem is, it would actually require more refining that anyone should/would
be willing to do for $30.

Also, the mixing of fonts / styles on the actual ReviewSignal site is pretty
nasty and the chosen logo feels quite out of place.

This possibly goes to a show a real designer is actually worth something.

------
realscreen
This is not a logo. Ok, maybe in today's world of photoshop=designer, but
typing the company name, setting it in two opposed weights, two complementary
colors and adding a bit of cliche clip art over (of course) the 'i' ...does
not make a logo that is worthy of praise.

Does it look terrible to most people? Probably not. Does it look good to
anyone? Probably not. Memorable? Probably not. If this were my logo, would I
be bragging about what a great logo I have and for $30? Probably not.

Obviously there's a market for both approaches. Designers say they cringe at
this type of work, and I do, but we've done it to ourselves by lowering the
bar without anyone sticking up for the standards.

And you want to talk about a trade war? Another topic for another time.

------
leadholder
Sure it is a bit of an overpayment for a cheap logo. Like any bad logo though,
it just sits there and waits for refinement. With all of the "X Corp got their
now-famous logo" comments, what isn't mentioned is the way the logos evolve
over time. The original Nike logo would be a complete embarrassment for a
high-value sporting goods brand today: <http://www.logoblog.org/nike_logo.php>

Guess how much it's cost Nike to hire designers and agencies to refine that
logo over the years? Not to mention the various forks for separate marketing
projects.

When you pay a designer a lot of money up front for a logo design, you are
hopefully paying for a highly-refined solution set to a problem or group of
problems. Nike did this as they moved forward from their original logo. They
are paying for the "hin" concept (Japanese for refinement). Product designers
understand this better than any other group--you have to continuously refine
as you go forward, or somebody else will eat your lunch.

Someone who knows their design principles instinctively should be able to take
a bad logo and detect the sound principles behind it, filter out the other
noise (non-essentials to the problem at hand) and propose appropriate changes.

As the author of the post says over and over, he is paying for something that
serves a purpose. He is paying for something that he doesn't know how to
create, or even use properly (see website alignment issues). So this situation
isn't some grand thumbs-down at the design industry. It's just a set of
circumstances that taxes one's thought process a bit too much and usually
results in (hopefully temporary) sloppy work.

------
josscrowcroft
No offence intended, but I just sicked up a little in my mouth

~~~
ohashi
That's fine. I didn't like a lot of the results, but I am quite happy with the
one we chose. For $30, it was a really low risk experiment to begin with.

~~~
abeh
It may cost you more in the long run if you update/replace the logo you got
for only $30 now. The branding and visual elements for your site and company
should work with your logo; so whatever branding assets you have (site,
business cards, stationary, ads) will all have to be updated if you change the
logo later. I would not consider this to be a low risk experiment.

~~~
ohashi
abeh, You discount the value of time. If the startup fails anyways, it's a
moot point. If it's successful, I will be able to afford it. I'd rather need
to pay more money later for a startup that is doing well than spend a lot of
money now on a speculative return later.

~~~
abeh
Sounds logical. If it fails, hopefully the reason for failure is not the logo,
or an accumulation of things done quickly and cheaply.

------
rtcoms
Here is a nice list of famous logos and their costs :
[http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-
much...](http://stocklogos.com/topic/famous-logo-designs-and-how-much-did-
they-cost)

interestingly twitter's first bird logo costed only $15.

~~~
cschmidt
You realize the high costs on the list aren't really for the logo. They're for
the whole rebranding exercise. For Accenture, that includes advertising to
introduce the new name and logo. For BP that includes new signs at thousands
of gas stations, repainted trucks, and advertising, etc.

------
lk145
Well it definitely looks like a $30 logo...

I see a lot of people here saying an early stage startup doesn't need good
design. That's funny because I heard the exact opposite advice from Tom
Preston-Werner of Github at YCombinator Startup School last weekend. With so
many startups competing nowadays, success usually comes down to who executes
the idea the best, and a huge part of that is design and user experience. An
amateur logo is just going to make you look like an amateur company to users.

I say this as a programmer: skimping on design is just as likely to cost you
users as skimping on engineering. There's a reason why top designers are
becoming just as sought after as top programmers in the startup world.

------
proexploit
You might be right in general that logo matter very little to a number of
startups and they shouldn't spend a lot of money on a logo before they're
successful. However, your startup is one that need to appear trustworthy to a
consumer and appearance / design actually matters a lot. When I look at your
logo, I don't feel reassured that your web hosting reviews will be
professional / trustworthy. Other niches need not worry as much about the
trustworthiness of their product but you would have more success with a
stronger logo design.

~~~
ohashi
Do you think your opinion is biased based on reading this article first?

------
NahcDivad
You should spend another $30 and replace the Drupal favicon on your site.

------
nvk
LOL, it looks like a $30 logo.

~~~
dromidas
That is really all startups need.

Startups will either have a product that is so awesome that they get popular
on their own merit and can fix the logo later (Facebook), Or their technology
is desired by someone else and they get bought up by someone who doesn't care
about the logo cause it'll just go away (Many startups), Or they'll be a semi-
successful company that fades into the obscurity of the semi-successful
startup army in which case a solid but not stand-out logo is just fine.

------
kylelibra
Revisions = 1

Good to hear you're realistic here.

I always feel bad after hearing about people asking a designer from elance for
50 revisions to make it just right.

~~~
ohashi
It's generally their terms, but it's $5. It's crazy to expect the world for
that price.

------
epaik
It's surprising how many times I've seen tech companies use an 'i' with a
signal symbol at its top.

------
generalcalm
Proof that you get what you pay for.

------
run4yourlives
...and this thread will never be much more than butt hurt designers.

Happens every time someone suggests that perhaps monstrous 'identity' projects
aren't a good value to a lot of businesses.

~~~
ohashi
It seems like it must have been flagged into oblivion because it dropped like
60 spots. I suspect you may be right.

------
eckstein
Funny how this story is a great ad for the site.. with topics on hn and reddit
growing

------
dylanrw
And it shows...

------
highace
My thoughts: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ>

~~~
gruseom
Please don't post that kind of comment here. It's against local custom.

