I’ll reiterate a very early post in this thread by crediting you for allowing this much public scrutiny on the design process. In modern times, this type of public interaction is lacking (and sometimes even punished) in so many industries.

Having said that, forgive me for continuing my barrage.

In the process breakdown above, you mention the following: “The logo with three swoosh creating ‘M’ nicely emphasized the color red but was suggestive of speed and movement, which are more appropriate for a sports brand.”

There have been many comments in this thread regarding the final design - that the logo is not appropriate for a jewelry brand, and more appropriate for some other industry.

So, the logo being suggestive of concepts not related to jewelry was rejected, and now that the majority of the feedback tells you the same thing about the “final” logo, the reply is that a brand “does not start and end with the logo.”

I agree. I greatly prefer the “swoosh” logo, and it wouldn’t start and end there, right?

http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/424/montred8vn.jpg

A picture speaks a thousand words.

I agree with most of your views and I also agree with TJ’s view: “It’s basically how you build your brand around the logo. Brand building doesn’t start and END at the logo.”

Thanks for participating and making this discussion more and more interesting.

-Deepa

I don’t get the courier connection from FedEx. The company’s name is “Federal Express” and the full name was the original logo. The name of the company has connotations of speed or efficiency. Not until the brand was widely recognized did they shorten it to FedEx.

The Nike swoosh was supposed to connote “movement.” I may or may not agree that it does, but the key is this: It does not connote anything else of significance to me. I may think, “OK, this might not be the most formal of companies with a logo like that.” But I don’t think, “This might be a telecommunications company.” At worst, I think, “I wonder what the heck this company does.”

The same goes for the golden arches. Sure, I can say that the font of the letter is “playful” or something like that. That’s not the point. The logo was only shortened to the “M” after the company had established itself in the market. Before that it was “McDonald’s,” and it was, and still is, entirely common for restaurant chains to use a possessive form of a first or last name. I don’t think “restaurant” automatically if I see a name with an “apostrophe, s” on it, but once again, I don’t think “fishing company” or anything else in particular.

Pepsi’s original logo was “Pepsi-Cola.” A cola company, obviously. In 1898, the company name was its logo. In 1950, what looks like a yin-yang image variant was added behind the full name “Pepsi-Cola.” I suppose what looks to be a yin-yang variant implies “unity” to me, which wouldn’t detract from Pepsi’s image. Only starting from 1962, some SEVENTY-FOUR years after the company was founded, did they finally drop the word “Cola” from its logo.

The Mercedes logo shows both axial (vertical) and radial symmetry, which contemporarily connote “class” or “precision.” The logo was intended to represent domination of land, sea and air. I would never pick up on that intent myself. However (and I do apologize for belaboring the point), once again I don’t infer that this company is of a particular industry because the logo has not been abstracted to a point where it begins to _resemble an entirely unrelated object, with apparently lesser abstraction_. A “ring” (jewelry type) abstracted so far that it appears to be a “less-abstract” moon phase, planet’s corona, or anything else besides jewelry, will connote a moon phase, planet’s corona, or anything else besides jewelry.

The more you talk into a logo, the more people will ‘get’ it too. I’d be interested in seeing the comments if you posted a before and after of your logo to see what people thought.

My route would personally be ‘organic, engineered’. This might amek a bit more sense of the ’soft’ and ‘hard’ juxtaposition attempted with the O in the logo.

I’d give it another few weeks development if I were on that design team… sorry

It’s basically how you build your brand around the logo. Brand building doesn’t start and END at the logo.

I think these guys have done a good job. Now it will be interesting to see how they build a brand around the logo.