« 243 Dean Street Sells for $2,440,000 Condo of the Day: 1405 8th Avenue »
August 7, 2008
Inside Third & Bond: Week 48
Since settling on GoCaGa-RedHook-FarSlope as our neighborhood, we have turned our attention to the next step in branding our project: logos. The logos in this post are some of the many great ideas Clarke/Thompson threw at us earlier this week when we sat down with them, our brokers from Corcoran, Leslie Marshall and James Cornell, and our new marketing guru consultant, Karen Auster of Auster Events. We wish we could unveil the logos for you with the same drama as Clarke/Thompson’s Katy Dwyer, who with great deliberation showcased each logo by flipping around a blank card to display the design while Pat Thompson and Melissa Hewitt took careful observation of which logos made our pulses rush and scalps tingle. Instead, you’ll have to scroll slowly down yourself. Voting is at the bottom, as is your opportunity to tell us in your own words which one you’d like to place your t-shirt order for.
A good logo is like an Olympic gymnast...
...it needs to do a lot with as seemingly little effort as possible. It needs to give you the most basic of information—the name. It needs to convey the story of the project—it’s green, it’s luxury, it’s family-focused, it’s quality, it’s high-design, it’s the newest, hippest, best!!! It needs to capture the attention of the targeted buyers, which are a diverse crowd. It needs to be memorable and easily recognizable. And it needs to do all this while in a format that looks as great on the cover of a glossy, colorful brochure as in a black-and-white column ad in the back of the Times.
For anyone who is pooh-poohing the idea that a logo is important think about the swoosh of Nike, the clean lines of Target’s bull’s eye, the smoothly bitten Apple, the cuddly panda of the World Wildlife Fund, or the seal of the Ramones. Or take a look at the top and side of this webpage—logos, logos, logos.
In devising a logo for Third & Bond, we’ve talked a lot about what we want to say and now we are trying to figure out how to say it. Probably not a cuddly panda. But what about a leaf? Do we need a leaf to let people know that this is a green project? Is it a single leaf of a bushy leaf? How else could we signal it? We talked about skipping the leaf altogether and going with logo 2 or 7 which work the 3 and the B into the same shape depending on how you squint at it. But some of us thought that didn’t add anything useful to the branding other than just being clever and neat-looking. Another hot topic was logo 6. A few of us love the big 3 and B because of the way it pops off the page – and wouldn’t mind if the whole project was known as 3B. But others felt that 3B sounds like an apartment for rent and we’d get phone calls like, “Hey, you’re showing 3B today? When are you showing 4A?”
And then there was the whole discussion about fonts and how they make us feel. For anyone who has rented Helvetica, you’ll have an idea what that was like.
At the end of the meeting we decided to 1) solicit your opinions and 2) make a mock-up of the logo as if it’s in a black-and-white ad in the classified section of the Times. While a lot of our advertising will be web-based, we still want to make sure that the logo translates well when it is small, black-and-white, and on a page with a lot of competing logos and text.
So, go ahead and let us know which logos pop for you. Be convincing… you’ll be seeing it everywhere!
Inside Third & Bond: Week 47 [Brownstoner]
Inside Third & Bond: Week 46 [Brownstoner]
Inside Third & Bond: Week 45 [Brownstoner]
Inside Third & Bond: Week 44 [Brownstoner]
Inside Third & Bond: Week 43 [Brownstoner]
Inside Third & Bond: Week 42 [Brownstoner]
From our lawyers: “This is not an offering. No offering can be made until an offering plan is filed with the Department of Law of the State of New York."
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/5776
Comments
I went through essentially the same process as you did ... BEFORE I read your narrative: you want to get across that this is a green project, which points toward using #1, #4 or #6. But unless you want the project to be known as 3B, #6 is out, and between #1 and #4, #1 is a more attractive and clever design. #2, #3 and #7 are certainly clever designs, but add nothing to the branding. And I find both #5 and #8 to be rather blah. I also find most of the colors kind of bland, though I get that these designs also have to translate into black and white. The colors of #1 make sense -- brown branches, green leaves -- but I wonder if the font is too thin, especially for use in black and white copy? Anyway, overall, I like #1 the best.
Posted by: Park Sloper at August 7, 2008 11:51 AM
I'm the only one and nobody will agree with me but I voted for logo #2. The whole green and brown combo thing still feels current at this moment, but it is going to get dated and tired real soon. It's so overused, especially with the leaves. I've found myself loving pink a lot lately so that's why I picked #2. I like interesting salmon pinks with warm tones like this one. Or really rich intense darker warm pinks. Not that horrible hot pink in all the little girls clothes and furnishings these days.
Posted by: traditionalmod at August 7, 2008 12:02 PM
I like #2, though it looks like I'm in the minority. It's unique, interesting and not GREEN, Blue OR RED. The design reminds me of a bike rack and it has a modern, semi-industrial feel which is what your location is about.
Posted by: brooklynlorax at August 7, 2008 12:04 PM
Nike, Target and Apple spend hundreds of millions of dollars on TV, cable, radio, web and print advertising making it almost impossible not to recognize their logos and associate it with their companies. Does anyone really care what a logo that's going to be in a handful of NYTimes ads looks like? And how about coming up with a more creative name than an intersection?
Posted by: greenwood at August 7, 2008 12:09 PM
#1 was my favorite too. I like the feel of a fresh green space it imparts, but agree with park sloper the font looks a little thin. It's also so open that you look through the letters before you see the words.
I like the cleverness of #3 but if you want to emphasize this is a green project, wouldn't shades of green be better? And maybe incorporate leaves somewhere? maybe the cross at the center could have been leaf shapes? That would imply it's a green project at heart.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 7, 2008 12:09 PM
I really think now that green-building isn't such a novelty it changes what a logo needs to impart. It doesn't need to be so on-the-nose anymore. Buyers are more sophisticated about the green building practices and materials, they'll be following which buildings are green and what makes them that, and they don't need a green leafy logo telling them a building is green in general.
Posted by: traditionalmod at August 7, 2008 12:22 PM
I think both the name and the logo(s) strike the right balance of sophistication without pretension. It's Brooklyn. Liked quite a few of them but the first to me is tasteful, a little modern, with a nod to the tree-lined streets that we all dig about our home borough.
And the attention to detail is something a few more developers might take note of.
Bravo!
Posted by: Johnny at August 7, 2008 12:25 PM
I agree. I think you can do better for a name of the development than a nearby intersection.
Posted by: slick at August 7, 2008 12:35 PM
#7 for the win.
First, 'green' is rapidly becoming a cliche when used in the context of real estate marketing. (Strike 'rapidly becoming' if you're more cynical than I am.)
Second, a logo works best as a unique identifier rather than some sort of shorthand. You mention Apple, Target and Nike, and these are good examples. These logos also don't try to give any 'clues' as to what the company or product does. (Computers aren't fruit; a target doesn't reference discounts, and that swish is abstract. At most, two of the three tie in to the name of the company, but not what they do.) They are simple, easily-identified glyphs.
If you're really bent on 'green'/nature/environment, you're already close to a bird in flight allusion with #7. Just rotate it 45 degrees to the left...
Posted by: deadnancy at August 7, 2008 12:38 PM
I too like #7, but for different, and possibly demented, reasons. It conjures up rippling water for me and creates an association with the nearby Gowanus (which I am crazy enough to believe will one day be attractive to people beyond those who,like me, appreciate it for its industrial funkiness).
Posted by: johnife at August 7, 2008 12:49 PM
I think a good logo is both shorthand and a unique identifier. 3rd and Bond is not a product line, so a unique glyph that can be tied into ongoing marketing and sales doesn't seem to work for this. #7 is a nice bird in flight allusion but I think most people would associate it with the beach, not a specific building.
I think the green leaves don't just imply it's a green building. I thought they referred to a way of life- as johnny said- a nod-to the tree lined streets, reference to a home as oasis.
Posted by: bxgrl at August 7, 2008 12:56 PM
So, when is the contest for the Brooklyn Flea happening?
Posted by: HmmWhichNeighborhood at August 7, 2008 1:54 PM
Another vote for #7. Its the most striking and will look good in a lot of different formats.
Personally, the leaf doesn't go with the location and it doesn't connect the environmental connotations of "green". I think it conjurs up the expectation of a park.
#3 isn't bad either but wouldn't look as good in smaller form.
Posted by: Mrs. Limestone at August 7, 2008 1:55 PM
Don't know why #7 is so popular; I don't think its logo scans; I'd rule out that one and #2 on this basis alone. #1 is my clear favorite, though I will say the font's thinness may make it a bit too passive.
In other news, any way you guys can sue Whole Foods for the lot of us?
Posted by: Brookl at August 7, 2008 2:00 PM
I like 4 only because I think type is good, especially here where it's not gonna last as long as a swoosh, and I also think type should be readable and scale well, which 8 won't.
Posted by: denton at August 7, 2008 2:35 PM
#6. Memorable Even if it does sound like an apartment... people will remember it.
Posted by: KHuebbe at August 7, 2008 3:03 PM
I like #1. Hate #2 and #3. #4,6 and 8 don't generate strong feelings either way. I think #5 is my favorite - clean and simple, but stands out just enough. I'm ambivalent on #7.
Posted by: Make My Heights the P Heights at August 7, 2008 3:15 PM
another vote for #5... very strong, no nonsense. #1 and #8 are too Bed, Bath and Beyond-like, and #4 is too Whole Foods. #6 is a bit precious, but #7 makes me think of cleavage.
Posted by: buttermilk channel at August 7, 2008 3:47 PM
GoCaGa-RedHook-FarSlope? For real?
Posted by: lincolnlimestone at August 7, 2008 4:44 PM
This neighborhood, my neighborhood, should be called NoGo as in North Gowanus. (The latter name is what some of the old, old timers used to called it.) It's the thin strip of strange land btw 3rd and 4th Ave (south of Atlantic, north of Union or maybe further down?), and all that patchwork that is not Smith St/Carroll Gardens, not Park Slope, not Boerum Hill.
Posted by: bkyn05 at August 7, 2008 6:25 PM
None of them knock me out but I like the concept behind #7 best. I'd ask the artist to do a few more extracts with it, also something that will work in black and white.
Posted by: Steve at August 7, 2008 10:07 PM
Really not a good idea at all, you should know better....
Posted by: Ali Baba at August 7, 2008 10:24 PM
The type style chosen for #1 will look dated within the next decade. The graphic logo and classic type in #7 will stand the test of time.
Posted by: TownhouseLady at August 8, 2008 9:45 AM
Logo depends upon what is the most significant feature and benefit to your target market. If the location is the most important, then #5 makes that stand out. If the "green" element is the most important, I do not believe the logos get to that. It hints at it but is not clear. However, this is not what a logo is for.
Also, what is your price positioning? Some are more elegant than others but all seem to be mid level positioning.
Posted by: Magic at August 8, 2008 12:20 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.