A signature is not a logo
(From a post by Kevin Swan on OSP when he was told his logo didn’t make anyone think of weddings… but instead it looked like a beer label.):
A logo doesn’t have to make you think of the product. It has to fit the overall brand promise and style, which mine does. Mine says professional, modern, bold, confident, competent. Those words mesh well with my personality type, my office, my cards, my car, my clothes, my speech, my photography, my billing, etc. It’s about the _experience_ — not about photography.
What does a naked siren have to do with coffee? Nothing, but it’s part of the overall experience of walking into a Starbucks. What does an apple have to do with computers? Nothing, but they make it work (especially after they updated it to just white) with the entire look and feel of their store/site/product.
I think it’s totally cheezeball when people try to cram their entire marketing message into their logo with some symbolic whatever-it-is. It’s not at all necessary, and it usually ends up making a mark that is unsatisfying. I don’t own a single professional self portrait with a camera in it (sorry DJ! hahah), because I don’t think it’s necessary (or advantageous) to put your camera in your photo. We get it. You’re a photographer. Don’t smack me in the head with it.
Photographers seem stuck on the idea that their signature is their logo. Trust me, no one remembers your signature, and it doesn’t set you apart or really help define your brand. Yes, it says artistic and personal, but it’s pretty weak, ultimately. I know I’m stepping on a lot of toes with this, but I’m reasonably confident in the market research and my 15 years in advertising.
So, it could be that I failed — since people don’t think of “photography” when they see my mark — but a lot of my clients register deeply with the branding I’ve done, and that’s where it counts for me.
$.02 and ![]()





