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 
on May 18th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Agreed - and while we’re at it, letters, initials and words are not a logo. AB - not a logo. BAC not a logo. JJ with a camera - poor logo.
on May 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I’m glad someone finally said it!
on May 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
haha… When the press comes calling you’ll take some!
…and they will come calling because you’re freaking awesome.
As for the signature thing I agree that it is overused (and the initials are grossly overused) but one of the most famous logos of all time is the “John Hancock” signature so that must be worth something.
on May 18th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Rebel Fish feels compelled to point out that John Hancock was a Revolutionary leader, one of the first to sign the Declaration of Independence.
Because of that history, the term “John Hancock” has come to mean “a person’s signature.”
So, yes, Rebel Fish agrees that the John Hancock logo has visibility in the marketplace; but Rebel Fish also wishes to point out that the decision to use a signature-logo for a company whose name is taken from a term that means “signature” is a bit of a no-brainer.
on May 19th, 2007 at 10:31 am
dj fish agrees…
on May 20th, 2007 at 5:31 am
Someone on OSP (which has seen an endless stream of posts from people designing their own logo) suggested people do a google search for photographer logos. I tried it and saw the most horrible collection of crap I had ever seen.
As photographers, we know the difference between a pro and an amateur in wedding photography, but we tend to be a bit blind to the fact that when we design a logo (unless you have a degree and training) we are just like uncle Bob at the wedding with an expensive camera. We have stepped out of our element and training into something better left to a professional in another field. But we have the computer and the software, so why not? We just don’t recognize the value of the designer’s skill or want to pay a reasonable fee (a lot less than most wedding photographers).
If we could do our own surgery, I guess we would do that too.
on May 24th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Mantastic! LOL! You rock dude!