Hi All,

Just joined and in need of some advice. I am designing a site for a client who is a Tree Surgeon. These guys have various accreditations and qualifications like these:

http://www.yell.com/static/image/0ecf1779-d789-4f14-806c-9379d4bcbd28_image_jpeg?t=tr/w:550/h:412/m:FitPad
http://www.redrhinowaste.co.uk/cms/uploads/1391377114.jpg
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/images/rfs_logo.gif/$FILE/rfs_logo.gif
http://www.agibsontreesurgery.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/bs3998.png

they seem to all use them on their sites and on their business cards. However, the colours etc are fairly ugly and quite often i see logo's altered for banners with single logo colours.

Please see this page for an example of what i'd like to achieve (banner near bottom)

https://www.marijnbankers.nl/

All logo's have been nicely made to look similar. What is the legal position on this and how best could it be done i.e illustrator

Any advice very welcome

Thanks

Classic case of a designer wanting form over function. Just use them as they are. It doesn't matter what they look like. The tree surgeon doesn't care how pretty it is, he just wants it to make him money.

You would have to check with each separate organisation, if there is any issue changing them it would most likely say on their website, if not then I would assume they don't mind as long as it's recognisable.

 

Although climber is right, function should always come first.

Ah, the old case of 'several ugly logos HAVE to be included in this design…'

 

For the sake of argument and time I'd just keep them as they are.

 

In the past I've included single colour versions of logos and changed their colour to match that of the project (I made some logos pink for a book cover because the cover only used two colours, one of which was pink), but it caused a massive headache because the client I was dealing with apparently didn't have the authority to allow something like that.

Check the corporate identity guidelines of each of the organisations to see if there is an all black variant of their logos. Most organisations do. It's very unlikely they would approve of you changing their colours to match your client's website.

Thanks for your answers.

 

I'd like to do this if i can. Yes the tree surgeon may not care but i will and its my reputation for the website design. I'm only just starting out and i dont want to get lazy right out of the gates if there is a chance it can be made better.

 

I will enquire to the 4 logo providers for more clarity on this. If I'm unable to do it they will be get buried in the footer i guess

 

Thanks

Thanks for your answers.

 

I'd like to do this if i can. Yes the tree surgeon may not care but i will and its my reputation for the website design. I'm only just starting out and i dont want to get lazy right out of the gates if there is a chance it can be made better.

 

I will enquire to the 4 logo providers for more clarity on this. If I'm unable to do it they will be get buried in the footer i guess

 

Thanks

 

If nothing else, keep that attitude

Thanks for your answers.

 

I'd like to do this if i can. Yes the tree surgeon may not care but i will and its my reputation for the website design. I'm only just starting out and i dont want to get lazy right out of the gates if there is a chance it can be made better.

 

I will enquire to the 4 logo providers for more clarity on this. If I'm unable to do it they will be get buried in the footer i guess

 

Thanks

 

I personally wouldn't change them - you should be able to design for anyone or anything, given the materials you are given. Changing them, as others have said, may infringe the corporate policy etc etc - so tread very careful. There are a lot of good graphic designers on WDF, so be careful what doors you close, before you're even going.

 

 

I'd like to do this if i can. Yes the tree surgeon may not care but i will and its my reputation for the website design. I'm only just starting out and i dont want to get lazy right out of the gates if there is a chance it can be made better.

 

 

 

You have missed the point. You are not doing a better job by trying to mess about with the logo's so they look pretty, you are doing a worse job. The logo's should be used as the various bodies intended them to look. Changing them will serve no useful purpose.

 

You have missed the point. You are not doing a better job by trying to mess about with the logo's so they look pretty, you are doing a worse job. The logo's should be used as the various bodies intended them to look. Changing them will serve no useful purpose.

I would disagree with this to be honest. Who are you working for, the tree surgeon or the organisations supplying the accreditations? The tree surgeon's brand shouldn't be compromised by a line of ugly logos. If a site visitor is looking for credentials, they will find them no matter what colour they are. Otherwise it's like the tail wagging the dog.

I would disagree with this to be honest. Who are you working for, the tree surgeon or the organisations supplying the accreditations? The tree surgeon's brand shouldn't be compromised by a line of ugly logos. If a site visitor is looking for credentials, they will find them no matter what colour they are. Otherwise it's like the tail wagging the dog.

 

The logos above link to UK recognised bodies including a government department. You may not be allowed to change their 'brand' by redesigning the logos and they could insist that they are changed back whilst the site is taken down until they are.

 

The purpose of these logos is to inform potential clients that the business operates within the guidelines and/or regulations of those accrediting bodies. To that end potential clients expect to see them as they are and will immediately recognise them by the branding.

 

Wonder if anyone would want to change the branding of a bank, card handler or PayPal?

 

Think anyone would want to click on some 'spoofy' looking link to Mastercard?

 

You must always check the guidelines of any other business or organisation to see what they allow with regard to their branding. If you can't find anything simply email them and ask. I've done this in the past and if they are amenable they have simply asked to see the redesign before it goes live.

It anyone forgetting the fact that logos should be recognisable even if in black and white, that tells me that as long as you don't change the form, the colours are fair game and would be just as recognisable as any colour, I would say that is ok as long as their websites specifically state you can't do that.

I would disagree with this to be honest. Who are you working for, the tree surgeon or the organisations supplying the accreditations? The tree surgeon's brand shouldn't be compromised by a line of ugly logos. If a site visitor is looking for credentials, they will find them no matter what colour they are. Otherwise it's like the tail wagging the dog.

 

A tree surgeon doesn't need a brand. You are getting far too caught up seeing it from a superficial design perspective, and not thinking about it from a marketing perspective.

A tree surgeon doesn't need a brand. You are getting far too caught up seeing it from a superficial design perspective, and not thinking about it from a marketing perspective.

 

I have disagreed before and I will do it again with the same answer

 

Every business needs a brand, otherwise the brand would be a mess, even if you do not intentionally create a brand, it's there because a brand is not the logo or pictures or text, it's the whole thing, it's wherever is there, the emotion or the impression the clients get of a company, that's the brand and unless you have planned your branding, it will be a mess and your clients will get the wrong impression of your business.. Personally, I would rather be in control of how people feel about my business.

I have disagreed before and I will do it again with the same answer

 

Every business needs a brand, otherwise the brand would be a mess, even if you do not intentionally create a brand, it's there because a brand is not the logo or pictures or text, it's the whole thing, it's wherever is there, the emotion or the impression the clients get of a company, that's the brand and unless you have planned your branding, it will be a mess and your clients will get the wrong impression of your business.. Personally, I would rather be in control of how people feel about my business.

 

If I tell you why you are wrong, we are going to go round in circles again.

 

I've made my opinion on this thread clear. The OP can either follow my advice or not.

 

I have been talking with Ben about starting a series of marketing related threads to provide some valuable info for the members here. Ill make sure that one of the first is why a small service based business doesn't need a brand, just for you.

I'm sorry but you once told me I don't understand marketing, well, I have to tell you that if you think you are right with branding, you don't understand branding.

 

Branding is reputation, it conveys what is special about your business, What I am advocating is that you think about the impression you want to make - your brand - and actively take steps to manage it.

 

It's about applying your values to everything you do, clearly and consistently.

 

Branding is a benefit to every business, small or large, stating that a business does not need branding is like stating they don't need a usp.

I remember getting done some years ago now for forgetting to renew my road tax. Got a fixed penalty notice for it.

 

Perhaps I should have gone to court and argued the new red disc would have clashed with the blue theme of my van.

I'm sorry but you once told me I don't understand marketing, well, I have to tell you that if you think you are right with branding, you don't understand branding.

 

Branding is reputation, it conveys what is special about your business, What I am advocating is that you think about the impression you want to make - your brand - and actively take steps to manage it.

 

It's about applying your values to everything you do, clearly and consistently.

 

Branding is a benefit to every business, small or large, stating that a business does not need branding is like stating they don't need a usp.

 

I'm not getting into it on this thread, we can argue the toss when I start a thread specifically about the subject if you like.

 

I also remember you telling me that I don't understand marketing too, which did give us quite a chuckle here.

 

I also remember you telling me that I don't understand marketing too, which did give us quite a chuckle here.

Sure it would, of course, if I took some of your comments to my buddies or even my tutors we would have plenty to chuckle at too, especially about the branding.

I have been talking with Ben about starting a series of marketing related threads to provide some valuable info for the members here. Ill make sure that one of the first is why a small service based business doesn't need a brand, just for you.

 

Sounds interesting to me. I remember someone wrote a bunch of copywriting threads ages ago, to help the community understand a little more about it.

Sure it would, of course, if I took some of your comments to my buddies or even my tutors we would have plenty to chuckle at too, especially about the branding.

Quite right. If they understood it, they wouldn't be tutors. Those who can, do, and all that. LOL.

Sounds interesting to me. I remember someone wrote a bunch of copywriting threads ages ago, to help the community understand a little more about it.

Thanks Jack, that's really interesting.

If you can't keep it civilised, I'll close the thread.

I think this thread is done now. Ill explain on a separate thread why every small business doesn't need a brand.

 

OP, if you have read this far down I'd be more than happy to give you some pointers for the tree surgeon's site. It's a business type which I can fairly safely say I know more about the marketing of, than anyone else in the country*. Feel free to get in touch if you want to bounce any ideas around, or just fancy a chat.

 

*Yes, I do realise this is a fairly bold statement, however, I do actually have evidence to support this claim, before anyone jumps on me about it.

Edited October 8, 201411 yr by Climber

wow this got a bit carried away - just getting the time to check in.

I accept both sides of this and im normally the one to be saying that logo's should not be changed. However, i have seen quite a few times when many logo's are used that the colours are altered to work with the design of the site. As i said i am just starting out so whilst it may only be a small site i am going into it with a mind to establish a good work ethic and have something for my portfolio so i want it to look good. Take a look at these below - how do people get away with this - i see it a lot (see attached)

 

 

Thank you for all of your comments - its good to see an active forum, albeit a bit tense.

Logos_1.tiff

Logos_2.tiff

contact the companies involved and see if they have graphic design use guidelines for their logos e.g. colours/mono version, minimum size, variations with and without text, amount of white space to leave etc. if they don't ask if you can make/use a mono (e.g. black on light or white on dark) version

For the last time, would all of you just leave it?!

 

So far everyone's comments have been far from polite, I see personal attacks from all of sides involved. Stop it now!

*Thread closed.