• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Logo Changes Revisited

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,816
Location
Not where I really want to be
Some of you don't like any of the logos I paid for. I bought the 6 sample back and they gave me 8. There were some comments about the .com part missing so I had it added and now have 3 more samples to look at. Comments please.
The Building Code Forum-AA-LO-Rev-01-01.jpgThe Building Code Forum-AA-LO-Rev-01-02.jpgThe Building Code Forum.jpg
 
chris kennedy said:
No, it looks like

The building.com

A code forum
Click to expand...

I agree.

That comment applies to the first two. The third IMHO completely misses the mark. First, the top line acronym omits the 'T'. The web address isn'y www[dot]buildingcode forum.come, it's www[dot]THEbuildingcode forum.com. So the acronym in the first line should be TBCF.

Below that, it looks like the name of the entity is just "THE BUILDING," and "code forum[dot]com" is an afterthought.
 
i would keep it small to prevent perceptions of the address being "thebuilding.com"
or buy the address "thebuilding.com" if available and forward it
 
I asked for some help. This is the breakdown.

Logo 1 (AA-04)​

Pros:
  • The use of a protective helmet in the iconography is immediately associated with construction and safety, which is relevant for a building code forum.
  • The typography is clear and modern, which can be good for readability.
  • The color contrast is strong, making it stand out.
Cons:
  • The graphic element might be too detailed for smaller scales, potentially losing clarity when the logo is reduced in size.
  • The inclusion of ".com" makes it specific to the website, which may limit the use of the logo if the forum expands beyond the website.

Logo 2 (AA-05)​

Pros:
  • The stylized "B" in the icon can be seen as representing both a building structure and a book or document, symbolizing the code or standards.
  • The color scheme is consistent with the first, maintaining brand color continuity.
  • The icon is simpler than the first, which could potentially scale better at smaller sizes.
Cons:
  • The resemblance of the "B" to a heart shape might be misleading as it doesn't directly relate to building or codes.
  • Similar to the first logo, the ".com" can be restrictive.

Logo 3 (FD-R1)​

Pros:
  • The acronym "BCF" is very compact and would scale well across various media.
  • The design is the most minimalistic and modern of the three, which can often be more future-proof.
  • The separation of "Building Code Forum" from the ".com" allows for the name to stand alone without being tied to the web address.
Cons:
  • The design might be too abstract and doesn't immediately suggest building, construction, or codes.
  • The split between the "BCF" and the full name may cause a disconnect in brand recognition.

Suggestions for Improvement:​

  • Consider the importance of the ".com" in the logo. If the forum has a strong online presence and you want to emphasize the website, it might be useful. However, if the forum is known by its name alone and may expand beyond a website, it might be more strategic to drop the ".com" for versatility.
  • Think about the scalability of the logo. A simpler design tends to be more versatile across various applications, from mobile screens to large banners.
  • Reflect on the recognizability of the logo elements and what they convey. Ensure that the graphic elements are directly related to building codes and forum discussions.
Given these analyses, you might want to consider a revision that incorporates the strengths of each design: the clear typography of logos 1 and 2, the construction-related imagery of logo 1, and the compactness and modernity of logo 3. Removing ".com" could also be beneficial unless the website is the primary identity of the forum.
Ultimately, the choice should reflect the forum's identity and how you wish to be perceived by both current members and potential new ones. If I had to choose based on the current designs and the information provided, I would lean towards a revised version of Logo 3 (FD-R1), emphasizing construction imagery a bit more while keeping the modern and simple design. This approach could help balance immediate relevance with future-proofing.
 
Lose the .com. Who doesn't know to add .com to a website? For that purpose, do we need the www or https:// - NO!

That said, I prefer AA-05.
 
AA-04 without the .com. Everybody recognizes a hammer as being used (or misused) in building construction.

The full site name with .com could be written underneath in a small font below in those few instances where it would clarify that it is all one word.
 
Here are the last two to look at with minor changes. I know which one I like and I know which one the majority likes. They are not the same. One last look before I choose the most popular amongst the members that participated. No more changes. As is.

The Building Code Forum-03.jpgThe Building Code Forum-AA-LO-Rev-01-01-01.jpg
 
Be the dictator and toss out the election. Is there any reason that you can't have both? If you Google search "building code forum" without the the in front, this forum comes up.
 
Not sure if you noticed but the shape of the hammer is for a cobbler’s hammer. Not that I am criticizing, I just thought that you might want to know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top