Why does the TAM 5 logo look like it came from a cheap bottle of bourbon? [Archive]

CFLarsen

29th September 2006, 01:42 AM

Sure, because no one is allowed to have a critical view of something without the ability to do better themselves.

Not at all. But at the very least, people could come up with some solutions, instead of merely voicing their criticism.

brodski

29th September 2006, 01:46 AM

Sure, because no one is allowed to have a critical view of something without the ability to do better themselves.

I like this approach

woo: I can speak to the dead!
CFL: No you can't!
woo: Well, YOU do it better then, if you can't then stop criticising my efforts.

:P

wert

29th September 2006, 02:28 AM

It's just standard web forums bullcrap.

When someone expresses critical comment about something, it's inevitable that some asshat will chip in with the knee jerk "Oh yeah, you do it better then!".

By that "logic" one would need to be a producer, writer, director, author, artist etc. to have the right to comment critically on books, movies, art, etc.

a_unique_person

29th September 2006, 02:29 AM

Design something better, then.

I think this looks better

http://nationaltreasures.nla.gov.au/xpf/sites/Treasures/media/glyph/items/nla.int-ex8-s33-item.jpg

Hmmm...Starwine.

CFLarsen

29th September 2006, 02:39 AM

I like this approach

woo: I can speak to the dead!
CFL: No you can't!
woo: Well, YOU do it better then, if you can't then stop criticising my efforts.

:P

You don't think I can cold read just as well as Sylvia? ;)

....can't you?? :p

It's just standard web forums bullcrap.

When someone expresses critical comment about something, it's inevitable that some asshat will chip in with the knee jerk "Oh yeah, you do it better then!".

By that "logic" one would need to be a producer, writer, director, author, artist etc. to have the right to comment critically on books, movies, art, etc.

...or, at least, suggest something that is better.

wert

29th September 2006, 03:08 AM

...or, at least, suggest something that is better.

Logically, why would there be need to provide a "suggestion" in order to validate a critical opinion?

I'd think it would be possible to respect subjective opinions without the rather condescending "Well fix it yourself!" attitude.

CFLarsen

29th September 2006, 03:13 AM

Logically, why would there be need to provide a "suggestion" in order to validate a critical opinion?

I'd think it would be possible to respect subjective opinions without the rather condescending "Well fix it yourself!" attitude.

What is the difference between that and complaining for the sake of complaining?

wert

29th September 2006, 03:21 AM

dupe

wert

29th September 2006, 03:22 AM

What is the difference between that and complaining for the sake of complaining?Explain why this person doesn't have the right to a critical view without having some jerk tell them to "fix it themselves" or that they're complaining just for the sake of complaining".

It would seem your off topic whining about a simple expression of opinion here would certainly fall under the aegis of "complaining for the sake of complaining". So.... Pot, kettle, black eh? :)

You spouted some typical knee jerk (and quite condescending) crap and continue to do so.

But hey, you want "suggestions"? Sure.

Have someone redesign it so it's not as cluttered, has some contrast between the elements, and doesn't look like it was tossed together by a high school student just learning how to use MS "Word art".

And as this sort of good design normally costs money for a professionals time, perhaps one shouldn't be so quick to dismiss honest opinions with the snarky "Well fix it yourself then!". Do you tell people that they should go out and direct a better film if they didn't like something they saw at the cinema? Or that they shouldn't speak up because they're just "complaining for the sake of complaining?"

CFLarsen

29th September 2006, 03:38 AM

Explain why this person doesn't have the right to a critical view without having some jerk tell them to "fix it themselves" or that they're complaining just for the sake of complaining".

It would seem your off topic whining about a simple expression of opinion here would certainly fall under the aegis of "complaining for the sake of complaining". So.... Pot, kettle, black eh? :)

You spouted some typical knee jerk (and quite condescending) crap and continue to do so.

But hey, you want "suggestions"? Sure.

Have someone redesign it so it's not as cluttered, has some contrast between the elements, and doesn't look like it was tossed together by a high school student just learning how to use MS "Word art".

And as this sort of good design normally costs money for a professionals time, perhaps one shouldn't be so quick to dismiss honest opinions with the snarky "Well fix it yourself then!". Do you tell people that they should go out and direct a better film if they didn't like something they saw at the cinema? Or that they shouldn't speak up because they're just "complaining for the sake of complaining?"

I asked you a question:

What is the difference between that and complaining for the sake of complaining?

exarch

29th September 2006, 07:47 AM

http://www.randi.org/amazingmeeting/tam5/tam5_300.jpg

Because you can still read it when you're drunk?

tkingdoll

29th September 2006, 07:58 AM

AUP, you know, there is a big difference between "don't like" and "doesn't work".

If you would care to explain what it is about the logo that a) doesn't match TAM brand values and b) doesn't reach the target audience (assuming you are familiar with the demographics), then that might be considered constructive. I'd also be interested to see your research that demonstrates the current logo is having a negative impact on ticket sales and/or brand perception.

Anything else is just saying that you, personally, don't like it. Which is fine, I don't like your avatar, but that doesn't mean your avatar doesn't do the job for which it is intended, yes?

HarryKeogh

29th September 2006, 08:04 AM

I like it. I kind of see the cheap bottle of bourbon reference but it also looks likes the label that would be on some health tonic some guy would sell out of the back of his wagon while driving through some rural town in 1885. Doc McGee's Health Tonic now with a most pleasing flavor and 20% more vigor.

Seriously, I like the logo. Cool, retro thing going on.

Lothian

29th September 2006, 08:18 AM

I agree it could be better.

This is a quick improvement.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/447451d2ab0f28a6.jpg

HarryKeogh

29th September 2006, 08:32 AM

I agree it could be better.

This is a quick improvement.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/447451d2ab0f28a6.jpg

If you could change "The Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas" to "The Hotel Marriot, New York, NY" that would be another improvement.

webfusion

29th September 2006, 08:50 AM

Hey, what's wrong with a cheap bottle of bourbon?

http://www.rebelyellwhiskey.com/

brodski

29th September 2006, 09:08 AM

Hey, what's wrong with a cheap bottle of bourbon?

It's not two cheep bottles of bourbon. ;)

Hagrok

29th September 2006, 09:26 AM

It is a little blurry... I'd suggest sharpening it up a bit.

xenxabar

29th September 2006, 08:05 PM

http://www.randi.org/amazingmeeting/tam5/tam5_300.jpg

When I think of cheap bourbon I think of Jim Beam White Label (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Jim-Beam-White-Label-Posters_i994968_.htm) . Therefore I see the similarities as follows:

1. The title that gets the most emphasis is in the largest font, curved and at the top. Both "Jim Beam" and "Skepticism and the Media" exhibit that quality.
2. Both have a circular shaped logo in the center. The red ribbon on Jim Beam and "The Amazing Meeting 5" with folding effect.
3. The remaining supporting information is in a smaller font and there is no additional font effects (curved text, folding, etc.). Aside from the name of the distillery, all the text on both exhibit that quality.
4. Might be a bit of a stretch but both have a personalized image. Jim Beam has a signature and The Amazing One appears on the TAM5 graphic.

T'ai Chi

30th September 2006, 07:10 AM

It is just a LOGO! I know there are a lot of nitpickers here, but probably more productive to focus on real issues instead.

kittykatkarma

30th September 2006, 07:51 AM

The height and width are not proportionate.
We should be more productive to focus on real issues instead, the fact that many things in life are disproportionate?! :D

probably more productive to focus on real issues instead.

kittynh

30th September 2006, 08:20 AM

no one ever asks ME to design something.

Mind you, I think Jose has the same problem.

Real artists are never appreciated.

CFLarsen

30th September 2006, 08:20 AM

It is just a LOGO! I know there are a lot of nitpickers here, but probably more productive to focus on real issues instead.

What are the "real issues"?

kittynh

30th September 2006, 08:23 AM

You want to know who is one heck of a great designer?

Brown. The man can really draw. I adore his stuff.

Hey, it's a logo. NOT every organization can have a logo as PERFECT as the skepchicks have....

http://www.skepchick.org/forum/

I mean just LOOK at that foot. What a foot! What a shoe!!! It's perfection.

Mr.Randi should be so lucky to have such a little logo.

kittynh

30th September 2006, 08:25 AM

hey, where's the little sherlock chick? Huh Huh Huh???

HEATHANS!!!!!!

T'ai Chi

30th September 2006, 08:56 AM

Should be changed to

"Nitpickersism and the Media"

apparently. ;)

Beleth

30th September 2006, 09:00 AM

That green-stripe pattern always make me think of dollar bills. Specifically, the big word "ONE" on the back of American dollar bills.

CFLarsen

30th September 2006, 09:22 AM

Should be changed to

"Nitpickersism and the Media"

apparently. ;)

What are the "real issues"?

T'ai Chi

30th September 2006, 09:27 AM

I think the logo should have dancing penguins in it.

StewartP

30th September 2006, 09:29 AM

I think the design is quite good.

It has a kind of Victorian snake oil feel to it, which I think is quite appropriate.

It also doesn't follow, logically, that cheap bourbon need have poor label design as Xenxabar points out with comparison to the Jim Beam label.

CFLarsen

30th September 2006, 09:51 AM

I think the logo should have dancing penguins in it.

You were not talking about the logo:
It is just a LOGO! I know there are a lot of nitpickers here, but probably more productive to focus on real issues instead.

What are the "real issues"?

You brought this up. Answer the question.

Jeff Wagg

30th September 2006, 09:58 AM

For what it's worth, it was designed by a professional graphic artist.

Pyrrho

30th September 2006, 10:05 AM

For what it's worth, it was designed by a professional graphic artist.
As a professional graphic artist, I know how it feels to be second-guessed.

It's a good design. Nice work, whoever did it.

brodski

30th September 2006, 10:55 AM

For what it's worth, it was designed by a professional graphic artist.

Appeal to authority. :p

30th September 2006, 01:33 PM

When I think of cheap bourbon I think of Jim Beam White Label (http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Jim-Beam-White-Label-Posters_i994968_.htm) . Therefore I see the similarities as follows:

1. The title that gets the most emphasis is in the largest font, curved and at the top. Both "Jim Beam" and "Skepticism and the Media" exhibit that quality.
2. Both have a circular shaped logo in the center. The red ribbon on Jim Beam and "The Amazing Meeting 5" with folding effect.
3. The remaining supporting information is in a smaller font and there is no additional font effects (curved text, folding, etc.). Aside from the name of the distillery, all the text on both exhibit that quality.
4. Might be a bit of a stretch but both have a personalized image. Jim Beam has a signature and The Amazing One appears on the TAM5 graphic.

Xenxabar,

Please tell me that you're not picking on Jim Beam. Please? :eek:

xenxabar

30th September 2006, 02:55 PM

Xenxabar,

Please tell me that you're not picking on Jim Beam. Please? :eek:
No worries, I'm not picking on either.

Mr. Skinny

30th September 2006, 05:52 PM

As a professional graphic artist, I know how it feels to be second-guessed.

It's a good design. Nice work, whoever did it.
Well, the OP didn't say it was bad, he just said it looked like a label for a cheap bottle of booze.

It looks like that to me too...very much like the black & white label on the bottle of Jack Daniels I bought today (and JD ain't cheap).

Although I'm an engineer and know nothing about design, layout, or art in general, is my opinion worthless? Must one be an expert to offer a gut opinion?

And pyrroh, I don't think a comment has to equate with "second-guessing". For me it's a matter of "you produced it, and I didn't particularly like it". That doesn't mean I think you are a bad artist though.

kittynh

30th September 2006, 10:36 PM

I think it's good. But honestly, a foot would have looked nice.

treble_head

3rd October 2006, 10:57 PM

considering that you all know I can't leave well enough alone...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/442145233ff795e41.jpg

CFLarsen

4th October 2006, 12:21 AM

Spirits, hm....?

treble_head

4th October 2006, 02:02 AM

Spirits, hm....?

I'm not a spiritualist, but I am a spirits-ist.

CFLarsen

4th October 2006, 04:10 AM

I thought you were a spirits'n'tits kinda guy...

(scurries away)

Soapy Sam

9th October 2006, 04:34 AM

Being a sophisticated fellow, I am naturally unfamiliar with labels of cheap booze. I accordingly embarked upon a pogramme if sytsematic rescherchch iunty suvbject.
It is my conculsino thet hte op is plrobly crrect. Label is a lot log the liko oghj ,.//
o mi hed!