Re-Branding

[Wil_Bloodworth]

So I'm rebranding and the designer sent me sample business cards (I didn't ask for them so that is nice). Which do you like better?



Thank you!

- Wil

[HeatherLou]

Wil, I like card 2 best design wise, but neither say photographer to me. It needs a pic, or something to indicate your a photographer.

I would see this card out and think you are a medical imaging company???

[CaptainTom]

get a new designer who can spell...

Title not Titel

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by Heatherlou

Wil, I like card 2 best design wise, but neither say photographer to me. It needs a pic, or something to indicate your a photographer.

I would see this card out and think you are a medical imaging company???

I agree.

[toverman]

+1. They say "graphic designer" to me more than "photographer." I don't really have a preference between the two. Rather than repeat information on the backs of the cards, I'd either leave them blank or use it for a sample of your work.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

I agree with each of you. However, I am not going for the "portrait photographer" look. I'm past that. I don't have any future interest in dealing with the "luxury" side of photography (portraits, seniors, families, and any photography that isn't *required*)... and I'm shifting focus to the "required" side of photography... meaning photography that is needed by businesses. There may be a slight crossover but only in the category of photography... not the clients.

That said, the design was to reflect more of a *business* look than the normal photographer's business card. When businesses hire a photographer, commercial or otherwise, they are mentally in a different place than personal clients. They don't work on emotion like people do in their normal lives... they work off requirements and business sense. So... I am going more for the "business" look.

Does that make sense?

- Wil

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by ParkImaging

I agree with each of you. However, I am not going for the "portrait photographer" look. I'm past that. I don't have any future interest in dealing with the "luxury" side of photography (portraits, seniors, families, and any photography that isn't *required*)... and I'm shifting focus to the "required" side of photography... meaning photography that is needed by businesses. There may be a slight crossover but only in the category of photography... not the clients.

That said, the design was to reflect more of a *business* look than the normal photographer's business card. When businesses hire a photographer, commercial or otherwise, they are mentally in a different place than personal clients. They don't work on emotion like people do in their normal lives... they work off requirements and business sense. So... I am going more for the "business" look.

Does that make sense?

- Wil

Ah, gotcha. If I could change my vote, it would be to #2.

[toverman]

Then maybe it needs a photo of you holding a camera. As cheesey as that might sound, it would be a visual connection between what the card means. Then you've got name/face recognition via the card.

[texkam]

get a new designer who can spell...

Speling? I think that uses the other side of the brian. Most copywriters can't design either.

Well... I get it. Nice stuff. You have a good designer who listened to you and designed to your needs. You need to listen to him/her. You might ask how the tree icon will reproduce as line art.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Originally Posted by texkam

You might ask how the tree icon will reproduce as line art.

Mark,

Yes, I had that concern from the beginning. But in the 90's I dealt with gradients and it wasn't too bad of a problem. Most of the time I have the requirement that no gradients are involved at all so solve the problem. I had a conversation with my embroidery shop and they assured me it would not be a problem as this one was more simple than the last one. I guess embroidery has evolved.

- Wil

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Originally Posted by toverman

Then maybe it needs a photo of you holding a camera. As cheesey as that might sound, it would be a visual connection between what the card means. Then you've got name/face recognition via the card.

Todd,

I've done that in the past with my cards (and I completely agree with the concept) but with this go 'round, I am not have any "personal" touches on the cards at all. Everyone's cards in the company will look the same. Just like IBM or Microsoft... only the textual parts of the card changes.

- Wil

[texkam]

One nit, I wonder if the gradient highlight placement should stay consistent.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Mark: I'm not really following you on that one. What do you mean?

- Wil

[S-Man]

Originally Posted by toverman

Then maybe it needs a photo of you holding a camera. As cheesey as that might sound, it would be a visual connection between what the card means. Then you've got name/face recognition via the card.

Yeah, and he should be wearing a tie and a blazer so they know he's there for Businesses

edit: Joking aside, I like #2 and voted for it.

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Personally, I like the front from #2 and the graphics on the back of #1... but the text in two different directions on the back is distracting to me. Each side of the card, IMO, should be either portrait or landscape... it shouldn't try to be both... which is what the back of #2 is (mentally) doing (to me).

- Wil