Logo is GREAT! The pages-in-flight is perfect for FM.

I see that logo and I see the logo for a print publishing company. I see nothing that indicates it's more of a media experience company.

That's just me, though. :)

The 'pages lifting off' idea is great, but I do not see it expressed in the logo as it stands. The graphic more like a run-of-the mill open book; the gap between the pages looks more accidental than itentional. I second the impression that the logo looks like that of a like a dead-tree publishing company.

Good points about the logo: the text treatment is light, almost playful (I assume that is intentional). I am partial to all-line art in logos (e.g. no screens or tints) because they reproduce easily in multiple media.

Hi, John.

To make my biases clear from the start I have to first state that I am a professional designer (and also that I still have the first issue of Wired magazine).... I hope my critique will be accepted in the constuctive spirit in which it is intended.

A bit about me: I have over 15 years experience in graphic design (agency, studio and institutional) and six in web design. My formal education includes the study of visual rhetoric, in terms of how images express concepts (often based on words first, before they are given visual form, such as for a logo).

From what I have read of your mission (and the full name of this project) I must point out that this initial logo, while comendable and certainly worthy of use, does not really express your mandate. I will illustrate my points below using the name of your project as references.

1. Federated: a term of inclusiveness, it is an expression of coming together (for a cause or idea) of a group with, usually, a single purpose. The illustration of pages "lifting off a book" is not an re-enforcement of this idea.

2. Network: another term of inclusion, only more outward-focussed, perhaps, than the term "federated." Plus, in a media context, it is an expression of resources (multiple) with a fixed source or commonality (I am referring to the broadcast TV model which uses only one principal channel, or frequency, for distribution). The word also implies circularity, which is why it is often the case that media conglomerates use "round" or "compact" logos to express themselves (ABC, CBS, NBC's abstract peacock, Viacom's "V", etc.).

3. Publishing: in the age of the Internet, a rather old-fashioned concept (given it's historical definition), but a better synonym has not been found ("distribution," while perhaps more accurate, is not as compelling for this project). This term is meant to convey a form of dissemination of some kind, and in this case it is digital. The use of a book, seen in profile, is not expressly supportive of this concept.

Your project, as I have reviewed it from your comments and references to it elsewhere on the 'net, seems to want to differentiate itself from a "bricks-and-mortar" approach to publishing using an almost "co-operative" model of participation. And this is new, yes? So I have to ask: why would you adopt (a seemingly) anachronistic visual to express this concept? If it is for the sake of "retro-chic," then I understand the decision.

Perhaps these points have been raised already, and it is easy to criticize someone else's work (who made the effort to assist you). In the absence of a posted design rationale, I can only guess at some of the points that were discussed during the development of this graphic.

I apologise if my comments seem harsh, but they are meant to illustrate what I perceive as some gaps between your expressed intent and your visual expression of that intent. To you, and to the FMP community, these are my opinions and that's all they are.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and offering to accept feedback.

I have no idea if your comments were appreciated by the FMpub community, Martin, but as an outsider watching, I appreciate them -- I enjoyed your well-thought-out analysis of the logo and taking the time to do it. I feel I've learned something from your comments.

So, from me, anyway, thanks!

what andrew kaufman said.

You need more options. Take your basic concepts and get them expressed on paper. Having a single starting point is not going to be very fruitful. Sketch out your ideas on paper - try to visually express them using as many different symbols and words you can think of. Mr. Kaufman started you off on the right foot - list all the words, phrases and symbols you can think of that are relevant to your business and more importantly, express what your business promises to provide.

Sorry, forgot to add one important, final comment. Once you have some solid concepts, find a good graphic designer to make the logo look pretty (typography, color, orientation, perspective). But, the basic concept is key. Don't try to tackle all at once.

John,

While the logo and the company name have a nice heft to them, it seems to be antithetical to the concept that you're trying to promote. A few thoughts:

1. Per the old Cluetrain Manifesto truism that you seem to subscribe to, markets are conversations. There is very little that's conversational about a book. It's the opposite of what we need to get to in the content industry - an unchangeable object created by a technological elite from a central distribution plant. I think that's the danger of weblogs also to some degree - they're really not conversations in and of themselves, they're monologues that occasionally refer to other monologues.

2. Federated. A loose union, that part is good, but the most powerful aggregation is user-driven, not source-driven. Federated has the image of a committee-driven process rather than a town hall process. Also reminds me of the federal government or old newspaper syndication services.

3. Media. OK, that works, kind of neutral.

4. Publishing. I don't subscribe to the idea that publishing is an outdated concept, but put together with the other two words and the play on FM radio (rather seventies, no?) it seems to say "old, old, old." A little like "Weblogs, Inc." as a name - providing a level of self-importance and "We're trying to be a REAL media company" that never seemed to be necessary for a Google to go out there and make a billion or two.

If were your shoes I'd select a name that's going to engage your audience and your authors. You don't start a federation and then go out and find communities: you build or attract communities that require a federation.

Other than that, I think that it's a grand idea that's waiting to happen. I am sure that you are going to do very well.

good web