That's not really a logo. It's more like an illustration with some type dropped in below it. More suitable for a tee shirt, sticker, etc. but not really suitable for a visual identity.
A logo should be able to be reproduced at any size, in black and white or color, and still be instantly recognizable for what it is.
How will that graphic look when it is shrunk down and printed one color on a business card? What if you want it embroidered on a skull cap at one inch by one inch? How is it going to look on letter head when it is faxed? Or on a cheap flyer that's been photo copied at kinko's?
A logo should always be designed using only black and white first. No gradients, no half tones, and definitely NO effects. This means no drop shadows, no lens flare, no bevel and emboss etc..
It should be (in my opinion) sketched on paper and refined as much as possible before a computer is ever touched. Once a solid concept has been developed only then should it be scanned in and drawn out, black and white, in a vector art program such as adobe illustrator. In my opinion photoshop should never be used in logo creation.
Do you see any bevels or lens flares on the serato logo? The Ableton logo? The Nike "swoosh"? The Adidas logo?
Look at Ecko's Rhino mark, simple and striking. Perfect example of a well executed visual identity, and one of my personal favorites. It can be presented in a variety of ways, and since it has built up brand equity it can be presented with or without the word "Ecko" and still be recognized for exactly what it is. It can be built up into a more realistic rhino, or shown as basic one color art. You can see it is a tag on jeans, sneakers, on a shirt, embroidered, screen printed, on the web, watches, wallets, records, etc. and as soon as you see it you know it is ecko.
Now compare that to the art at the top of the page. See the difference?
I think the problem is that anyone with a cracked copy of photoshop can throw a drop shadow on some type and call themselves a designer. Don't get me wrong, I am all for people learning, being creative, and having fun, but there is a big difference between that and charging people for services.
Do you think a company like ecko, or serato would hire someone like Dj Kimozave, or the original artist at the top of the page, to design their logo? T
hen why would you? Obviously you don;t have the scratch to dump 10 or 20 thousand dollars into your visual identity, but if you are serious about it, and you must be because you paid that cat $175, you could really gotten more bang for the buck by hiring someone that knows what they are doing, if you know what I mean.
I'm sure there is a community college or university with a design program near you, you could put up some flyers and hire a design student. With a hip, youthful, urban subject matter as the theme you'd probably get a ton of hits. Ask to see some of their work first to get a feel for the type of stuff they do, but I am sure you could get something much nicer and more usable.
When Philip Knight was a college student he hired another student in his school to design a logo for his new company (Nike) he wanted to launch. There he met Carolyn Davidson, a graphic design student, who was working on a drawing assignment in the hallway. Knight offered to pay her a couple of bucks an hour if she would do some design work for his small company.
She came up with this:
www.nike.com
He paid her something like $40 for what was to become one of the most recognizable logos in the world. (she was handsomely reimbursed years later, after nike blew up, with a fat envelope of nike stocks. She never disclosed the dollar amount, but she did say she was able to live a comfortable life as well as put her children and her grandchildren through college with it...)
Anyway, I'm not knocking the art or the cat who created it, I'm just saying its not a logo. If you are going to do it why not do it right ya know? Just some friendly advice is all.
