(This is part 3 of a 5-part process thread that we will be posting every day this week.)
Part 1 / Part 2

In presenting our initial sketches, we knew that we had to walk a delicate line between accentuating the irreverence of the existing Two Bettys brand and effectively communicating exactly what they do. We couldn’t allow one side of the story to distract from the other; both had to be presented equally. In our conversation we narrowed our focus down to three potential directions to pursue further (see the previous thread for images):

The “stained glass” direction:
Both Anna and Sam appreciated the flexibility of abstract imagery created with the green visual vernacular of flower petals/leaves/droplets etc. They were interested in seeing how this flexibility might transfer into other aspects of the identity and were curious to see more.

The “leaf-house” direction:
Everyone appreciated the simplicity and boldness of the leaf and house visual combination. It spoke directly to what Two Bettys did. Although there was a concern that it didn’t necessarily invoke a feeling of WHO Two Bettys was. It was almost a bit too bold, and lacked some of the personality that Two Bettys felt defined them as a company. We discussed methods in which we could execute this same concept in stylistically varied ways that might invoke something more personable.

A third “unnamed” direction:
We all seemed to have the same itch that, although these options had their benefits, none hit the mark exactly. Both Anna and Sam were worried about “losing their wild ways” (which was exciting feedback to hear from a client.) We discussed the idea of a more abstract and unconventional “non-logo” system. Additionally, Sam mentioned something rolling around in his head that he wanted to see of “text as a logo” focusing on a treatment of the Two Bettys name. We weren’t quite sure where to go next but we moved forward on sketches for the existing options and ruminated on the third.


Broader experimentation with our visual green pattern

A quick, hand-cut-paper experiment with the leaf-house logo.

We also began to sense a potential third typographic option. Honestly, the words “Two” and “Bettys” was kind of hard to construct typographically. It’s fairly imbalanced. So we tried to devise a way to create a more conceptual typographic mark than a compositional one. Sam’s mention of “type logos” got us wondering about the visual language of cleaning companies and typography. We soon realized that there was a catalog of visual vernacular available to us that had been (sort of creepily) staring us right in the face:

Loud, luminous store shelf detergent packaging over the last fifty years (sans the creepy photo above of one staple-gunned to this poor woman’s face) seemed to meet a lot of our needs. We began reinterpreting this visual language into the world of Two Bettys, and the planets started aligning. It was an immediate match for the client’s desire for something more typographic-based. It also worked well with the name Two Bettys, since both the name and our use of the vernacular somewhat-satirized the 20th century female/domestic stereotype (cheesecake vs. housewife.) It also contained tons of ubiquitous cultural baggage to build from. These detergents stood as symbols for the post-war miracle of industrialization. By satirizing this bright and happy industro-chem visual culture, Two Bettys could reframe the contemporary visual concept of green, as well as also immediately convey the idea of “clean.” Thoughts like “NOW! With Smaller footprint!”, and whether fluorescent inks were actually ecologically safe (they are) began to spring to mind. Here’s the pasteboard for some of that sketching process:

In the end, we pitched a series of six “box logos”, complete with the brashness that Two Bettys had hoped to hold on to. Here are three of the six boxes we presented:


  1. ben g says:

    Did the word “two” start looking strange to you after a while?
    It’s just one of those words that starts to look wrong to me after I’ve read it 30 times in a row.

    • Aesthetic Apparatus says:

      Well, anything will start looking weird after you play with it enough. But for a moment we played with the visual balance of the centered “W” in “TWO” and the “”TT” in “BETTYS.” The two words stacked on top of each other caused those to look a bit like a broom to us. But, in the end, it was a crappy broom and we ditched the sketch.

  2. Nate says:

    Yeah. The soap box concepts look solid.

  3. Eric says:

    Hey guys, great work and great posts. I have a question about the inks your using — not in a angry-internet-person-pointing-fingers-way, but just curious about where your research lead you. You mentioned the fluorescent inks were safe to use, but my understanding is that metallic and fluorescent inks have the highest proportions of heavy metals, usually containing high levels of copper and zinc.


    • Aesthetic Apparatus says:

      Thanks for your comments, Eric. All the inks that we use are acrylic, water-based inks and are extremely-benign when it comes to the chemicals within them and chemicals involved in their manufacturing. In regard to the materials required for fluorescent, it’s our understanding that it is actually an exposure process that gives the ink it’s luminescence as opposed to a chemical process. That said, there are more caustic, eye-burning fluorescents and high-flake metallics out there that I do think contain a lot more chemicals and crap.

1 Pings/Trackbacks for "TWO BETTYS – PROCESS THREAD (PART 3)"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.