Write a practical logo-design brief
Specify a logo’s audience, real uses, constraints and deliverables. Includes a completed furniture-workshop brief and review questions.
Give a designer the decisions a logo must support: who should recognise the business, what the business actually does, where the mark will appear and what files you need to use it. “Make it modern” leaves most of those questions unanswered.
This guide produces a brief you can discuss and price. It does not prescribe a particular visual style or suggest that a logo alone will change sales.
Begin with the business, not the colour
Describe the offer in one factual sentence. Then explain the audience's situation. A furniture workshop might need to reassure someone who values an existing chair but does not know whether a loose joint can be repaired. That is more useful context than a list of adjectives such as premium, disruptive and unique.
Separate what is established from what is open. The trading name may be fixed; the use of an illustration may be open. A sign size may be a hard constraint; a personal preference for green may be negotiable. Marking the difference helps a designer make decisions without guessing.
List uses at their actual sizes
| Use | What to supply in the brief | What to inspect in a proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Website header | Approximate available space, light and dark backgrounds | Name remains readable; it does not depend on a tiny descriptor |
| Quote or invoice | A sample document, including monochrome output | Identification survives an ordinary office print |
| Packaging or care card | Finished dimensions and the printer's requirements | Fine lines, small text and spacing survive the intended process |
| Social profile | Where the icon will be cropped and displayed | An approved compact version, if the full name cannot fit |
| Sign or vehicle | Viewing context and supplier specifications | Artwork is assessed for this use, not just enlarged from a screenshot |
These are checks to agree for your project, not universal minimum sizes. Test the proposed design in the contexts that matter.
A completed fictional brief
Teaching example: Alder & Grain is an invented workshop repairing wooden dining-chair joints and minor faults in wooden tables. The brief is illustrative; it is not a real commission or a cleared business identity.
| Brief item | Completed answer |
|---|---|
| Purpose | Help people recognise a careful, approachable furniture repair workshop across the website and paperwork. |
| Audience | Local owners of wooden dining chairs and tables who want to understand the inspection and quotation process. |
| Offer | Photo review, a booked workshop inspection, written scope and quotation, approval, repair and arranged collection. |
| Boundaries | No upholstery, home visits or national collection service. Do not suggest guaranteed repairs, prices or turnaround. |
| Intended impression | Clear and considered. We want the name to be easy to read and the process to feel understandable. |
| Name | Alder & Grain. Keep the ampersand. The name is fixed within this exercise. |
| Primary uses | Website header; an A4 quotation; a small furniture-care card; an appointment reminder. |
| Direction to explore | A typographic identity with a restrained colour palette. The repair process should carry the story; a detailed tool illustration is optional. |
| Reference reasoning | We like generous spacing because it helps the name remain distinct. We do not want distressed lettering that disappears when printed small. |
| Constraints | Must work on a light surface and in one colour. The website must retain an accessible text identity when the logo is an image. |
| Deliverables to agree | Approved horizontal and compact versions; light, dark and single-colour variants; appropriate screen exports; editable source; usage notes and a file inventory. |
| Decision process | One business decision-maker gathers feedback, compares it with this brief and returns one consolidated response at each agreed stage. |
| Acceptance | The approved name is correct; the agreed formats open; the small-use tests are readable; variants and usage notes are labelled; unresolved rights or print questions are recorded. |
The typographic direction is a design choice for this scenario. A different business may need a distinctive symbol, a multilingual identity or a different balance of expression and restraint.
Make references useful
For each reference, say what you are responding to: the spacing, the tone, how a long name is arranged or the contrast between type and background. Do not ask for another business's identity to be copied. A reference gives a shared vocabulary; it is not a substitute for a new design.
Show a counterexample only when you can explain the practical concern. “This fine descriptor is difficult to read on our care card” can be acted on. “We just don't like it” may still be honest feedback, but it gives the designer less to work with.
Agree the handover before work starts
Clarify which editable source files, exports and font information are included, who may modify them and which uses have been agreed. Possessing a file does not answer every permission question. Keep the agreed terms with the delivery rather than trying to reconstruct them from a folder name later.
For web use, the W3C image guidance explains that an image's text alternative depends on its function. A logo linking to the homepage needs an accessible name that makes that destination understandable. Include this use in the web handover.
Review the proposal against the brief
Ask for the proposal in the named contexts. Check the actual business name, the smallest intended use, the monochrome version and the different backgrounds. Record an observation and a decision: “The descriptor is unreadable at this size; remove it from the compact version” is better than a vague request to make the whole design stronger.
Finish by checking the logo-file guide and the completed brand handover. They show what a usable delivery looks like after the visual direction is agreed.
The source notes
Sources and further reading
- W3C: choosing text alternatives for images Checked 4 November 2026