The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Back to feedPost
I used to turn down projects when a client wanted a full visual identity but could only afford a logo.
Then I started thinking about it differently.
What if I build the full identity anyway, but only deliver the parts the client has paid for?
The client gets what fits their current budget, while the bigger brand system can remain ready to grow when they're ready for it.
I wrote a short piece about this idea, the thinking behind it, and why I think it could create a more flexible way to approach smaller branding budgets.
Interesting model. One thing I'd wonder about is what happens when the client later needs a color or a typeface that was designed but not delivered yet: do you note those decisions in the logo package so the next phase starts from the same logic?
I got your point 👍 And I think it wouldn't be a wise decision to include that kind of notes within the proposal, just to avoid any misunderstanding from the client side.
You can imagine that the client reply could be "It's my visual identity, why you still own it?"
But we can...
That makes sense, a separate scoped proposal keeps it clean. Maybe the paid delivery can still include a one-page usage note for the logo itself, so the next phase has something to build on without exposing the unpaid parts.
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Related posts
Rejected logo concepts exploring collaboration, shared expertise & working side by side
Most creative brands try to say everything at once.
More colour.
More shapes.
More visual noise.
But for this identity exploration, the idea was simpler:
Make creativity feel meaningful.
Introducing we/make, a bold, human-centred visual identity built around collaboration, growth, and purposeful making.
The mark is designed as a flexible expression of “we” and “make” coming together.
It represents:
• Ideas turning into action
• People creating together
• Growth through meaningful work
• A creative process that stays clear, warm, and confident
The visual system pairs a deep navy foundation with a fresh green accent, bringing together trust, focus, energy, and optimism.
Rounded typography and soft graphic elements keep the brand approachable, while the structured layouts give it a modern, professional feel.
From stationery and meeting-room signage to campaigns, billboards, and event spaces, the identity is built to work wherever creativity needs to show up.
Creative thinking. Meaningful making.
Would love to hear your thoughts on the visual direction.
What stands out to you first, the logo, colour palette, or overall brand feel?
#BrandIdentity #BrandDesign #CreativeDirection #VisualIdentity #GraphicDesign #LogoDesign
Which hero visual feels right for this brand?
While working on the homepage for Halfspace, a website design and SEO agency, I explored two different hero visuals for the same headline and layout. Same message, same structure, just a different visual metaphor and mood.
Option 1 - Rocket Launch. Bold, literal, and energetic, visually reinforcing the "launch your business" message with motion and fire.
Option 2 - Glass Cube. Abstract, sleek, and premium, giving a more refined, tech-forward feel without relying on a literal metaphor.
Would love your honest UX/UI take, which direction feels more impactful, memorable, and aligned with a web design/SEO brand, and why?
11 voted
41%
16 voted
59%
27 votes
Closed
Both design are great; it's hard to choose one