Contributed by San Francisco-based Bob Dinetz.

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq is a biomaterials and sustainable fuels innovator. The firm integrates patented mechanical and biological processes to efficiently and cost-effectively break down plant materials into sugars that become sustainable fuels and industrial materials.

“Our name, Edeniq (pronounced “ee-den-ik”), is an intentional misspelling of Edenic an adjective meaning ‘of or pertaining to the Garden of Eden.’ The ‘IQ’ ending of Edeniq connotes intelligence. Together Eden + IQ expresses our profound desire to engage in the wise use of all that nature provides.”

From the Edeniq website.

The new brand identity needed to differentiate Edeniq as a trusted partner in a fresh, fast-growing industry while reflecting its core values.

In a project that took about 12 weeks to complete, the work included a new website, identity, pitch deck, stationery, and brand book.

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

The leaf and hexagon shape (from a sugar crystal) are combined to form a mixture of nature and science.

Edeniq brand identity

The typeface used is Akzidenz Grotesk. It seems to have the right balance of simplicity and expression to go with the logo and the message that the company is trying to convey. The “q” was modified to help with readability of the intentionally misspelled name. The company name was not part of the assignment and already existed, but was previously spelled with a capital “Q” at the end.

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

Edeniq brand identity

View more identity work on the Bob Dinetz Design website.

10 responses

  1. Speaking of misspelled words, I really hope that the word ‘stationery’ (as in letterheads and business cards) is spelt with an ‘a’ in the US rather than the UK spelling. If not, the not-so-deliberate spelling error in the Brand Book visuals is inexcusable.

  2. Overall I think this is really nicely thought through identity. The lower case ‘q’ took some getting used to but it does individualise the logo.

    My only concern is the kerning in the wordmark. The ‘E’, ‘d’, ‘e’, and ‘n’ are tightly kerned but the ‘i’ and ‘q’ are spaced very differently. The larger space between the ‘n’ and ‘i’ is particularly noticeable.

    Having said that, the brand book and website look particularly good.

  3. I have to agree with Martin Maher, the kerning between each letter is not consistent. And I feel the q somehow doesn’t fit well with others, maybe this is just my problem :) But the icon looks great!

  4. Thanks for changing the spelling of ‘stationery’. Sorry, small mistakes like that are my pet hate! Also agree with the others about the kerning. I think once that’s sorted out it would be a much stronger project.

  5. Funny isn’t it. The way design language gets spread about and how one approach can suit so many sectors. What I mean, is this logo could quite easily be on a skateboard, a hoodie, a range of organic juices or an agri-business. Stick it on some tree hugging, low carbon impact, mung bean eating trainers and I’m soled (sorry, piss poor pun).

    Back to the logo, the kerning is bad from E to n OR from n to q – either way this needs sorting. If it looks wrong it is wrong. Like Jodie Marsh’s nose, no end of boob surgery, fake tan or tattoos will stop you looking at that one tiny thing that continues to unnerve you. And then there’s the ‘q’. It doesn’t look right either (this is like a Jodie Marsh with 2 frickin noses!), maybe the tail is a little long, maybe it’s too chunky, could be just that a western eye has a hard time dealing with words ending in q’s. What ever the reason it rubs. Doesn’t ruin it by any stretch, but it does feel funny.

    Overall though it’s a nice looking identity, it’s got that pseudo-saul bass sensibility mixed up with a bit of slacker skate brand and it, no doubt, would have pleased the client but I keep thinking there’s a trick missed here, somewhere. I’m looking at this ID and I’m thinking “who are these chaps?” The problem is, the logo isn’t telling me, I’m getting hints, whispers, sideways looks. I got some leaf action, so they are something to do with plants but then there’s this whacking great big hexagon, like a nut. I think the message got lost in translation. I can see a droplet in the leaf motif (their end product is a liquid?) but it’s swamped by other things. It’s so nearly there.

  6. I quite agree with most of you here. But then again, in traditional typography the way I know, straight characters require more space than rounded characters. This is for fluent legibility.
    We know that ‘OO’ require the least space. So, in this case, I can easily pass the wordmark. for me it is perfect. I am failing to imagine reducing the space between the last three characters.

  7. It’s good enough and does it’s job, though I have to say that I would have chosen many of the other concepts above this icon personally – some of the other options are far better I feel.

    This choice feels a tiny bit too unoriginal when you compare it to the other options presented.

    I don’t have any particular issue with the lettering myself.

  8. Sorry to the couple of comments above but you don’t have a problem with the kerning? Also that q is very odd. The mark itself is quite nice but is let down by Eden i q.

  9. David, why would stationery be spelt with an ‘A’ unless you want it to stay in the stationery cupboard!?

  10. Leon, thanks for your comment. However if you read my comments properly, you’ll notice that I haven’t suggested that ‘stationery’ should be spelt with an ‘a’. When the project was originally posted on this website (last year), ‘stationery’ was spelt incorrectly in the Brand Book visual – they had spelt it with an ‘a’. I pointed out the error in my first comment and the visuals were subsequently changed to the correct spelling. I hope that clears things up for you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *