There were 165 options in total:
They were jointly assessed by several specialists, including an Internet marketer. It was important to analyze which of the presented options would best differentiate itself from competitors and provide an opportunity to express the brand's individuality.
The ideas were selected in 3 stages. The discussions were particularly heated in the third round, when only the most successful versions remained.
When evaluating logo versions, we avoided so-called “matters of taste” – instead, we used clear criteria based on logic and practical experience:
Simplicity - is the logo simple enough to perceive and remember;
versatility - will it be convenient to use it on different surfaces and at different scales;
uniqueness - is it different enough from competitors' logos, is it based on the same metaphors?
Following this logic, we abandoned versions of logos with images of teeth:
Teeth were too common in competitors' logos. No wonder, since such an association is quite obvious in the dental field.
We also rejected versions of logos that featured the smiley face directly:
On the one hand, it was also too hackneyed and obvious. On the other hand, it would have oversimplified the logo of a company that produces high-tech dental equipment.
So, rejecting option after option, we approached the selection of the long-awaited winning logo.