MOG - Round 2 Feedback

This confirms who is responding so each set of answers is clearly attributed.

Section 1 Client Provided Images

Below are the four versions you shared. Take a look at them together before answering. We want to understand what is driving your reaction, so Round 2 is built on that, not on a guess.

Which of these four feels closest to the direction?* Select one, then tell us below why it works for you and over the others.

Version A

Version B

Version C

$Version D$

Version D

What do you love most about these images overall?* What specific elements are non-negotiable carries into Round 2?

What about your chosen set do you NOT want to carry forward into Round 2? Sometimes a reference has elements that came along for the ride. If anything could change without losing what you want to keep, call it out here.

The wordmark in these images uses a standard off-the-shelf geometric font. Is that the target?*

In our Brand Workbook, we agreed on "a refined, iconic mark with a strong wordmark and/or a simple, ownable symbol." Off-the-shelf fonts are not ownable, and can be used by any other brand. A custom wordmark is built specifically for MOG and cannot be duplicated. Both are valid choices, but they lead to very different outcomes for the brand long-term.

The font style in those images is the target. Build something close to that. We want a custom wordmark that feels like that style but is unique to MOG. Show us both in Round 2 and we will decide from there.

The chevron or V-shape graphic. How firm is that element?*

In our Brand Workbook, we agreed to avoid a "clinical" feel. The chevron and medical cross shape is the primary visual language of pharmaceutical and medical brands. That association is immediate and hard to undo at retail, especially on a white or light background. We can absolutely work with bold flanking elements on both sides of the wordmark. The question is whether the specific shape matters, or whether the idea of flanking elements is what you want to keep.

The chevron shape stays exactly as shown. Bold elements flanking both sides of the wordmark, yes. The specific shape can change. Something else; describe below.

The images show "MOG+" as the brand name. Is that confirmed?*

MOG and MOG+ are two different names from a trademark standpoint. This affects the wordmark, legal filings, and label compliance. Before moving forward, are we locked into MOG+?

It stays MOG, as originally agreed. We want MOG+. Not decided yet.

The flavor color system uses bright, high-saturation colors for each SKU. Is that the direction?*

In the Brand Workbook, we landed on modern, quiet, and elegant, with a gender-neutral design leaning female. Bright neon color-coded systems are very common in the mass beverage category. They read as bold and energetic, which is a valid choice. But that aesthetic moves away from the quiet, elegant positioning we landed on, and tends to skew male in consumer perception research. Your call to make.

Yes. Bright and bold. Each SKU has its own strong color. Flavor-coded, but richer and deeper. More premium, less neon. Restrained. Brand palette leads. Flavor designation lives in subtle text and supporting elements.

In the current images, the flavor name and the brand name compete for attention on the front panel. Which should lead?*

MOG leads. The flavor is clearly subordinate. The flavor is equally prominent. Both share the front panel. The flavor color does the shelf work and should be most prominent.

Section 2 Can substrate

Which physical can do you want to pursue? You can select more than one if you want to see options in Round 2.

Which substrate do you want to pursue?*

Open deck → The substrate is the physical surface of the can. Silver metallic is raw aluminum with no background color printed on it. White, black, and color options are printed on top of the aluminum, covering it completely. The color you see is the ink or finish applied over the metal.

Silver metallic raw aluminum, no background color printed. Shown in most of the images you sent. White or cream printed white or off-white background over the aluminum. Direction 01 white version. Matte black full black printed background. Directions 05, 06, 07, 11, 12, 18. Deep Tea Green deep, rich green printed background. Directions 04, 08, 09, 10, 21. Bright Green Base a vivid, saturated green printed background. Direction 19.

Section 3 The presentation deck Open deck →

We need to know what is pointing in the right direction, even if it is just one element in one direction, and what is pointing in the wrong direction. Go through each area below.

Logos. Were there any that felt close?*

A number of the directions in the discovery deck use a heavy black sans-serif approach influenced by the AI images referenced. In our Brand Workbook, we agreed on something simple but ownable, with a strong wordmark and a distinctive symbol. We want to be simple but stay away from generic. Which directions, if any, felt like they were pointing in that direction, and which styles you want to leave behind entirely. A "why" for each is more useful than a direction number alone.

Open deck →

Wordmark orientation. How should it sit on the can?*

Worth flagging on the vertical options. MOG is a three-letter word, and that creates a specific problem when rotated. The "M" rotated 90 degrees is immediately readable as a "W," which works against legibility. The "O" reads the same regardless of rotation, which actually removes any visual cue about which direction the word is meant to be read. With a short word like MOG, orientation is a branding decision with real consequences, not just a style choice.

Horizontal across the can note that horizontal means the name will need to be sized or condensed carefully to read on the visible front of a slim can Vertical, letterforms upright and stacked Directions 11, 17 Vertical, the whole word rotated 90 degrees Directions 12, 18

The O letterform. Were there any treatments worth exploring further, or directions worth considering?

In our Brand Workbook, it was mentioned wanting something fun and hidden in the logo, like the Amazon A-to-Z smile. That kind of detail is what separates an ownable mark from a generic one. Tell us if anything in the deck came close to that idea (see the rationale notes in each direction), what other directions might be worth considering, and what that kind of hidden element could look like related to MOG.

Open deck →

Color. For the green tea SKU, are you looking for a bright accent or a richer base?* This decision shapes the flavor system across all four SKUs, so it is worth getting specific here.

Bright, punchy green as an accent color Directions 05, 07, 11, 19 Rich, deep green as the dominant field or base Directions 04, 08, 09, 21 Something more muted and botanical. Not neon, not dark. Directions 01, 15

How should color and flavor appear on the can?*

Full can in the flavor color Directions 04, 19 Neutral can, color lives only in the graphic elements or wordmark Directions 01, 02, 13, 14 A color band at the top or bottom of the can Directions 17, 20 Gradient from neutral into the flavor color Direction 15

Ingredients and benefits on the front panel. And do you want them there at all?*

This is a real choice, not a given. Front panel ingredients speak to the label-reader, the consumer who wants proof before they buy. That is a strong signal for a doctor-formulated product. But it also adds visual complexity and pulls against the modern, quiet, elegant positioning we agreed on in our Brand Workbook. Neither choice is wrong. They just serve different consumer behaviors.

Yes. Show the ingredient stack and benefits prominently on the front panel. Keep the front clean. Move ingredient detail to the back panel. Icons only on the front. No ingredient text. Let the back panel carry the detail.

Open deck →

Last question

What is the single most important thing you want to see in Round 2?* One thing. As specific as you can be.

Anything else we should know before starting?

Goes directly to Anthony at Ferreira Creative. Round 2 starts once all three of you have responded.

Got it. Thank you.

Your feedback is on its way to Anthony. Round 2 starts once all three of you have submitted.

Ferreira Creative | Anthony@FerreiraCreative.com

Round 2 starts here.

Who are you?

Section 1 Client Provided Images

Section 2 Can substrate

Section 3 The presentation deck Open deck →

Section 4 A follow-up, Katy

Section 4 A follow-up, Ron

Last question

Got it. Thank you.