Wedding Blog

yes, totally agree that i would wear it more if the logo were on the back.

Your thinking is completely on the right track - that’s exactly why I voted for the upper-back option, and why I think not putting “.com” is a good idea (even aside from the branding reason). Having just the cute pic on the front and “Weddingbee” printed inconspicuously on the back makes it much more likely that people will buy/wear these tees at all. I don’t think too many women would want to pay for a shirt that’s just blatant advertising, and a huge splashy logo (especially with “.com”) almost guarantees that it will be relegated to sleep-shirt status, in which case a giant logo is useless anyway. Make a really cute tee, however, and it will be worn often and it’s likely that strangers will make comments like, “Oh, what a cute bee!” which is the perfect chance for the wearer to mention Weddingbee, especially since someone who buys the shirt (or goes to a WB event and gets it for free) is almost certainly a huge fan of WB and will be eager to spread the word.

It just baffles me how so many companies will print t-shirts plastered with huge logos and URLs - no doubt with visions of free walking billboards dancing in their heads. Don’t they realize that the vast majority of people don’t consider the “free t-shirt” look to be all that stylin’, and that tee is just going to become, yes, a sleep shirt…or a car-washing shirt…or a car-washing RAG.

Whew. I didn’t mean to post such a long-winded comment. Anyway, the one thing I would change about the proposed Weddingbee shirt is the actual shirt color. A lot of people have issues with white shirts (too sheer, too easily stained, too cheap-looking, makes the skin look too pasty, etc.) and I think your bee design would be adorable on a sky blue or chocolate brown shirt. If you’ve already explored the option of a colored shirt, that’s awesome…if not, maybe it’s a possibility for a future printing?

oooh, I want a shirt!