I'm a big fan of Mat Kearney. I bought his City of Black and White album recently and loved it. So I decided (not unreasonably) that I'd pick up his back catalogue. That's where my troubles began.

The album I already own is the only one available on iTunes (UK version). 'Not a problem' I thought, 'I'll just change my store preference to the US for twenty minutes.' Not possible. It checks your billing address.

I then thought, 'I'll see if Amazon has it.' Same problem. Can't get it as an mp3 download in the UK. US Amazon store has it, but I can't purchase from there.

I had a look around and there are sites where you can purchase iTunes US gift cards (at a hefty markup) and there are details spread around the net on how to open a US account. I did that - but as a UK resident I can't purchase a gift card to be used on the US iTunes store (glad I found this out before buying one).

The whole thing is incredibly frustrating. The media is awash with tales of the record companies clamping down on those who make use of illegal downloads. I'm trying to make an honest purchase of an album (I refuse to pay £15 to purchase an imported CD when the album as an mp3 would cost £7) and I can't. If I was that way inclined, I would download it, but I like this artist (who isn't mainstream and I would imagine every purchase is important to him) and I'm way too paranoid to dip my toe into the torrent issue for fear of recrimination.

Looks like Mat Kearney will have to wait for my money.

I'm hoping to be able to post some images of layouts once I get approval from the client, so stay tuned...

Logo design is such a grey area (only in terms of the varying quality you see every day – it's actually one of the most specalised design disciplines). Despite people being affected (subconsciously or otherwise) by the brands they see in their everyday lives, whenever (not always, but the majority of the time) a company/person needs a logo designing for themselves, they don't seem able to mentally draw parallels between succesful brands, and the one they wish to create. As such, literal thought processes take hold, and the finished project often falls short of what it is their brand needs (notice the ommision of the phrase "what they want").

If you look at successful brands (especially the cream of the crop) the brand is very rarely a visual description of the service/product, yet it is still indelibly marked in your brain (Nike swoosh, Fed-Ex, Amazon etc). Why? This is open to interpretation, but for me, it's because the unique design of the logo, coupled (this is the important bit) with the quality of the product/service, creates the brand, not the fact that the ''Mista Kleen-EZ" logo has a mop on it. This is why the majority of designers (particularly the good ones) will always veer away from the obvious, because it's obvious. Your brand should be unique, and if it's clichéd, it just won't cut the mustard.

So, when I was asked to create this logo (I'm not going to go into detail, as I don't want to offend the client/incur the wrath of my wife) and they made it clear that it needed to literally portray what it was, I heaved a great (internal) sigh. My pride in my work extends to the pride I take in helping a business to establish themselves, and there are some things which (unintentionally) harm your brand, none more so than a logo which, because it describes the business too literally, can't help but make things look tacky – and that's the last thing (usually) that a client wants.

Anyway, I digress. The reason the stars have aligned for me (in a very small, particular way) was that I stumbled across an analysed approach to logo design (via the website of the very successful Jacob Cass) and I think it helps to explain, far more eloquently than I ever could, what makes a logo so successful. And through examples of omission, it provides friendly examples to designers who are trying to point out what it is that logos shouldn't contain. You can read the article here.

A good logo does not a great brand make, but a poor logo can cause serious damage to any desired presence in the marketplace.

My worry was this; the ease with which people can (and do) bombard said celebrities with messages, must very quickly become annoying. A mutual acquaintance of ours is doing just that - trying to befriend (and impress) a 'celebrity' Twitter user.

I just think it's rather a shame that what is quickly becoming a really useful tool could already be sowing the seeds of its own demise – through no fault of the technology or its developers I hasten to add – but rather, human nature taking its inevitable course and people overstepping the mark.

"When is it you're getting married?"

I can now say: "Next month!"

Rather chuffed with that, though like I said, I know it's sad...

But one thing I do find irritating is that things are becoming recycled more and more often, and bucking the trend; I don't think it's that much of a good thing. The advent of WordPress and other blogging platforms have made it incredibly easy for people to reference sites from around the globe, all with the intent of increasing the hits on their own site. This is all well and good, it's a digital version of what many of us had to do endlessly at school/college/university. Referencing is one thing, but simply pasting a link on your own site to get 'drive-thru' traffic is becoming increasingly (annoyingly) fashionable.

As a result, you can potentially visit a host of websites and find the same content (allbeit dressed in new clothes, though sometimes it's just a link back to the original site) over and over again. These tend to be along the lines '25 best template designs EVER!' '101 inspirational websites' and suchlike.

Don't get me wrong, I like to view these sorts of posts as much as the next designer, it's just that sometimes, it feels like a cheap trick to 'fatten up' their site, without really investing some time in the content of the site themselves. We all want to improve ourselves – it's why we visit the sites in the first place. It's just that dumping a link in a post makes the journey longer, not any more worthwhile.

From my own experience/way of working (biased I know) freelancers do tend to 'care' more about their clients; your working relationship is based on a 1:1 level, rather than the client tending to work with several members of a project team. As such, the route to a clear understanding of what the client wants can be a little smoother, and more importantly, you can develop a relationship that is more than just a number on the balance sheet.

Of course, it's not all plain sailing, and of course, design houses can offer (most of the time) facilities and other amenities that a freelancer can't get close to. But by and large, what most clients want is to know that they're valued, that their work is of a high quality, and that the integrity of their work is as important to the designer as it is to the client.

Today we've been to see the (very nice) lady who will be creating our wedding cake - with lots of free samples! From there, we went to see Pattigale, who is the official wedding florist!

So, tonight we're in Cork, having a wander round (may try and get to see a movie) before we fly home tomorrow. After that, it's just the count down to the big day itself.