The company has made no secret of its ambition to make sure every person on the planet is connected to its service. What might seem like hubris, however, is actually necessity: with Wall Street now breathing down its neck, overseas growth is important — investors want to see that however big it has become, Facebook still has headroom left. (Check out our chart of five countries outside the U.S. that could provide Facebook with a lot more users.)

So how will it manage?

First, use its headstart

To understand Facebook’s approach to international growth, it’s worth looking back at the way the company became so global quickly.

From very early on, Facebook had a strong foreign user base. In fact, unlike most companies, it was not really the company’s home success that drove its foreign expansion — it was foreign expansion that fueled its meteoric rise and underpinned its blockbuster flotation.

As early as 2007, the vast international potential was becoming very clear, when London became the single most popular city on Facebook. But then came perhaps its smartest move of all: instead of spending months deciding which markets to target, building local sales teams and internationalizing its product accordingly, Facebook designed a tool that let users translate the service into their own language — effectively crowdsourcing what is usually a slow, labor-intensive job.

And it proved a stunning success: in less than 24 hours, for example, 90 percent of the site had been translated into French. Former Facebooker Andy Johns has called it “the greatest lever” the company had for growth:

It made Facebook a platform capable of supporting everyone on the planet… Growth was not about hiring 10 people per country and putting them in the 20 most important countries and expecting it to grow. Growth was about [engineering] systems of scale and enabling our users to grow the product for us.

It was an inspired, engineering-led approach that allowed Facebook to rapidly scale out into dozens of new territories without ever targeting or investing in them specifically. Take Turkey, a fast-growing internet market with its own language. Without any member of the team ever targeting the country as a business prospect, Facebook became the country’s number 1 social site — and now boasts 92 percent market penetration.

This has all given the company huge reach at relatively little cost, and brought in a ton of revenue too: this year is likely to be the first in which Facebook will make more money outside the United States than in them (U.S. revenue fell from 62 percent in 2010 to 56 percent in 2011).

It’s easy to underestimate the importance of that number. But for some context, compare that with Google, where international revenue only outstripped U.S. revenue for the first time in 2008 — four years after it went public.

Continued international progress is massively important, not least because it’s where new users are coming from.

Pingdom, which found Facebook’s six-month U.S. user growth at just 0.86 percent compared with Brazil’s 54 percent, says: “It seems evident that Facebook needs an expansion plan that involves all corners of the world, but that focuses on certain regions, like Africa and Asia.”

Facebook acknowledges the problem, and the opportunity. Alongside mobile and advertising, it has sold investors on hoped-for international growth. “There are more than two billion global internet users, according to an IDC report dated August 2011,” its S-1 read. “And we aim to connect all of them.”

Now it just has to deliver on that promise.

So where next?

The omens for continued expansion may be good. Thanks to its translation success, Facebook has already unseated eight dominant local-language competitors in the last two years, according to comScore – most recently, Orkut in Brazil and Poland’s Nasa Klasa.pl.

Recent data from Pingdom shows strong gains in other countries, leaving just a handful of nations where Facebook is not the top dog: China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam and Russia.

“Now there are only five markets where Facebook is not the #1 social networking site,” a comScore spokesperson told us. “What’s interesting here is that Vietnam, Japan and South Korea are amongst the top four fastest growing markets, with year-over-year growth rates of 80 to 270 percent.”

But these remaining countries are also the toughest nuts to crack. And the biggest prize of all, China, may need a sledge hammer — after all Facebook is blocked by the country’s Great Firewall.

If it can piggyback China’s explosive broadband and mobile internet adoption, Facebook’s own growth may surge even further. But this will be anything but a walk in the park.

Investors have been warned. Facebook’s s-1 filing cautioned:

“We do not know if we will be able to find an approach to managing content and information that will be acceptable to us and to the Chinese government.

“In the event that access to Facebook is restricted, in whole or in part, in one or more countries or our competitors are able to successfully penetrate geographic markets that we cannot access, our ability to retain or increase our user base and user engagement may be adversely affected, we may not be able to maintain or grow our revenue as anticipated, and our financial results could be adversely affected.”

China’s state authorities grant spartan online operating licenses to overseas players, especially powerhouses, leaving the market to indigenous networks, which themselves are allowed to operate only under a strict regime of monitoring and censorship by the government.

That is a controversial and technically difficult task for any social network. But, if it’s good enough for China’s own, it may be a move that Facebook, too, has to consider if it wants to break in.

But it’s not just China that could prove tricky. Google can attest to the difficulties of launching in unfriendly countries. Its $140 million acquisition of the Rambler portal’s Begun contextual ad agency was blocked in 2008 because of what Russian competition authorities said was insufficient paperwork.

And, while trying to make inroads to its five target nations, Facebook must also be on its guard to make sure it protects its leading position in other markets, many of which are small enough that launches or improvements from indigenous competitors could have profound impact.

The revenue question

Even if the company can push growth numbers by securing a dominant position in every single one of the world’s countries, there is another big question: how to keep revenue going up internationally too.

This is a very important problem it faces: during its IPO roadshow, executives explained that while an American user with high disposable income was worth $9.51 in Facebook ad revenue last year, Europe was worth considerably less at $4.86. Asia, meanwhile, came in at $1.79 and the rest of the world made Facebook just $1.42 per user.

So while international growth may be large, the granular detail on income is less impressive. These are not figures that will please Facebook’s investors if they do not rise — and, as Thomas Crampton of Social@Ogilvy & Mather’s Asia-Pacific unit has pointed out, users in lower-income countries like India are going to be hard to monetize more effectively.

Getting average revenues up could mean international users seeing more ads; working more partnerships outside the U.S.; using its scale to push revenue strategies that go way beyond advertising (such as a Facebook credit card). It could even require the company ditching a reliance on engineering solutions in favor of pushing harder at the drearier but tried-and-trusted approach of building large local sales teams.

Whatever the case, you can be sure Facebook will be trying everything it can to increase its international audience — and make it as valuable as possible.

After growth slowed just in time for its IPO, Facebook must look overseas for a jump-start.

Target countries are easy to see. ”Now there are only five markets where Facebook is not the #1 social networking site,” a comScore spokesperson tells paidContent.

But cultural differences, government restrictions and incumbent local rivals will all make Facebook’s growth challenging. (Check out our broader take on Facebook’s international ambitions here.)

Here is our map for Mark Zuckerberg’s overseas adventure. Cool countries are those with already-high Facebook penetration, hotspots are thosse Facebook must crack to become a true global powerhouse…

1. China
”near 0% penetration”. Growth prospects: Poor — Zuckerberg can’t comply with online state censorship
#1	Tencent Qzone	Built on Tencent’s QQ IM network, Qzone lets users buy a 10-yuan-a-month “Canary Diamond” to decorate their zones with.
#2	Sina Weibo	Hit 300 million microblog users by delighting citizens with open info sharing. Now ready to introduce ads.
#3	RenRen	Billed itself as China’s “leading real-name” social net; now new regulations require all network customers use their real names.
The People’s Republic is the big prize. If it could piggyback China’s explosive broadband and mobile internet adoption, Facebook’s own growth would rocket. But that will be anything but easy. Currently blocked by China, the site claims ”near 0% penetration” there. It warned IPO filing readers: “We do not know if we will be able to find an approach to managing content and information that will be acceptable to us and to the Chinese government. In the event that access to Facebook is restricted, in whole or in part, in one or more countries or our competitors are able to successfully penetrate geographic markets that we cannot access, our ability to retain or increase our user base and user engagement may be adversely affected, we may not be able to maintain or grow our revenue as anticipated, and our financial results could be adversely affected.”That’s the reality of it. One problem for Facebook is China’s state authorities, which grant spartan online operating licenses to overseas players, especially powerhouses like Facebook. Another is the increasingly powerful indigenous players to which the market has been left. Social network growth has exploded, but most of the operators are native incumbent portals, with eye-popping user counts. Succeeding social networks, the rise of weibos (Twitter-esque microblog services) has gained mindshare for allowing quick dissemination of information in the country notorious for restricting information flow.But the Chinese market is also in flux. Local services complied with new regulations compelling them to remove apparently false and controversial information, and to force users to use their real names.Will Facebook controversially kowtow to measures Silicon Valley and Wall Street might find reprehensible? If so, it could be the easiest move it would make in China – the country has been the rocks on which many a western company has floundered. But consenting to Chinese restrictions on online free speech would be utterly at odds with Zuckerberg’s open ethos – so let’s continue to consider China off-limits.
2. Russia
21.2% of online population (comScore, March 2012). Growth prospects: Very good — Already gained good toe-hold.
#1	VK.com	Russia’s fourth-most-used website has around 120 million accounts, is popular (and controversial) for its integrated file-sharing – and bears striking resemblance to Facebook.
#2	Odnoklassniki	Russia’s Classmates site puts a Facebook shareholder in an awkward position – DST owns it.
#3	Facebook	Has grown fast since launching in Russia in early 2010.
Russians are the world’s most prolific social network users, according to comScore. Facebook has already grown fast there. The country puts the site in a strange position, since two competitors (Odnoklassniki and Mail.ru’s MyWorld) are backed by Facebook investor DST. Now that DST has exited through Facebook’s IPO, however, the stage is set for a clean fight. “The figures suggest that local social networks will not be able to hold onto their dominance much longer,” eMarketer said in February. “The real question may not be whether Facebook will overtake local social networks there, but when.” Market leader vKontakte’s popularity may decline if it complies with a court ruling that it breaches copyright by removing its file-sharing feature.
3. South Korea
27.2% of online population (comScore, March 2012). Growth prospects: Very good – Already hurting competition.
#1	Cyworld	Tried and failed to enter the U.S. and Europe but this isometric 3D chat world succeeds at selling virtual goods to users.
#2	Me2day	This local Korean microblog service, operated by the Naver portal, is popular with celebrities.
#3	Facebook	Its monthly users doubled to 12 million in 2011, Korea Herald reported.
In the country that has been enjoying high-speed fixed and mobile services for years, Cyworld has locked up mindshare since 1999. But Facebook is poised for big gains – last year, it robbed Cyworld of members, prompting the incumbent to invoke a corporate revamp to fight back, Korea Herald reported.
4. Japan
23.4% of online population (comScore, March 2012). Growth prospects: Moderate – Zuck must beat the Tweet.
#1	Twitter	Guess who? Japan’s top social network is Facebook’s Silicon Valley sparring partner, whose first non-English endeavour has paid dividends.
#2	Mixi	The site has gained a strong local mindshare by founding early, in 2000.
#3	Facebook	Japanese user base grew by 78 percent through 2011.
After Twitter overtook local network Mixi, Japan is a “Twitter nation”. There, successive global records have been broken for tweets-per-minute, despite Twitter being predominantly an English-language medium. So Facebook will have to fight its domestic competitor on foreign turf.
5. Vietnam
37.8% of online population (comScore, March 2012). Growth prospects: Uncertain – To block or not to block?
#1	ZingMe	A focus on games has given the native site the lead.
#2	Go.vn	This Facebook rival is some competitor – operated by state-owned Vietnam Media Corp.
#3	Facebook	Has apparently suffered from censorship after earlier growth.
Facebook has been blocked in Vietnam since 2009, but many citizens circumvent it with a few clicks, The Economist reports. The communist government’s on-off embrace of social networks comes against a backdrop requiring their compliance with censorship laws. Confusion reigns.

The country’s most popular social network, vKontakte, has lost its court appeal against an earlier ruling that its feature integrating with file-sharing software breaches copyright.

The case was brought by subsidiaries of EMI, which complained that vKontakte users were sharing their music without authorisation.

St Peterburg’s commercial court ruled in the labels’ favour in January; vKontake appealed and lost on Thursday, according to global music labels’ umbrella group the IFPI.

Integrated file-sharing is one of the key draws for vKontakte users. If vKontakte drops the feature from its site in light of the judgement, as record labels are demanding, it could level the playing field between vKontakte and competitors.

DST-backed Classmates site Odnoklassniki and Facebook currently trail vKontakte, which nevertheless is often called “the Facebook of Russia”, not least for its stunning visual similarity to Zuckerberg’s site.

But when the company announced on Wednesday that it was ditching its hardware business to focus on licensing its technology, it marked the end of a troubled decade in which it tried, and tried — and ultimately failed — to reach its ambitious goals.

Of course, the news was presented with an attempt at positive spin: chief executive Indro Mukerjee referred to the move as a revamp, suggesting that there were actually much bigger opportunities in selling the technology on to other businesses.

But he’s not fooling anybody: this strategic about-face might make sense for the business as it stands today, but it has finally killed off the company’s long-burning desire to revolutionize the consumer market. In fact, it’s such a strategic turnaround that, as of today, Plastic Logic has even stripped its once-expansive website down to a single page.

So what went wrong?

The inside story has yet to be told, but there are plenty of clear moments where the company’s dream fell apart — and lessons for anyone else wanting to take on a similar size challenge.

Timing is everything

Probably Plastic Logic’s biggest — and most obvious — mistake was in its inability to execute fast enough. The technology was there, sure, but the company struggled to turn it into any sort of viable product in time. It opened its first factory fabrication plant in 2003, but still had no product by the time Amazon’s Kindle first emerged at the end of 2007.

Still, perhaps executives at the Cambridge firm thought that a rising tide lifts all ships, and that they’d be able to capitalize on any success that Amazon had with the e-reader market. And by the time they announced the Que reader at the start of January 2010, it looked they might be able to deliver a superior product: it had a touchscreen, for starters.

But the Que’s moment in the sun was short lived. Just three weeks later, at an event in San Francisco, Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad — and with it effectively blew Plastic Logic out of the water.

All that time that the company had spent building a product, and yet it had ignored what turned out to be its biggest threat: a screen that was not necessarily a better e-reader, but that sidestepped the entire proposition by being a vastly more powerful device.

It’s hard to fight momentum

Apple, of course, has been an unstoppable rise for the past decade. Amazon too. But it wasn’t just that they were big, powerful companies. They already had functioning ecosystems that their new devices could plug into — something that the Que had put to one side in its attempt to produce hardware.

That meant that while the Kindle and iPad offered a wealth of content at a click, Plastic Logic was left pitching its reader at business people: “Read your own documents with it,” went the pitch. “Save yourself from carrying around all those hefty bits of paperwork!”. But while a busy executive might not baulk at the cost of $800, surely they too realized that there was more value in a device that could also tap into a rich library of content.

And with potential content partners — like (say) News Corp or Hearst or Barnes & Noble — busy building their own rivals to Kindle, the future looked bleak for Que. In the end the device never even made it into stores, killed just eight months after it was unveiled, without shipping a single unit.

Pivot too many times and you’ll fall over

Pivots get talked about a lot these days, but although they can sometimes work — when Fab.com turned itself from a social network for gay men into a high-end design shop, for example — they have to be built on solid foundations.

When Plastic Logic was faced with disaster, the company tried to turn itself around again by ditching the consumer and business markets and focusing on another area where it thought it could get traction: education.

So it took a huge $700 million investment from Russian fund RUSNANO and started moving the heart of its operations eastwards in an attempt to find buyers. It worked hard to build a much cheaper version of the Que (the Plastic Logic 100) that it could sell into Russian schools.

Except Russian schools, it seemed, weren’t that interested either: in reality the company was still trying to sell the same product, just to a different audience — so it still had all the same problems as in the past, and was another couple of years down the line.

Now, unable to execute on that strategy and forced to pivot again, Plastic Logic may have run out of lives. At the very least, it’s going to have to face more turmoil before it can hope to come out the other side, with jobs lost in the U.S., U.K, Germany and Russia.

These are all lessons that the company has learned the hardest way. But it’s worth remembering, whoever you are: no matter how great your technology — and make no bones about it, Plastic Logic does have a remarkable breakthrough technology there — it has to be available at the right time and at the right price.

You’ve got to compete with your rivals in totality — across markets, across users, and not just on technical specs — and all the money in the world can’t save you if you can’t execute.

Clarification: A Plastic Logic spokeswoman got in touch to say that the was not a commercial factory, but a mini-fabrication plant (here’s an archived version of the opening announcement). It was another five years before the company’s first commercial manufacturing began in Dresden, Germany.

Self-published authors can already sell their e-books on Amazon’s international sites when they use KDP (Kindle Direct Publishing). Now, when authors upload those books to Amazon’s free print publishing tool, CreateSpace, Amazon will distribute the books to Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.de, Amazon.fr, Amazon.es and Amazon.it.

When consumers in those countries (or in the U.S.) order a CreateSpace book, Amazon prints it on demand. The books are available for same-day shipping and eligible for free shipping and Amazon Prime. (Amazon Prime, which offers unlimited free two-day shipping for a yearly fee, is available in the U.S. and UK and in Germany, France, Italy and Spain as “Amazon Premium.”)

Using CreateSpace is free, but an author’s royalty payment depends on factors like page count and color.

The books still won’t be in European bricks-and-mortar stores

Authors who distribute their books internationally through CreateSpace are only distributing them through Amazon sites. The books won’t appear on the shelves of European bricks-and-mortar bookstores. (Amazon does provide some expanded distribution options in the United States.)

And, of course, the program only applies to Europe for now. The books aren’t available through Amazon’s Chinese or Japanese sites, and they aren’t available in other markets where Amazon doesn’t operate, like Brazil.

Still, European access through Amazon might be enough to persuade some self-published authors to hold off on hiring that agent to handle foreign rights for now. Some authors, like bestselling romance author Barbara Freethy, are already self-publishing foreign-language editions of their titles. Today’s news gives them a little more room to expand on their own.

As with Pottermore’s other retail agreements, the e-books aren’t sold directly through Kobo. Instead, Kobo’s website (which, for some reason, is currently illustrated with a picture of the Harry Potter books on the iPad) points users to the Pottermore store. Customers buy the e-books there and then link their Pottermore account to their Kobo account.

Pottermore has similar arrangements with Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble Nook, Sony Reader and Google. Pottermore hasn’t reached an agreement with Apple yet.

“Kobo is an increasingly powerful player in the e-reading market and we are delighted to have them on board,” Pottermore CEO Charlie Redmayne said in a statement.

(Speaking of Kobo becoming increasingly powerful: Kobo’s parent company, Japanese e-commerce site Rakuten, also announced a $100 million investment in popular image-sharing site Pinterest to help power retail with social).

The news comes a week after Amazon announced that it will make all of the Harry Potter e-books available free to Kindle-owning Amazon Prime members in the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library.

Russian multi-media portal store Muz.ru says it has built, for the Ministry of Communication, a prototype system to alert copyright owners to illegal distribution of their audio, video, e-books and images.

“The tool is able to recognize content that users uploaded to the internet, determine who the author and owner are and under what conditions they are allowed to distribute their content,” according to Muz.ru.

Details are sketchy, but the so-called National Platform for Digital Content would let copyright holders register their ownership of material, set prices for its use and monitor its popularity. Muz.ru’s announcement stops short of saying those found to have improperly posted such artefacts will be asked to cough up.

CNews reports the government contract was worth 35.4 million rubles ($1.1 million). But it is apparently not the only system vying for the state’s business. Telco and pay-TV operator Rostelecom was asked by the government last fall to build just such a registry prototype, but that has gone quiet.

Leading social network vKontakte, which resembles Facebook, includes built-in file-sharing. In a case brought by one label group, Gala, St Peterburg’s commercial court in January ruled vKontakte in breach of copyright.

That buoyed labels. But vKontake’s appeal was set to begin today, May 17.

A similar-sounding system to Russia’s registry is being established in the UK, where the government last year assented to Professor Ian Hargreaves’ suggestion, in his Review Of Intellectual Property And Growth, that a Digital Rights Exchange be created that lists copyrighted works.

Hargreaves’ proposal was for an online registry of copyrighted works to make licensing of digital content more easy and quick for would-be online re-users. The government believes this could boost the digital economy.

According to a report by music labels’ umbrella group in March:

“(Russia) is currently being held back by a culture of copyright infringement that is epitomised by the music service run by the leading social networking site vKontakte.

“If Russia’s burgeoning legitimate business can effectively protect itself against such infringement, the country could become a top 10 music market.”

Russia was in 2011 one of only nine countries in the world to see a dip in digital music sales as well as physical.

According to a report this week from Open Rights Group and the London School of Economics, many local mobile operators are using aggressive — but haphazard — child protection filters by default, leaving adult customers unable to see perfectly ordinary websites instead of preventing kids from accessing adult material.

As the report says (PDF):

“There are serious consequences to badly implemented, default child protection blocking systems. They include restrictions on markets, censorship, a failure to address young people’s diverse needs and a false sense of security for parents.”

The document outlines more than 60 reported cases where websites have been erroneously flagged as containing adult content — and these are just the small number of cases reported to the Open Rights Group’s blocked.org.uk complaint service.

This really isn’t just an oddity. I regularly run into blocks when browsing news or data online on my phone, which is on a business tariff with Vodafone — surely a product most kids wouldn’t be using.

And in fact, just yesterday we received a message saying that the adult filter for France Telecom-owned Orange was blocking GigaOM.

Now, I know we’re a site for grown-ups, but that’s just silly.

If your operator is deciding on your behalf that what we write is off limits — including now, of course, the fact that we’re telling you that these blocks are faulty — then there’s really no reason to suspect it couldn’t happen to anybody, at any time.

Spreading censorship

And it’s not just in Britain, either. This sort of approach is happening all over Europe, in a variety of ways.

In a piece for Foreign Policy, the author and activist Rebecca Mackinnon outlines some of the incursions being made — and points out that, crucially, none of this is happening because of regulatory pressure.

“This type of problem is serious enough, in enough countries, to have made its way to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Last year, the U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression, Frank La Rue, delivered an official report to the council that not only condemned the censorship and surveillance practices of authoritarian countries, but also warned of dangerous trends in the democratic world that threaten citizen rights to free expression in the Internet age.

“One of his major concerns is ‘over-broad private censorship, often without transparency and the due process of the law’. He singled out two examples of how governments are, ironically, using law to delegate enforcement responsibilities and functions to the private sector: Britain’s Digital Economy Act, which could potentially disconnect Internet users suspected of illegal downloading, and France’s similar ‘three strikes’ law.

The result of all this?

In the name of protecting us, mobile operators are now becoming the de facto censors of the web, whether we’ve asked them to or not.

Photograph copyright Shutterstock/Pixel 4 images

Over five million sites, including 230,000 e-tail stores, have been created using Moonfruit since its 2000 launch, according to the buyer.

Yell is a tortured soul. Its classical print directory business, of course, goes on losing advertisers to the internet. But even Yell’s online directories like Yell.com and Yellowbook lost 15.7 percent of their ad sales during Q4, compared with the prior year, Yell reported in February.

A turnaround plan Yell unveiled last summer charges it with building out “the first local emarketplace platform for consumers and small and medium enterprises to connect and transact locally”, including loyalty programmes, payment services and business operations.

It aims to flip its revenue make-up to be digital-led by 2015, with digital product development all funded from cash. And it sets out to simplify Yell.com on a self-service ad sales model, and to cut £100 million in costs over 2012 and 2013.

To do it, UK-based Yell has gone global and looked outside for leaadership. MSN executive producer Scott Moore became Yell Group’s chief digital officer in October, with the group opening new offices in Seattle, a month after Yell announced a new partnership with Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) Advertising. In January, it hired as chief strategy officer the consultant who helped it pen that strategy at Booz & Co.

Yell now hopes customers will pay to make marketing and ecommerce web stores, if not for old-fashioned rudimentary business listings, which search sites have gobbled up.

It already built 337,000 customer websites last year. But it says buying Moonfruit’s self-service platform will give it “future cost efficiencies and enhanced capability in areas such as website construction, proofing and editing”.

Moonfruit had taken $2.25 million from investment bank Stephens to go international in 2010. Now Yell will help it further realise that ambition.

Release.

• Fotolia is taking a $150 million investment from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
• That announcement Wednesday appears prompted by rival Shutterstock having lodged an IPO filing to raise $115 million on Monday.

Fotolia previously took between $50 and $100 million from TA Associates, TechCrunch reported in 2009. The FT reports KKR’s investment buys it half of the firm.

“This is a market that will consolidate,” KKR’s European media investment head Philipp Freise tells the paper, adding KKR may use Fotalia as a vehicle for further acquisition.

Shutterstock, in its IPO filing, cites BCC Research as projecting the stock photography market to be worth $5.1 billion by 2013.

It made a $21.8 million profit on $120.2 million revenue from more than 550,000 active customers – that user count is 71 percent up from 2010, and Shutterstock served 58 million paid downloads.

Founded by French-born Russian Tscheltzoff, Fotolia, with a largely European executive team, is especially strong in Europe, where it last year acquired France-based Wilogo, a microstock upload sales site for logo designers.

Disclosure: paidContent uses images from Shutterstock, including the one on this page, taken by Douglas Freer.