Goda Kairiūkštytė builds a self-generating logo system for Another Bite — The Brand Identity – Home of the Greatest in Graphic & Brand Design

Another Bite began as food influencer Eglė Mascarenhas’ social media presence but evolved into something messier, more expansive. A Food Club offering city guides and culinary experiences. An agency handling events and consultancy. Plans for a retail store. Each venture carried Eglė’s reputation but needed room to develop its own identity. The challenge Lithuanian designer Goda Kairiūkštytė faced wasn’t creating a logo – it was designing a system that could generate logos without her.

The tension between heritage and independence shaped the solution from the start. Positioning initiatives as simple extensions of Another Bite would lean on established credibility but limit future autonomy. Creating separate brands for each would fragment recognition and undermine years of community building. Kairiūkštytė needed an approach that honoured both forces simultaneously. Her solution splits the logo into two distinct elements, each serving a different purpose. The logomark – a sphere containing the AB initials – embodies provenance. The logotype, which clearly names each initiative with Another Bite underneath, provides autonomy. Together they form the complete identity. Separately they can emphasise whichever quality a context demands.

The logomark’s structure is deceptively simple. AB sits at the top of the sphere, positioned with deliberate space below. That negative space isn’t decorative. It functions as a canvas for initiative initials, a visual metaphor Kairiūkštytė describes as representing “Another Bite’s outlook for opportunity.” The sphere itself carries symbolic weight – a round table, a closed community, space for growth. When Food Club launched, its FC initials slotted beneath AB within the same spherical frame, instantly communicating both origin and distinct identity.

Kairiūkštytė chose Obadiah Pro for the brand typeface, drawn to its straightforward legibility and one specific detail. “The ‘E’ has a diagonally cut bar ending, effectively reflecting the brand’s ‘Bite,’” she notes. In the logotype system, initiative names appear bold while “by Another Bite” sits lighter underneath – a typographic hierarchy that inverts the logomark’s visual logic. Where the symbol leads with heritage, the wordmark prioritises clarity and navigation.

The real complexity emerged in making the system function without constant designer intervention. Kairiūkštytė compares the process to typeface design, where every possible combination requires predetermined rules. The letter ‘F,’ for instance, sits slightly right of mathematical centre to appear optically centred – an adjustment that wouldn’t apply to the symmetrical ‘O.’ Spacing between elements changes based on how many initials an initiative has. These aren’t necessarily details your everyday client can eyeball while typing in a text box. “I knew that AB must fit on one line to retain its ‘oneness,’ and that initiatives wouldn’t be longer than two words, which needed to be split in two lines to retain AB’s visual dominance,” Kairiūkštytė explains. The technical challenge consumed considerable time. “The typography is what I had to think about first and foremost. The bigger challenge was the sphere’s stroke width. That took me way too long to figure out. And even now I question it.”

When Eglé decided to launch a line of plates, the system faced a practical test. Should plates receive their own logo? The answer required working backwards. Plates weren’t a one-off project – they’d sit alongside aprons, bags, other products. Creating logos for each would dilute the system’s value and confuse audiences. But using only the Another Bite logo risked making products feel like merchandise rather than considered design objects. The solution: Objects by Another Bite, an umbrella initiative encompassing all retail products.

Kairiūkštytė designed a web interface for the Logo Builder, though it remains undeveloped. The mockup shows a simple input field for initiative names, colour selection, and output of three files: logomark, logotype and complete logo. It represents the ideal endpoint – a system truly independent of its designer. The approach carries inherent risks. Kairiūkštytė acknowledges two primary concerns: forcing the method onto projects that don’t need such complexity, and failing to manage implementation, which creates inconsistency rather than clarity. Success requires evaluating whether a brand’s structure genuinely demands this level of flexibility. Another Bite’s multiple, ongoing initiatives justified the investment. A linear brand might find the system overly complex.

Kairiūkštytė describes the system as theoretical at this stage, though the principles are thoroughly planned. Two modes exist: one-word initiatives and two-word initiatives, which determine whether the logo has two or three text lines. Each mode requires different spacing from the sphere’s edge. Single-word solutions sit further from the top to maintain visual intention. The optical centre for each letter demands individual adjustment. Leading cannot be uniform across all lines – each responds to the line above while maintaining its own spacing rules.

For designers considering similar approaches, she suggests starting with logo variant collections – not size and colour variations, but genuine dissection, addition and removal of elements creating 20 to 50 symbols where five to 20 can be applied across multiple contexts. Not every project warrants this complexity. The method suits brands with layered structures requiring clarity rather than linear brands that might find the approach forced. “The more complex a brand is, the more it asks for clarity in branding,” Kairiūkštytė notes. “Linear brands use inconsistency and range as a strategic decision to maintain freshness, but branched-out ones like Another Bite already have the layers and expressions; the purpose is different – to connect it all.”

The project reflects a broader shift in how branding systems function. Where traditional identities establish fixed rules applied consistently, interactive systems build frameworks for interpretation. The designers’ role extends beyond creating assets to designing the logic that generates them. It requires thinking dimensionally about how elements relate, not just how they appear.

Kairiūkštytė remains characteristically modest about the work. “We, designers, often assume we are very clever. Because we like to think, we start to believe that we think of very elaborate things. However, we possess no advantage except a slight edge in arrogance.” Her essay documenting the project positions itself as metaphor rather than technical blueprint, an invitation to interpretation rather than prescription.

Another Bite’s identity demonstrates what becomes possible when branding embraces complexity as a design material. The system doesn’t simplify Eglé's multifaceted business into a single visual statement. Instead, it creates space for that complexity to breathe, establishing clear relationships without flattening distinction. Each initiative can stand independently while remaining unmistakably connected to its origin – autonomy and provenance held in productive tension through careful structural thinking.