Logo strips look simple right up until they go live.
The page is otherwise polished, but the customer logos feel soft on retina screens, the row turns gray and muddy on mobile, or the proof section becomes heavier than it should be for a piece of UI most visitors only scan for a second.
That happens because teams often treat logo rows like decorative filler. They export one image quickly, drop it into the page, and move on.
For SaaS landing pages, that is usually the wrong workflow.
TinyImage is a strong fit here because the product page already supports compressed JPG, PNG, SVG, WebP, AVIF, GIF, MP4, and PDF export directly from Figma. For logo strips, the real value is not just smaller files. It is being able to standardize one export pass for proof sections that need to look crisp, neutral, and trustworthy without sending the asset through a second cleanup tool afterward.
This article is intentionally narrower than nearby TinyImage pieces like Hero Image Optimization Workflow for Landing Pages, CMS Image Publishing Workflow from Figma, and Webflow Image Optimization Workflow from Figma. Those cover broader page imagery, CMS publishing, or site-wide asset handling. This one is specifically about social-proof logo rows, where clarity, neutrality, and lightweight delivery matter more than visual drama.
A logo strip has a different job from a hero image
A hero image has to persuade.
A logo strip usually has to reassure.
That changes the export priorities.
The logo row is there to answer a quiet question in the visitor’s head:
- Are credible companies already using this?
- Does this product feel established?
- Is there enough social proof here to keep reading?
The strip fails when the logos are:
- too small to recognize
- inconsistent in contrast
- compressed into mush
- visually louder than the rest of the proof section
- so heavy that they slow down the page for almost no narrative gain
That is why logo-strip workflow should optimize for recognition and restraint, not for maximum visual detail.
Decide whether the row should stay vector or become raster
This is the first real decision.
Many logo-strip problems come from choosing the export format by habit instead of by structure.
If the strip is made of clean vector logos with no texture, gradients, or photographic treatment, SVG is often the best default because it stays sharp across screen densities and usually weighs less than a large raster image.
If the strip includes:
- textured brand marks
- screenshots embedded inside logo tiles
- non-vector effects
- shadows or background treatments
then PNG or WebP may be more realistic.
The important part is being explicit.
Do not export a raster strip just because it feels familiar if the whole row could have stayed vector. And do not force SVG if the proof block now includes treatment that will make the output brittle.
If your team is still deciding between static image formats in general, SVG vs PNG vs WebP for Figma Exports is the best companion read.
Normalize the logos before you export them
Visitors will forgive imperfect logos less than teams expect.
Not because they inspect them closely, but because messy logo rows make the whole page feel less curated. One mark looks too dark. Another is vertically off-center. A third is wider than the rest and dominates the row. The section starts feeling accidental instead of credible.
Before export, normalize:
- visual height, not just bounding-box height
- padding inside each logo cell
- grayscale or reduced-contrast treatment if the page uses a quieter proof style
- background behavior for dark, light, or tinted sections
- whether marks should appear as isolated logos or inside consistent tiles
This is also where the team should decide whether every logo really belongs in the same strip. If one customer mark is highly detailed or colorful while the rest are simple wordmarks, that brand may need its own treatment or a separate proof block.
Test the row at scan speed, not zoomed-in designer speed
Logo strips are rarely consumed one logo at a time.
They are scanned.
That means the correct review questions are:
- Can someone recognize at least a few logos immediately?
- Does the section feel balanced from left to right?
- Does one mark overpower the rest?
- Does the row still feel intentional on mobile?
Designers often review this asset too close. At high zoom, small sharpness issues feel dramatic. On the live page, the bigger issue is usually hierarchy.
If the strip is below the fold or tucked between testimonial cards and a CTA, it needs to stay legible at the exact rendered size where visitors will skim it. That rendered-size review matters more than pixel-peeping the original export.
Plan for mobile collapse before compression
Most proof rows break on mobile because the layout logic was never decided.
A six-logo desktop strip might become:
- a two-row mobile stack
- a horizontally scrollable band
- a tighter centered grid
- a reduced subset of the strongest logos
Each option changes the export job.
If the mobile layout needs fewer logos per row, the original strip may not be the right final asset. If the site collapses the row into small stacked tiles, each logo needs more breathing room than the desktop strip suggested. If the section scrolls horizontally, the logos may need slightly stronger contrast to stay identifiable while people swipe quickly.
This is why the workflow should answer the mobile arrangement first. Compression is easier once the live shape of the section is clear.
Use TinyImage for proof-specific export presets
A practical TinyImage workflow here is to treat logo strips as their own asset family instead of lumping them in with screenshots or hero graphics.
That means setting a predictable export approach for:
- SVG-first logo rows
- lightweight PNG or WebP rows when raster is required
- dark-background proof sections
- high-density displays where softness is especially obvious
Useful names:
homepage-customer-logos.svgproduct-proof-strip-dark.webpcase-study-logo-row-mobile.pngenterprise-proof-logos-light.svg
This matters because proof sections tend to get reused across:
- homepage variants
- pricing pages
- feature landing pages
- partner pages
- sales one-pagers
Once the export logic is stable, the team stops rediscovering the same softness and file-size issues on every page.
Review the logos as a trust element, not just an image
A logo strip is one of those assets where “technically correct” is not enough.
The question is whether the row makes the product feel more credible.
Look for:
- logos that fade too far into the background
- overly compressed edges on thin letterforms
- inconsistent baseline rhythm
- excessive whitespace that makes the strip feel sparse
- a row that visually competes with nearby testimonials or proof stats
If the proof block feels timid or messy, visitors will not articulate why. They will just feel slightly less convinced.
A simple final checklist
Before shipping the page, confirm:
- the strip format matches the logo structure
- vector rows stayed vector where possible
- raster rows were reviewed at real rendered size
- desktop and mobile versions both feel balanced
- the logos are recognizable without overpowering the page
- the file weight is reasonable for a secondary proof asset
- the live implementation was checked once in the browser
The real win
Logo strips should be one of the easiest trust sections on the page.
They become annoying only when the team treats them like an afterthought and ends up re-exporting them every time the page changes. TinyImage makes it easier to keep that export work inside Figma, give the proof row its own lightweight standard, and ship social proof that looks deliberate instead of improvised.
Read as Markdown Related resource index Site index for AI agents
Pro Bundle