Kindly help me to identify why this lightning logo sting project got a hard rejection ? 😞

This was so frustrating for me, I was getting rejections a lot in a couple of projects, but I have decided to put a great effort in a new template to be accepted, but sadly it was also hard rejected, and I really don’t know why, this doesn’t encourage me to make another one very soon, but I hope to know the reasons for this and what I am missing, thank you in advance. :disappointed:

You have not come up with anything new. You simply repeated the project, of which there are hundreds on the market. So why should the reviewer approve one more the same item? Moreover, this style was popular a few years ago.
As for the visual part:

  • realistic background oddly blends with cartoon lightnings
  • the logo and tagline are not on the same line (the logo moved sideways)
  • the font is large, outdated and does not fit the visual style
1 Like

It looks very simple to me. This is because in many ways it is necessary to think very risky.

  1. The very fast flash of lightning caused an imperfect speed to be used in the animation.

As the lightning flashed, I would expect the shadow of the logo object to fall to the ground.

  1. When lightning struck, I would expect the surrounding to shine with light.
1 Like

Thank you for the great feedback @romlam … this was really helpful and it will affect my attempts in my next projects :slight_smile: … so I think I need to focus more on new styles, plus being more aware of the visuals … thank again @romlam :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thank you so much @nexus-digital-market … those are really important details to be aware of :slight_smile:

Yes. Try to be unique. Don’t copy/paste. Good luck! :wink:

1 Like

Build yourself to stand different than others :slightly_smiling_face:
It looks simple as far as lightning is considered. I suggest you to reduce the flash rate. Please take a look if the orientation of the shadow and flashing can be adjusted. Thanks!

1 Like

You simply repeated the words we had already wrote above. For what? :thinking:

Probably I was not watchful with the above replies. Sorry for that!