Logo Rejection x4

Hello, let me show you 4 logos that were rejected out of quality standard. Do you agree? If so, why would you say they’re below standard? All comments welcome, thanks.

hi pls next time try to post one by one this is helping to get into deeper details for each logo, this is complicated otherwise … let’s get started
am safe logo
1- global shape of the illustration part
quite frankly , the logo is kind of cool but the way u cut it is neither aeesthetic nor is this efficient and helping for imbrication
2- global style
i like what u have here in terms of illustration, though, let’s face it, there is much detail and the fact of the matter s that those details are not super compatible with small size logo, but they consider the logo in small size here …
3- imbrication
indeed the positioning, due to the shape that u have across got u into trouble and the text positioning as far as the illustration goes is not exactly the right one, this should be closer , the gap looks strange here …
4- typo
this is flat, what u have here as there is no variation, no font combination, and no touch of originality as well, when u take into account that typo is probably the most important thing no matter what is the category where u are posting, this makes the logo not so attractive for here …
5- preview
i recommend avoiding previews which are not valuing your work and making it outstanding and for the black background version, the text is even hard to read indeed …

authority
1- global style
i think that once again too many details about the crown, most of then are invisible in the end, i mean in the best cases, or they even make the preview get more blurry and less attractive visually , like what happens with the crown
2- discrepancy of style
for me u have a break of harmony when it comes to the crown part, which is definitely way more “drawn” and detailed as the rest and this is introducing form of a misbalance between the two elements
3- imbrication
indeed as regard to the shape i tend to believe that this would be very difficult to turn the logo in a horizontal version and to imbricate both illustration and text parts properly according to the shape that u have created here …
4- typo
for me this is a bit simple, lacking variations, clearer font combinations and touches of originality as the font u use for the name is real basic
5- color
what is a bit of a problem in my view is that u have white color only in a single part of the logo so that this ultimately looks like coming ou of the blue
6- tagline
for me the tag line is not in the right proportion, this is oo thin, hardly visible and the name is too prominent comparatively indeed

little angel
i do not have anything much to ay about this one , if u ask me, this is a quality work and i kind of really like it. However i think that to make the whole logo more impressive, u should introduce a sort of blue shadow - like the ground shadow - behind the name so that this is more outstanding and increases the contrast of the name which would thus be even more valued indeed. i also consider that bringing a tagline would help u to generate more relief , to make the typo look more worked out and introduce a sort of touch of originality

tree and leaves
i like it , i like the harmony that u have here and the global style, now, to be honest there is a good deal of details, and this is not completely matching with the marketplace style. Look when u are in small size , the details turn out to be flatten and same goes with the logo in a general way. But, to tell u how i feel , for me , the big issue here is the typo, there is originality into what u have but the font looks much like a don’t - comic sans ms - related family lol and , let’s talk the talk, even without considering this , the fact that the line of text is not linear is bringing some trouble to the table when it comes to the addition of a tagline, it will be more difficult to pair fonts in this extent …

general observation, if i am correct logo are required in black and white version and when i have a look at the logos u have here, i tend to believe that some of them very unlikely to be very compatible with such a version, besides did u provide the concerned versions?

Thanks a lot for taking the time n2n44, that was really constructive and I’ll definitely write many of your notes down. I appreciate it!

1 Like

u are welcome, very happy if i could help u :slight_smile: if u have enough clues as regard to what to do with your item, u can check the solution box :slight_smile: good work and good luck in any event :slight_smile: