I created this first revised logo because I wanted one that felt less heavy than the solid green areas found in the other revised logo. I also wanted an option that didn't have the name of the company incorportated in the logo. This logo can exist separate from the wordmark, while the other cannot.
This logo is a simplified version of the logo seen in my roughs from my last blog post. I really like the simplicity and sophistication this logo has, but I'm little concerned that it says Martha Stewart more than a home-greening business. I'm also afraid that having green in the name and a solid green logo screams GREEEEEN! a little too much. Please let me know what you think!
2 comments:
I think your concerns are valid to consider, but overall your identity's relationship to the Martha Stewart style brand and the clarity that it relates to "greenness" seems to be working to your benefit. When starting a new company idea, sometimes it is useful to relate to things people already know and understand, but then do something new and unique with it– which this identity is starting to do. Keep working with it, especially developing a color palette to work with.
I really think your logo has been taking a good direction. The "seal" has been your strongest concept, and using the tree/house imagery or other ideas in an identity system within the circles would capture whatever aspects of the company aren't explicit in the word-only seal. I did like the slightly unusual character the little leaves on the original circle had, maybe they could be incorporated into something in the identity. As far as Martha Stewart...I have a feeling a lot of your company's clients would love Martha, which might be good for business. An idea might be to push the concept of B. Green as a name, to develop some sort of character connection, like if it were "Dr. Green" (Col. Mustard...etc). That might give it another level of sophistication or appeal.
Post a Comment