ID for flowery greeting cards

saman's picture

This client creates greeting cards with flowery designs on the front. Each card is handmade and one card is different than the other.

The objective is to design a logo that would capture the originality of these greeting cards, and yet be general enough to be placed on similar products as well, e.g. large flower pictures.

This logo is meant to be placed on the backside of the greeting cards.

I would appreciate some feedback on the following draft.

For now I have kept it all one colour, to concentrate on shape and balance, but also because the logo might alternatively be embossed on the cards.

Thanks all for your help!

hrant's picture

You need more stroke contrast in the "flower".
Look at the letters and see how much nicer things look when you have a lot of thick-thin variation.

hhp

dan's picture

If your going to use it small or embossed the thin strokes on the name might be lost. You might consider making two logos. One for sizes x plus and a heavier stroked version for sizes x minus

saman's picture

thanks for both of your suggestions.

I have now modified the flower... I would appreciate some feedback!
Also, I would somehow like to keep a certain resemblance in the flower with the letter "r". Do you feel that this is evident in the shape?
Also, (how) does the symbol work when it stands by itself?


no wordmark:

hrant's picture

Nice.
Just push out the top-right of the head a bit.

hhp

serene's picture

Samann : I don't think that "Spring LP Std" works good with the symbol you are using. Try either change the face or change the symbol.
The symbol looks more like a small flower, which is just starting to grow. The placement of the flower looks forced to me. Try a more subtle positioning.

Note : If you try to lower the upper part of the flower in order to create an "R" it may lead to a feeling of shrinking and lack of energy.

Salute

saman's picture

Thanks, Galin! You could be right about avoiding the script.

I have pushed the head to the top a little and made it rounder - cheers, Hrant.

For now, let's try changing the face and see what comes out of it. One consideration though: I don't want it to look too exclusive or elegant either - the cards should also appeal to the younger generation (~30ish) Is that attraction maybe lost with Minion Italic? Feedback appreciated:

serene's picture

I prefer the first version of the design with the font "Spring LP Std", but as you may know the "LP" is a trademark of LetterPerfect Design.
In general Spring is contemporary font of the 90s and depicts the contemporary spirit of that period.
"Minion" even though a great balanced font would not work good for you on this logotype.
The flower stands quite ackward with Minion. As I said before you might need a different positioning.
Maybe try some of the following : ITC Edwardian Script , Florens LP Std, Lucida Calligraphy (Handwriting) or even Script MT Std.

Salute

djg's picture

It all depends on what the emphasis should be. The first post has an equal balance between the word and the logo. This makes the logo feel less important the Minion version puts more emphasis on the logo which inturn feels extra special. I feel like the first version almost doesn't need the logo because the script is so graphic in itself. I myself prefer the Minion version
(although I'm not convinced on the italic.) By introducing Minion or a similar text/display face you will visually be able to connect the logo with other design elements within your identity (ie buisness card font, letterhead type, and whatever else you would need a hard working serif style typeface.) I think the memorability of the logo will come from the special r symbol you have created. The script is also hard to read at small sizes. Not to mention if the script is set in 10 point it will appear completely phony and reproduced. Conceptually if a script isn't printed at a handwritting size than I feel it is being used wrong. However that is my extremest opinion. Again, in my opinion, The Minion Version has more potential to be a solid identity.

neuroman's picture

I should agree with David. This curvy symbol doesn't need a curvy wordmark, I would even suggest using a regular instead of italic. And to push the envelope further, why don't you use something like Gill Sans Light

test

serene's picture

Ivan you might be right about using a non-handwriting script but I advise Samann to come up with a different logo symbol. As I said before either the script or the symbol has to be changed. The sans serif might be a good idea for that symbol, but I don't like the interplay with Minion neither the highly tracked/kerned variations of Ivan.

Salute

p.s. I like the thinned version of the flowery symbol more.

Tom Cannon's picture

Cronos, Syntax, Flux, Cocon, Quadraat Sans, Lucida Casual, Ocean Sans or Poetica might work.

saman's picture

Thanks everyone for all your wonderful comments. I have had time to work on this a little more again.

Have a look at the latest update. I added the rectangle to solve some positioning problems between the logo and the wordmark. Conceptually I think it works well because it is emphasising the nature of the business: greeting cards.
Brian had a nice idea about stamping the logo. This needs to be tested, but it might work even better with the rectangle around it. I just hope that it won't look too cheap. Otherwise I fear that people might not "get" that it's actually a feature.

Please give me your feedback on the latest version. Also, which one works better? black on white or vice-versa?

saman's picture

Good point about the type, Tiffany. I could agree that some more contrast might not be bad. Regarding the box: You have to imagine this printed fairly small on the back of a greeting card. I printed it out at that size and the white on black version (the one I am leaning more towards) looks very nice IMO, especially when seen from a distance. the box does catch your eye..

I like that the format of the box resembles the format of the greeting card and the flower on it describes the flowers on the actual cards.

How do others feel about it?

I'm not entirely happy about the shape yet. Maybe I could go for smaller details. A little bit like the new Unilever U.

more comments please!

djg's picture

Like Tiffany said,

Make the type larger and the symbol smaller or vise versa. If the type is smaller than you might want to make it bolder. The symbol is cool, it deifinatly should be very prominant.

saman's picture

hi everyone,

thanks for your input Tiffany. Maybe indeed it doesn't have to be boxed in. However, I would prefer to find a solution that fits all sizes.


I've made a small version, to get a better feel for the small print; from left to right the symbol gets more and more dominant. it's still quite rough, but just to get an idea: which relationship logo/wordmark relationship should I go forward?

hughfire's picture

I like your symbol, but there seems to be a little bit of flattening at the top - maybe just my monitor?

Miss Tiffany's picture

Samann. I don't find there to be enough contrast between symbol and type ... Gill Light works more for that. As for placement, I think the square/rectangle causes more problems that it solves. You lose the organic quality of the symbol. Is it important that you box it in?

Miss Tiffany's picture

In your earlier posts what I saw, and found to be very nice, was a flower growing out of the type .. this new version is completely devoid of that. I understand needing to be printed very small on the back of a card. However, I don't think it needs to be boxed in. You can play with scale for that. The type (ground) can be larger while the flower (r) is smaller, or vice versa, depending upon the situation.

Syndicate content Syndicate content