Thanks so much for these submissions. We really like #143 - would it be possible to see the symbol more "squared off" on the outer edges? In other words, configure the arrows that form the outside more of a box, but with the same concept, forming a cross in the negative space. Really great symbol; it captures what we're going for. Thanks again!
Excellent - #169 is our favorite right now, as you can see from the rankings. From a design standpoint, is there a way to make the "arrows" that comprise the border stand out? Perhaps adding the v-shaped "bevels" you've used on #172 would help. Also, maybe a different color configuration (not sure if this has anything to do with it).
We looked at it in staff meeting today and some were having a hard time seeing the arrows - their focus went immediately to the cross formed in the negative / white space.
We love the design and feel like we're getting very close. Thank you so much.
Thank you very much for the feedback. I'm really happy you love it. I think the fact that the mark makes you have that moment of revelation when you realize that it's made out of arrows is the most important thing about it. So you have a modern and unique representation of a cross and at a second glance the arrows. People will like it mainly because of that, it's simple and at the same time it smartly uses positive AND negative space.
I will do color and shape variations to see if we can get it closer to perfection.
Alex - we are very pleased with the design. The out-facing arrows seem most bold and obvious in #191, so that's our pick. At this point, may we request the following variations? (hopefully none of this comes as a surprise if you've read the brief and are aware of our situation):
1. the icon with "Xenia Nazarene" to the RIGHT (like #191, but could you spread the text out a bit, like #188?) 2. the icon OVER "Xenia Nazarene" (with the line, like #189) 3. the icon with "Riverside Nazarene" to the RIGHT (duplicate of 1. but for use with our Riverside campus) 4. the icon OVER "Riverside Nazarene" (duplicate of 2. but for the Riverside campus)
Also, we'll need all the options that Logo Tournament lists as standard, which I'm sure you're familiar with - black and white versions, with and without transparent backgrounds, etc.
Thank you!! Please let us know if anything is unclear. We really appreciate your work and helping us nail down such a fantastic logo. We're excited about unveiling it to our community in the coming months.
(p.s. I apologize for not requesting these variations before the judging period ended...it's been a busy week with ministry and a sick child at home. Thank you for being flexible on this.)
Alex - if you wouldn't mind humoring us on this, could we see #169 (with the more "muted" colors) again but with the arrows "outlined"? As we've discussed this amongst the staff, one of our pastors wondered if that might not make the arrows "pop" more. We're not all convinced this is necessary, as the more "bold" version (#191) is very effective, but it would help us to see that option as a point of reference.
We wondered also if the letter / text might not need to be a bit darker grey. What is your opinion on the shade/tone of the text for the church name?
Thanks!! If, from a design standpoint, you have any further suggestions or things that you think would improve the design, we're open to your recommendations. You're the expert!
FYI, we felt like the versions where one arrow was a unique color from the other three might lead people to wonder "why is that arrow different?" - and if there was no real reason / symbolism for this (i.e. just an aesthetic decision), it might obscure the meaning of the mark and make it more confusing. Just so you know - it wasn't that we didn't like those logos, just didn't think it was as effective as the four color version.
However, we do not have strong feelings about the colors, so long as they're modern and crisp and grab the viewer's attention. They don't symbolize anything as far as we're concerned, so it's just a matter of what looks good - and, again, as the designer, you're the expert here, so we're open to your guidance.
Alex - thanks, and apologies for our absence lately. we needed a little distance from all the designs to get some perspective (I'm sure as a designer you understand that feeling) and to show it to a few people to get some feedback. Here's what we've decided - I hope these are minor changes that don't put you out too much.
We'd like everything you've done with the color version (#192, #193, #194, #195, #196, #197, #198, #199, and #200 are all great), but we've decided we want to go with the shape of the MARK in #178, where there's a bit more space between the edges of the arrows.
We realize we lose some of the semblance of the cross with this image, but the outside arrows stand out more clearly, and we think we can thematically make use of the white arrows pointing in as well. While the cross is de-emphasized, there was some feeling also that the slighly "germanic" shape of the cross might not go over well with some people in our community.
So - would you mind replacing the mark in the most recent submissions with that slightly altered shape? - everything else about them is fine (color, layout, font style and spacing, etc). Can you accommodate us on this request?
Ah, one final thought - a designer in our church wondered if lowercase text might be better than all CAPS. what are your thoughts about this? We wouldn't mind seeing it in LC if you think it's a possibility, but if you don't think it's a good idea, we trust your judgment. Thanks again! You have been wonderful to work with; we are very pleased.
Hi Welcome back I agree on the 'german' refference, that's why I did #178 I am preparing all those versions with the new mark shape and will upload once they're ready. But I will do it today. I will show you a lowercase version too, and I also think it would look better, more in tone with the modern feel of the mark. Also, I suggest we use solid colors instead of gradients on the arrows.
Thanks Alex. We anticipate being very happy with the final outcome. We just needed some time to test it out and think it through. With a church logo, this mark will potentially be EVERYWHERE (signs, t-shirts, print materials, website, letterheads, business cards, stickers, decals, gymnasium floors, on the sides of our vans, etc - maybe even painted on walls or in carpet!) so we really want to make sure we've got it just right. We felt a bit badly about asking for these final changes, and REALLY appreciate you're willingness to work with us.
So we'll go with: *full color version of #178 *solid arrows (no gradient) *Xenia and Riverside options *top/bottom and side/side options *a lowercase option
brilliant! And congratulations on winning, but more than that, thank you so much for your work for us. We are honored by your time and talent and feel we've arrived at something really good. Give us through the evening (it's 3pm here on the EST zone in the USA) to figure out whether we want to go with the ALL CAPS or lowercase - or if it's all the same to you, we'd be happy to be furnished with final files of both versions - but we understand that requires creating a lot of different files. Let us know how best to proceed.
We definitely are happy with the final mark - no gradient, and the revised shape that de-emphasizes the cross and makes the arrows more prominent. I simply selected the "winning" entry from amongst the most recent submissions, but all (202-207) are great. The mark is the main thing, and I think you nailed it in the end.