Now that we’ve established that it’s OK to critique and comment on Amelia Knight’s logo and with the company’s website providing a little more context about the company and its branding, here are a few of my thoughts.
I think logos should be judged as a component of the overall visual branding, so I will conflate the two.
The general look seems to fit within the general look of their industry. This isn’t a bad thing since it fits within the industry norms, but having a generic cosmetics company look also ensures mediocrity in that it blends in with all the other companies in the industry.
According to their website, they’re a cosmetics manufacturer for other companies, not a retail brand. This distinction creates a problem in that the difference seems to call for a visual identity that’s different yet similar to cosmetic retailers. What the solution there might be, I don’t know off the top of my head, but I don’t think their current branding is hitting the mark.
As for the logo fitting in with the rest of the company’s branding, I suppose it does, but I think the company’s branding generally seems a bit clunky. For example, I pulled the following off their website. This reads exactly like a buzzword slogan from 1999.
I dislike the Innovate & Create tagline under the logo you posted. I don’t know how often they use that version of the logo, but the script typography looks like an alien bit of stuff tossed in because someone in the company thought a meaningless tagline would somehow help.
I also dislike the all-too-subtle light blue-green gradient in the logo. At first, I thought it was an error. In print, it would look like a printing mistake.
I pulled the following off one of their inside pages. Apparently, they feel that they have some expertise that eludes me.
If I needed to grade their logo, I’d give it a B or B minus. I might give their visual branding, as a whole, a C or C plus. In other words, it’s average but could be much better or much worse.
I’m still curious why you’re asking for opinions on this.