I think the proportions between the mark and the type need to be worked out a little more, and I think the mark is a bit too large. The tracked out "d e s i g n", I think needs to go or be re-worked, this sort of type configuration has been done many times but I think it works better with a longer word that does not have to be tracked out this much. I think the typeface can work but perhaps carry over some of the thick and thin relationships as seen in the "u" and other letters into the mark so that its less monotone in weight.

Perhaps try reducing the size of the mark and maybe something a little more assymetric and its arrangement may turn out a more dynamic.

I don't post that often, and I am just a student; There are some people here that I am sure could give you a much more detaled critique but I hope this is somewhat helpful!

i actually read the icon as two people kissing.. but maybe its just me..

i agree with Thomas on the proportion issue..

mayb you could play some with the umlaut U in the actual type, in conjunction with your mark. ie, try replacing the umlaud U with the mark you already have, or portions of it, and play with that..

the kerning on this version as opposed to the one on the site is alot better btw..

im curious as to why you chose to go with the umlauted brotherhud, instead of just plain old 'brotherhood' ?

I appreciate all the comments. I will definitely work on the proportions, I agree with that. We decided to change the spelling in order to give it our own definition. Brotherhood is used in so many places and contexts. We wanted to set ourselves apart a bit. The type isn't nearly done. We liked the symmetry. The two figures share heads/thoughts, almost become one. And actually together, they do make one symbol. An equal amount of people saw the two figures facing each other as they did facing apart. Most people saw the umlaut U before they even saw two figures though.

I thought I'd chip in - on first glance it looks like 2 figures kissing to me. To me the mark seems almost redundant, I like the wordmark on it's own. Also the r and o seem to be too far apart.

I think the word design is tooooooo letter-spaced. The size relationship is nice however. I'd also second Duckworth. I'd save the mark for different uses. I'd not use these two together.

did you investigate making it brotherhudesign making the d different from brotherhu and esign. It could work what you have now is yucky

I polled a few people around here, and every one of them thought the logo looked like people in love.

Which is all right, for a Brokeback Mountain sort of look.

I see what you are trying to do—and I do think it looks cool—but make sure you are on the same page as your prospective clients.

-Andrew Welfle

I polled a few people around here, and every one of them thought the logo looked like people in love.

Which is all right, for a Brokeback Mountain sort of look.

I see what you are trying to do—and I do think it looks cool—but make sure you are on the same page as your prospective clients.

-Andrew Welfle

My impression of the graphic:
1. Frontal copulation (dark circles are faces)
2. A toilet seat viewed from above (dark circles are hinges)

But the typeface has me intrigued.