What is this for?

sorry, should have said! its for a company i work for. typically we're all divided as to whether we are a creative / digital/ marketing agency as we off all services.
but our core services would be marketing, creative, copywriting and web development.

we are rebranding and this is the 3rd round of development! its very much being taken over by committee lol

I like the ones with Clarendon, the others don't do it for me. Yet, whenever I see Clarendon, it takes me right back to the 70s ;-)
Since it's such a simple logotype, you might want to consider some other, more modern fonts, preferrably sans serifs.

Number 12 is the best, but DO use Helvetica Neue...

cheers.

number 12 IS helvetica neue lol :-)

What will be the size range of use?
A few of them don't seem to be able to cope with being much smaller.

Will

letterheads, business cards, website typical promo and stationery applications.

i can tweak legibility atthe next stage but which of those would you personally pick to develop?

#1 is clearest, and to my eyes most attractive.

thanks eliason :-)

I was going to say #12, but then I looked at it again and saw a logo that a public accounting company would use, it's just to precise. But I can also see it working for a company that fits your description... it's just a bit ambiguous in a sense that if I were to guess what the company does, I would've probably missed (and this is not a problem with, say, #1, #4 or #5).

I'd say something like number one or number twelve, but I'm afraid I'd add to that that I think these are all a bit “weak”… even after some kind of development. It's just a few letters, I think I'd go for something more unique (that is, not using a typeface but creating the characters or some kind of lettering from scratch).

However, I do see these options as “correct”, if I make myself clear. I mean, they do seem to match the description you made of what the company does, in some way. Marketing, copywriting, these are things that, to me, somehow call for something “texty” as a logo, as in just a plain typeface telling it as it is, so those two options I mentioned seem to work nicely (no letters touching, no symbols, just plain text, conservatively set as if typed). The name also helps. So if the company isn't heavily design-oriented but instead more about marketing, I could see why and how these kinds of options would be used.

In number twelve you might consider tweaking “cfa”'s size, because since it's bolder it looks a tiny bit smaller, as it stands right now.

#8

#8 is definitely my favorite, although the conceptual similarity to Bravo's logo makes me a little uneasy.

#8 requires a relation to another object.

@ chris jarvis

You need a layer mask in the text layers of #8 and #9.

Order or favor:

#1
#8 (Although, I would prefer if the tail of the a were cut at the shape of the rectangle's edge)
#7

you've really given us nothing to offer any informed input on.

since you're re-branding'...what's the re-brand doing that's different?
where has it come from, where is it going.
what tone does the business require/desire the logo to convey?

is there indecision internally about which design is most suitable, or is this more of an ego stroke for the designer/s, hoping more people on these forums select the design they feel is most worthy?

what you've essentially done so far is ask a bunch of other people to join the committee, to avoid design by...committee.

I like number 8.

I'm in for #8, but I'd use Helvetica with it.

All those where "we're" is very small have legibility problems even though they may look like a very nice logo. i.e. #2, #4 and #11.

Have you tried distorting the square shape in #8 to be more dynamic? It might work really nice. It would give this logo some movement and life.

Voting #7

#7 for sure

I like #2 the best. I like how the word bubble sits comfortably on the type more than the rounded #7.

Although #8 solves the legibility issue of "we are" (although not that critical is it?), there's some things that bother me about it. For one, there's a weird tangent where the words "we are" is uncomfortably close the edge. Either have them aligned and more intentionally "in" the bubble or intentionally cropped. The tail of the "a" in "cfa" trailing off to the right on the outside of the bubble looks like a mistake to me. Should it have been cropped inside? I know this is still a work in progress, so sorry if it's nitpicky

I know you're getting a lot of feedback. Just my 2 cents.

Good luck! I know you'll be happy with whatever you end up with. Plenty of viable options there.

#7 is the best in my opinion because the speech bubble that houses we are can be re-purposed for other facets of your business, such as "we are writing" or "we are speaking". This might not make any sense, but in my puny little brain it does.

Anyway, #7 is the best.

#7 :)

2 or 8