I see your point on making the word "services" bigger, honestly i don't think it is all that necessary, I vote in favor of making it smaller like in option 1, because the word services is the same color blue, your eye is drawn to it without having to make much effort or having to make it bigger, how about changing colors like light blue on the "cross" and darker blue on the "services" in option 1 that could add emphasis..anyway, i think in terms of hierarchy the first one is better than the first and while the "services" is smaller it is not looking any less important. In version 2 "services" is too prominent, it makes the design look much more conservative. The elements share too much similarity. the first one looks more like an icon, much more memorable, the second one looks to me more like any other logo out there.

hope it helps!

I feel that the top one's placement of the word SERVICES looks like an afterthought, thus destroying an already impressive looking logo. And if you ever wish to use it in a reduced format you will suffer through fill-ins of text and/or a word that will resemble a smear. Not good.

I like the second option better, and as noted above you had said that for branding purposes the PRN and cross have been working well as a stand-alone. I think it's smart how you've balanced the words, reducing the overpowering SERVICES through your usage of a screen. If there is a great concern about the strength of the word, you might also wish to try doing another version up in a roman face to assist with the de-emphasization...if you really want to go there. Personally, I think the bottom option is working and wouldn't change a thing on it.

Overall, great work. This is one of the best logos I've seen created in a very long time.

"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
— Frank Zappa

What would happen if you moved the services to under the horizontal cross, like on top of the vertical bar?

I don't like the treatment of "services" on either one of these.

I agree with 3dogmama on this one. The cross/PRN element could work on it's own (for smaller usage, etc), but adding such a small "services" like in the first one makes it look like an afterthought, or like someone else took their logo and added it.

The only thing that looks a little strange to me (it might even be an optical illusion) is that the "services" in the second logo looks bolder than "PRN", which might be the reason your client feels it's too prominent.

The second logo looks confident. Definitely my choice.

------------
My Portfolio

looks like an impase, I think the question should be: "How do I convince her", not, "which looks better"

Maybe you can use the abreviation for the word "Services" as a compromise. If not, "Services" might fit her chosen location better if it lined up with the angle of the cross better, instead of the vertical line up with the right-most point that it currently has, but it may be too small to read on a business card, is her version legible when printed as if on a business card? If she still wants it though, you may have to give in (with a signed release: "Against all advice..." so you can't become a scapegoat after it's printed)

or I guess you could try this:

Mara, why change the logo just because it's on letterhead? I say, keep it consistent. It is actually a good logo! :)

----
Natobasso
dirtandrust.com
"Powerpoint is not a design application"

I know it's a good logo. My client want s me to change it. That's the whole point. I need candy. Where's the candy?

Oh damn. Gave it all away last night. pfft!

Mara

Thanks to everyone who commented here. I've shared the feedback with my client, with some persuasive (I hope) final thoughts of my own. We shall see.

Mara