Please realize this is all merely my opinion as a designer and you asked for opinions. I am not specifically trying to be negative, although my opinions may not be what you want to read. My goal is to provide an open and honest opinion of what I see based upon my experience. My opinions are not always correct or inline with the opinions of others. I can be, and often am, simply wrong.
In short, please read this understanding it's posted from the sole desire to help you improve this brand.
I like the color palette. It's feminine but strong. Good choices!
- For a brand which is meant to convey "feminine empowerment" it is very strong on "feminine" but very weak on "empowerment".
- The mark is light and sort of "wispy" in perception. This goes a long way to conveying "feminine" for many viewers. Although, this can be a bit cliché. There's nothing stating a "feminine brand" needs to be less impactful and "delicate." (...or use pink.)
- The color palette is strong and conveys empowerment.
- Unfortunately, the light nature of the readable items outweighs the color choices and, in my opinion, "empowerment" isn't conveyed much, if at all.
Regarding typeface choices...
A mono-spaced font for headlines won't work. There will (hopefully) be myriad uses for the branding. Insisting on a mono-spaced font for headlines does nothing but ensure that, in some cases, headlines will be too long, break poorly, and not fit a space allotted.
- Headlines can often entail minor kerning and word spacing adjustments to improve readability. A mono-spaced font simply makes all that a headache.
- In addition, the general public may perceive monospacing as unfriendly or overly cold and digital. That's typically not a desired impression for a brand.
Granville light ... It's a nice looking typeface. However, for me, the contrast is too high.
- The weight variation between the thick and thin glyph strokes is too extreme. At smaller sizes thin glyphs may get "lost" when reading making legibility a challenge.
- At larger sizes, the thick strokes may overwhelm a paragraph visually. Causing it to be perceived as "heavier" than other, more important, elements within a layout. Essentially, a high contrast body typeface can make layout balance a challenge.
I don't know why you'd designate a script font. Doing so merely encourages its use... which, to me, is a mistake.
Regarding the graphic treatment of the F.....
I perceive a shadowy, nondescript, figure standing behind type. Almost "looming".
The graphic is exceptionally similar to a "user" icon, which is very prevalent and will outweigh any other perception you wish to covey with the figure.
The "half diamond" and "arrow" you point out.. well.. I don't think anyone will ever see those elements, even subconsciously due to the perception of a "user icon".
Unfortunately, one must account for what is already prevalent and overused to the public. It's a nice figure, it is simply too similar to a user icon in my opinion.
Combine the user icon perception with a monospaced typeface, and I feel the brand just "pushes" the sense of cold, digital, computer related. I would assume the desired impression would convey more things such as friendly, helpful, mentoring, support, coaching, etc.
Regarding the "stacked" version....
Just a pet peeve of mine... Graphic treatment of a glyph that spans more than one line and is supposed to be read multiple times to make sense of what the reader is seeing.
Would you place a single big F at the beginning of both lines and expect viewers to read that F twice? If not, then why is the graphic "F" being used in this manner?
It works against the purpose of being easily read and recognized:
Its a graphic treatment for a glyph which asks the viewer to decipher or figure out what glyph it's meant to be. (Granted, this is not difficult in this instance.)
It's used repeatedly, asking the viewer to decipher when the "glyph" is supposed to be repeatedly read. Is it supposed to read "emme ortune", "Femme ortune", "emme Fortune", "Femme Fortune"? (Again, this is not difficult in this specific brand design, but it is something to consider long before going down such a design path.)
The business card....
Although I like the graphic pattern you've chosen, unfortunately the weight of the lines in the pattern are far too similar to the stroke weight of the type sitting on top the pattern.
This causes visual confusion because all the lines appear the same weight and importance. It tends to cause an "uneasy feeling" because the eye just bounces everywhere.. as if you are shaking your head and trying to read something at the same time.
In addition, the pattern almost conveys a "retro subway tile" atmosphere - very mid-century modern, almost dating the design (and company).
Viewers may not know why they dislike the card... but they will surely dislike it. You may be able to mitigate this by making the pattern elements much smaller so its lines are not as prominent, I'm uncertain.
I'm hesitant to be so blunt, but... nothing about this design would make me believe this is for a brand whose goal is to help anyone do anything. There's no connotation of friendliness, support, human interaction, personal service, coaching, mentoring, helpfulness, etc. Nothing abut the design seems inviting or encouraging. The mark and type choices, to me, are overall very cold digital and non-specific -- as if it's for a company that merely gathers user data through automated digital services.