ngdawg

You're making assumptions because you weren't in on the decision making process(and even I wasn't in on the beginning, only given what was agreed upon) nor privy to the finished work while watching over my shoulder.
Your critique was considered and I made some changes within the parameters of what the clients had approved and wanted.
This thread was intended as a "Thank you" because of someone's pride in his new venture; while I appreciate your difference of style in design, etc., at this point, you're now basically just hammering where it isn't necessary.
As a designer, it's necessary to have a relatively thick skin because everyone's taste is so vastly different that there are bound to be things that would be considered awful as well as things being considered 'perfect'.
There is no, repeat no such thing as 'perfection' in art or design. Perfection is a concept that changes continuously and arriving at one's idea of it is not a constant.
When someone comes to me, whether at work or otherwise and says "I need this or that and it has to include that or this", the solving of a puzzle begins.
Elements to be included: check. Possible font/text styles to present: check.
Present a couple of ideas: check. Make changes, suggestions: check. Do over.
Do over again. Make finite corrections. Do over.
However, working for a studio, the process can't be drawn out; if something is needed before the end of a workday, you better know the shortcuts that will still get you the approval. Then work on the concept of technical perfection. In every case so far working for this studio, I see things I could have improved upon, but the work was already in use because it was deemed 'perfect'.
In this case, the client knew exactly what was wanted and needed, from color to concept, so the process wasn't too difficult. I was quite surprised that it was approved-not because I don't like it (I do-it's different enough to be noticed, but not, to me, as jumbled as you think it is)
In your eyes, what you are only seeing here without knowing the discussions behind it, it may seem 'unfinished'. To those that had a say in what they wanted, it fit the bill. It is also a concept that can be evolved as the company evolves. There isn't a company in existence that hasn't changed or dropped its logo for something newer. Even old standbys like Morton Salt or Campbell's Soup change their icons while still keeping the basic design or premise.
In regards to what seems unrelated, hard to grasp or unfinished, the first thing that comes to mind is the golden arches of MacDonald's. No clue what they're supposed to mean other that a big M, but everyone knows them. But to represent a fast food joint? They don't. In showing this to a friend without explaining what it was, he at least understood that it has something to do with being, as he said, "environmentally friendly", so in that respect, the message was sent.
It's not the designer's job to make a case for swaying someone to their way of thinking-something you seem to want to do; it's the designer's job to do the best he/she can to please the client and still be pleased with the finished product as something they can say "I made that". I have no qualms here.