Agreed. Or have some meaningful overlap. To me, whenever a company switches to a different logo after years of stagnant progress, it signals a last effort to artificially strengthen the brand.
Agreed. Or have some meaningful overlap. To me, whenever a company switches to a different logo after years of stagnant progress, it signals a last effort to artificially strengthen the brand.
Agreed. Or have some meaningful overlap. To me, whenever a company switches to a different logo after years of stagnant progress, it signals a last effort to artificially strengthen the brand.
Agreed. Or have some meaningful overlap. To me, whenever a company switches to a different logo after years of stagnant progress, it signals a last effort to artificially strengthen the brand.
Agreed. Or have some meaningful overlap. To me, whenever a company switches to a different logo after years of stagnant progress, it signals a last effort to artificially strengthen the brand.
Standalone comparison of Old Logo vs New Logo, i think most agree that Old Logo wins hands down.
Old Brand Identity vs New Brand Identity is where the new one makes a lot more sense.
The old logo gets the job done, the new one tries too hard to be trendy and fails (it also looks very generic). Sometimes the literal approach is a good idea, even if the production value isn’t there.
Methinks symptomatic of the “bullshit jobs” scenario. Another poster pointed out about need for low risk legacy, another points out change for something to do. All valid and clatter with what I have observed in my life. Also I have seen brand logo changes as part of a subtle message that company has changed in some way, usually trying to change away from some negative press, and the logo is a cynical attempt to show a new direction yada yada.
For my 2c corporate logos have gone from art to BS as in Boring Shit, over last 20 years.
Well, sometimes companies feel their current logo is too out of date and they want to change it.
Or sometimes companies rebrand completely, sometimes because of a shift of focus. (A company I know about shifted from discrete software to B2B software and changed its branding in the process)
I'm not a fan of these kinds of hilarious-in-hindsight juxtapositions since it gives the impression that "hey, the logos of old companies sucked, so you don't need a good logo to succeed!"
I also struggle to believe that if you have a well recognized logo, unless your company's image is really, really poor, then redesigning your logo is anything other than a net negative.
The old logo has an authoritative look without feeling dated. It looks great on a website, in print or on a sign. The new logo is meaningless and bland and has massive scaling issues. Interesting direction, I'll admit.
Honestly, what makes a brand identity work is at least 50% longevity. One good logo is better than 3 great ones over the course of a decade. If there's no continuity, not only do consumers have to become reacquainted with the brand (losing some established good will), you don't have any brand recognizablity until it becomes well known again.
The Firefox globe is a good logo. Not only is it instantly recognizable, there's a clear connection between the symbolism in the image and "Firefox". I think the globe logo is also suggestive of international connectedness and cooperation - Firefox is something that brings people together.
IMO all the suggested icons represent a change for the worse. Even the one from System 1 most similar to the existing logo reduces the amount of detail and makes it harder to quickly recognize the logo at a glance.
Amazing how the slightest tweak in design, specifically in logo design, can affect brand value in such a monumental way. I like the new logo, but the old one seems too iconic and classic to be replaced.
I agree, I'm not suggesting a name change at all. That would be bad. And obviously the idea of the icon being ugly is completely objective, but I just don't like it. Bad colors. Bad shapes. Idk. It looks old, probably because it is. But plenty of old companies have modernized their logos in a pleasant way.
While I totally agree that logos tend to be changed far too early and too often, at some point the logos do start to look outdated, either because the company evolves or because the world is moving.
For example, the quirky eBay logo was a great fit for a startup during the dot com boom, but the way typical websites look changed dramatically since then and the company became much bigger and professional.
At some point, a logo that doesn't get updated does start screaming "this is a company stuck in a time several decades ago".
I think a logo should express uniqueness, the soul of a company and their product.
In this particular case, it is the opposite: BMW’s logo change is an unoriginal move to copy the latest trend. Lack of courage and imagination.
I see it often recently that our German companies avoid risks of being pioneers, just copy-paste proven ideas, and act fussily and chaotically when see threats from emerging innovators.
reply