
(All the above logos are properties of respective companies and have been used only for informational purposes.)
The Oxford Dictionary defines a logo as “…a printed design or symbol that a company or an organization uses as its special sign.” Corporate history has shown that a logo is much more than that to a company. A logo helps attach adjectives to a company – tech-savvy, fast, smart, conventional, hip, boring! A change to a logo makes the audience sit up and notice (often rethink) about the company. The human mind has a tendency to attach personal or humane characteristics to something intangible as an organization image that helps the logo.
Changing logos is a way of advertising. It’s a pretty safe bet that you can perform (most of the time) a good redesign of your logo once. That can be interpreted (and explained) as an improvement and forward thinking. You do it too frequently and you may look like you’re unsure of who you are, or more importantly, who your clients are.
Recently, a few major companies have redesigned their logos. Except for a couple of them, the old logos looked better than the new.
Intel
Intel’s new identity is an improvement. The old logo, used for almost 37 years, was simply a lower-case version of the word Intel with a dropped letter “e” in the word. This new logo is a marked improvement on the old one and consist of a more modern font (Neo Sans) than Helvetica in the old logo. The new face has more personality without going completely overboard.
I was not entirely sure the circular bands were necessary, but that was when my friend from the company shared this bit about the Intel logo and mentioned that the main driver of the new logo was “one of our VP’s of marketing who recently joined Intel from Samsung – which I thought was kind of weird when he was first hired – but anyway, I thought it was good he was brining in some changes to “make his mark” on Intel. The thing that is most ironic about all of this (logo redesign) is the Samsung logo from where he came.” He then mentioned that the Intel logo is pretty much the exact chromatic inverse of the Samsung logo. Interesting.
Kodak
Kodak looks terrible. The typeface is too soft and vague. The two yellow lines look really out of place (they may be dropped in a few years just as VISA lost the blue and brown bands), and feel forced, as if they had to incorporate yellow into the identity somehow, so they pasted a couple of sticks in there. The lack of a logotype symbol greatly reduces the visual value of the logo. There’s nothing to remember now. The old Kodak logo (it served the company for more than 50 years) was instantly recognizable due to its distinct look. They just wiped away decades of branding.
AT&T
The logo looks more like a beachball with too much of a 3D for me. It will probably loose its clarity when reduced to small dimensions, unlike their old logo which held up well in any situation. I feel that the original blue-with-white stripes had more impact. The reversing of colours was not required. They should have made subtle changes. As for the font, it’s way too plain, and the ampersand doesn’t have any of the character from its earlier version. All in all, it is too much of a shift from the previous logo.
Unilever
Certainly Unilever logo was very much in need of a change. It was very industrial and cold. The new logo is warm and “friendly” but it is very complex. The movement to a script typeface I think was brilliant and that in itself gives a warmer feel. I always try to follow the rule “Maximum meaning, minimum means”. When designing a logo, one should not try to say everything all at once, which is the purpose of advertising and marketing. The logo should meet the preliminary goals of warmth and friendliness. In this case the goals are met, but then they are diluted by adding too many caveats. This logo says too much, it could be put on a billboard with a catchy tagline and be a great ad campaign in itself. All in all, I think it is better than average. I’d like to see how it holds up on a fax. Or embroidered on a corporate T-Shirt.
***
Logos have been around since early days of the Renaissance, the 13th Century. Goldsmiths’ marks, paper makers’ watermarks were among the first logos used in this way, as trademarks.
Even though the word “logo” comes from ancient Greek and it translates to “word” or “speech”, other cultures – the Babylonian, Assyrian, Mayan, Chinese, Egyptian also used pictographs to communicate words and ideas. Traders used to mark their wares with monograms to claim ownership and right to title of the goods.
But it is only in the last century that the logo started generating more interest (and more so particularly after the concept of branding was introduced by the likes of Pavlov and David Ogilvy). Modern history of logo dictated companies to differentiate themselves from their competitors who had similar working products to sell. And ever since they made their entry, logos have revolutionized the advertising world for sure.
August 7, 2007 at 9:01 am
And really….what would constitute an improvement anyway? You could have switched the old and new column and most people wouldn’t really have blinked an eye. I think that companies that are still pouring money into focus grouped logos and “brands” are really missing the point. As Seth Godin said “Starbucks is not Dunkin Donuts with a clever sign.”
Your experience with the product becomes the brand. Regardless of what the marketing department has always thought.
August 7, 2007 at 9:46 am
Totally agree with you. Once they start becoming irrelevant, instead of focusing at the core, they start giving themselves an external fresh makeover. Which I think is a desperate move and won’t help anyway.
August 7, 2007 at 10:11 am
Intel and AT&T logos are definately an improvement in design, doesn’t matter if they really needed or not. However, the Kodak logo is a waste.
August 7, 2007 at 10:58 am
I’d love to know how much they spent on these new designs. Can anyone find out? I bet it was in the millions.
August 7, 2007 at 11:05 am
intel’s old logo is better as is at@t’s as is the old kodak logo. basically all the new ones are worse. estimated cost of asking a designer to make a new identity by an experienced designer $5-7000 . Then if this assignment comes through an advertising agency and is for a big client $12-15,000 dollars+. not including all the formats needing changing (letterheads,billing,products,etc).
j
August 7, 2007 at 11:14 am
James…”$5-7000″…dream on. It’s in the millions as it’s used on so many things. It has to be analyzed, tested, etc. Then there are corporate identiy guides so everone in and outside the company know how to use it properly in ads, on literature, for sinage and finally on products. I don’t recall exactly what it cost 3M to make the change to the simple “3M” but it was millions and that was over a decade ago.
$3-5K may work for a small startup but rarely for something larger and rarely for a change. $3-5K probably doesn’t even cover the designer’s travel expenses in these cases.
August 7, 2007 at 11:27 am
Intel’s new identity is an improvement. Their old logo with the dropped ‘e’ always looked corny and slipshod, and the typeface was about as inspiring as Arial in a Microsoft Word document.
AT&T, sorry, at&t will probably look like mud when reduced to small dimensions, unlike their old logo which held up well in any situation.
Then again, I personally think 3D in any logo is a mistake, so I’m biased.
August 7, 2007 at 11:32 am
Kodak’s unexciting new logo is one way to go – or they could of just continued investing in ASSvertising. Did you see that gimick?
August 7, 2007 at 11:33 am
2D or 3D, at&t still looks like the death star to me.
August 7, 2007 at 11:50 am
Kodak’s new logo does’nt relate to the digital space,they have lost the plot in this space.
August 7, 2007 at 12:02 pm
New logo:
Intel — Nice looking and apt to the business
Kodak — to say amateuristic is an understatement
AT&T — looks like it is not created by design profession. Totally unimaginative
Unilever — Unable to understand what it conveys. Such a reputed company with unlimited resources could have spent a little more time in selecting the all important corporate identity.Best to frame and hang on a wall. Definitely not print friendy or fax friendly.
August 7, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Wow…what a lot of info!
August 7, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Very interesting and informative post!
August 7, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Very interesting. Would like to see more of such posts.
August 7, 2007 at 6:25 pm
nice commentary for the logo changes.
intel – i cant decide if its a major improvement, no originality, but at least they have not spoiled it to a big extent.
kodak – the next time i roam the streets for finding a photo studio, im sure i’ll miss all the kodak shops.
at&t – i think this is a definite improvement. the new logo looks more fun, the old one looked so rigid with such sharp edged fonts. And the 3D ball is more pleasing.
unilever – the old logo looks like a weapon, the new one like a horse shoe. and both look like a ‘naama’ (kannada). except the font nothing has improved.
August 7, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Very informative post and yes logos have surely revolutionised the way we look at products!
August 7, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Very Interesting. I think lot of thoughts go across branding.
Well, what makes them to change their logo basically?
There is a rule to the usage of it also, the lenght breadth etc., In our company, they say this needs to be treated next to national flag..thats the the way country is represented, and this one to represent the company…
August 8, 2007 at 1:44 pm
my view on changes done to old logos
intel has moved inside
Kodak -one has read between the lines
At&T seems to have gone out of the world
Uniliver – seems to have blossomed into a beautiful flower
August 8, 2007 at 3:23 pm
dear all,
thanks. glad you all found it interesting.
ramz,
zimbly zoober! loved it.
October 11, 2007 at 7:33 am
[...] couple of months back, I wrote a post titled Out with the old, in with the new. It was really nice to read your comments and opinions. Let us look into a few more logo redesigns [...]
October 23, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Intel: Change is good.
Kodak: Just simple
AT&T: Just Awesome. Looks beautiful with all type of media. Lower case type makes it more elegant.
Unilever: Trend Setting.