Join 3,523 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Naomi Klein approves of none of these
October 25, 2007 8:58 AM   Subscribe

The Best and Worst Logo Remakes of the Century
posted by Chrysostom (97 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
Paul Lukas vehemently disagrees on the NFL one, though.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:59 AM on October 25, 2007


how... boring. Sorry, it just is. And wildly inconsistent. Like, some of the very subtle changes were good, and some were bad?
posted by ninjew at 9:01 AM on October 25, 2007


I prefer the old brown and yellow Tim Horton's logo to the new one, which came around in the mid-90s.
posted by autodidact at 9:04 AM on October 25, 2007


I thought it was a good read.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:07 AM on October 25, 2007


Good stuff. I was just in Korea and I noticed the new Baskin Robbins logo there -- I assumed it was an atrocious Korea-only thing. Guess not.
posted by gurple at 9:09 AM on October 25, 2007


I disagree with some of these, but overall it's an interesting survey of what happens when designers get lazy. Jiffy Lube and Payless, in particular, made me cringe. It's painfully obvious that the firm in both cases pulled Web 2.0 font #4 and Web 2.0 bug #12 and Web 2.0 color scheme #3 out of their ass and slapped it up without any consideration at all for the brand, context or customer.
posted by xthlc at 9:09 AM on October 25, 2007


And wildly inconsistent. Like, some of the very subtle changes were good, and some were bad?

Uh, in so many words, yes. I don't think it's a very boggling concept that some changes could be viewed as an improvement while others could be viewed as not so good, nor do I think that making distinctions between the two is being "wildly inconsistent."
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:10 AM on October 25, 2007


Hmm. This guys not really any kind of graphic design professional is he?
posted by Artw at 9:11 AM on October 25, 2007


And actually, Naomi Klein probably does approve of the ones that got worse.
posted by gurple at 9:12 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


Payless could have done better, but the old one was pretty bad. It looks like a spot from Sesame Street (though now that I think about it, maybe that's not so bad).

And I completely disagree on ditech. The circular swish says "LATE NITE TV SCAM--RUN AWAY".
posted by DU at 9:13 AM on October 25, 2007


what the hell is baskin brobbins?
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:13 AM on October 25, 2007


I will concede that the Baskin Robbins redesign is terrible.
posted by ninjew at 9:16 AM on October 25, 2007


that's baskin b31rrobins, they paid good money for that 31 and the extra r, so don't forget them.
posted by shmegegge at 9:16 AM on October 25, 2007


Tangentially related (read: this post made me think of these and I thought I'd share even though they've probably been posted here before).
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:17 AM on October 25, 2007


When someone engaged of criticism of communication and telling me "how not to suck", he should really keep his "it's" straight.

The new Jockey logo is SCARY, I wouldn't want that spinning ninja thing in my pants!

Is putting more space between your letters (Delta, Compaq, HCC) the new thing?
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:17 AM on October 25, 2007


Hmm. This guys not really any kind of graphic design professional is he?

Well, let's see
Chrys Bader is the lead developer of PureVolume.com and an active member of the world. Chrys has been in the web development field as an amateur since 1997 and as a professional since 2001.
On the other hand, he over-compressed the logo on his site, it's full of fringing, and since it's so blocky he could have done it as a lossless PNG file (or a gif) and probably would have been smaller.

So he makes money as a "designer", so that makes him "professional", but on the other hand he can't compress his graphics properly, and that makes him suck (IMO).

The purevolume.com site looks nice, but seems to be suffering from a bad case of the gradients.
posted by delmoi at 9:17 AM on October 25, 2007


I'm not a designer, but I generally agreed with his assessments. This, however, I wildly disagree with:


I prefer the old brown and yellow Tim Horton's logo to the new one, which came around in the mid-90s.
posted by autodidact

posted by arcticwoman at 9:18 AM on October 25, 2007


The author takes his images from Brand New, which I recommend as daily reading to anyone who enjoyed this post.
posted by SemioticRobotic at 9:18 AM on October 25, 2007 [3 favorites]


The XL logo just reminds me of a t-shirt size.
posted by DieHipsterDie at 9:20 AM on October 25, 2007


I wouldn't want that spinning ninja thing in my pants!

THAT'S NOT WHAT SHE SAID!

I'm just guessing, but is that a stylized cotton plant?
posted by DU at 9:20 AM on October 25, 2007


> Like, some of the very subtle changes were good, and some were bad?

Well, yes. Sometimes subtle changes are good, sometimes not.

Unfortunately, I disagree with most of what the author says - even when I agree with which is better and worse, the criticism misses the point.

And in general I think it's bizarre that many companies which tenaciously stuck with their 60s or 70s era logos (full of geometric forms or, in the 70s, gaudy serif letters with exaggerated swashes) are suddenly ditching them now that the hotter designers are cribbing those styles. The best example is Amtrak, who ditched their Helvetica-plus-arrow motif for swashes a couple years ago, about the same time swashes began to mean 'dot-com failure' and trends began migrating toward basic geometric forms and Helvetica. See Google Images for before and after. In situ, the arrow motif leant itself well to the all-over decoration of engines, rail cars and buildings. All the new logo can do is sit there.
posted by ardgedee at 9:23 AM on October 25, 2007


OK, I don't want a plant growing in my underpants, either.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:23 AM on October 25, 2007


but you do want a jockey in them?
posted by shmegegge at 9:26 AM on October 25, 2007


SemioticRobotic: Thanks for the link!
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:26 AM on October 25, 2007


I disagreed with several of this guy's opinions and he failed to make me laugh. Blargh.
posted by Pecinpah at 9:27 AM on October 25, 2007


It's too bad it's stuck to "the century". A side-by-side comparison of the FedEx logo remake (the old logo from 1973-1994, for those who don't remember it) and the 2003 redesign of the UPS logo is a fantastic example of how one company can do wonders with a modernization while another company can shoot itself right in the brand. Even in the same tiny industry.
posted by Plutor at 9:30 AM on October 25, 2007


Wow, the design field must be really in the crapper, for all of the worst redesigns of the century to have happened so recently.
posted by arcticwoman at 9:31 AM on October 25, 2007


Maybe if someone drew it with a "whoosh!"-mark, this guy could remember the difference between "it's" and "its".
posted by interrobang at 9:32 AM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]


Oh, I get it. By "of the century" he means "of the past seven years."
posted by arcticwoman at 9:36 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


ITS
posted by ORthey at 9:36 AM on October 25, 2007


Ok, while the new logo doesn’t look bad, they did ditch the nice jockey figure which was their brand point. They made the change because they wanted to be unisex, which may be good in the long run, but they’ve lost their brand. I wonder what this tri-tentacled object represents.

Duh. It is clearly a spanking-machine.
posted by interrobang at 9:37 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


I hate the new KFC. It looks like the chicken blood has clotted and congealed into an 80s maroon / raspberry. And the colonel looks like he hits on suicidegirls a fifth his age now.

AT&T was timeless, now it looks like 2002. YUCK.

Delta - horrible. It had some class and identity, and looked like it had some history. Now it has bad kerning.
posted by fleetmouse at 9:39 AM on October 25, 2007


I feel an intense indifference toward most of these-- especially ones like the Old Navy and Qantas nearly invisible redesigns.

But holy cow, is that Baskin Robbins redesign atrocious.

Have they thrown away the whole # of flavors thing that everyone knows about them? Has anyone in the whole world ever referred to them as "BR"? Plus it makes my eyes dizzy and sad.

Nthing the "figure 'its' out while lecturing us, jackass" comment.

I mean, if "my" and "his" don't have apostrophes, why would the possessive "its"?
posted by ibmcginty at 9:40 AM on October 25, 2007


Tim Hortons New Logo > Tim Hortons Old Logo
posted by blue_beetle at 9:42 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well, we are in a 7-year-old century, so "best" and "worst" of "the" century currently don't mean so much.
posted by TeatimeGrommit at 9:43 AM on October 25, 2007


I can't decide if finally noticing the 31 embedded in the new Baskin Robbins logo makes me hate it a little bit less or infinitely more. In either case, I can't bring myself to go there now, not until my biannual Daiquiri Ice craving rears its delicately tangy head. Are there to be no more ice cream parlours, only DIY scoopinars?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:45 AM on October 25, 2007


The Baskin Robbins one is really, really, really terrible, but they didn't ditch the # of flavors. Look closely at the middle. It's so "clever" one suspects that they thought of this part first and then just threw the rest of the logo around it on the way to the presentation at HQ.
posted by DU at 9:45 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: I wouldn't want that spinning ninja thing in my pants!
posted by Cookiebastard at 9:47 AM on October 25, 2007


NAPALM CREAMSICLE!
posted by breezeway at 9:52 AM on October 25, 2007


AT&T was timeless, now it looks like 2002. YUCK.
But at least they still use the Death Star in it.

Delta - horrible. It had some class and identity, and looked like it had some history.
I have flown on Delta since the 1960's and I always thought the red, white, and blue triangles were quite recognizable; why they would get rid of them I don't know.

Also the author states "not sure what the swooshes represent" in the new Dairy Queen logo; they have recently started selling Orange Julius drinks in at least some of their stores so I imagine they are trying to advertise that. DQ has owned Orange Julius for 20 years.
posted by TedW at 10:01 AM on October 25, 2007


And I completely disagree on ditech. The circular swish says "LATE NITE TV SCAM--RUN AWAY".

I agree with your disagreeing on Ditech, but I disagree on your interpretation of the circular swish. That's a laundry-detergent box swish if I've ever seen one.
posted by darksasami at 10:03 AM on October 25, 2007


I kind of wandered around the website, not giving much of a damn until I found a link to- THE TECHNO VIKING. My, my. Germans.
posted by Marquise at 10:07 AM on October 25, 2007


The only one I really disagree with is the ditech logo. The old one was hideous. It looked like it belonged on some cleaning products advertised in some low-budget infomercial. While I don't see the point of the red leafy thing on the 't' in the new one, it's still an improvement on that old, needlessly slanty thing.
posted by katillathehun at 10:08 AM on October 25, 2007


Plutor: "It's too bad it's stuck to "the century". A side-by-side comparison of the FedEx logo remake (the old logo from 1973-1994, for those who don't remember it) and the 2003 redesign of the UPS logo is a fantastic example of how one company can do wonders with a modernization while another company can shoot itself right in the brand. Even in the same tiny industry."

I so hate that new UPS logo. I'm not sure why so many logos need to have that cheesy 3D lighting effect.
posted by octothorpe at 10:08 AM on October 25, 2007


Wasn't there another post here about logos recently, that had a link to a site which did a pretty thorough dissection of the new DQ logo?
posted by Godbert at 10:12 AM on October 25, 2007


I hold the opinion that pretty much all logo redesigns will result in a bad logo. If your logo is already bad, replacing it will only get you another bad logo.
posted by zsazsa at 10:14 AM on October 25, 2007


From my observations, the swoosh does seem to be the hallmark of bad logo redesign:

Burger King (compare it to the old logo)

Radisson Hotel
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:25 AM on October 25, 2007


arrogant blog post by a non-expert. does this really belong on metafilter?
posted by braksandwich at 10:29 AM on October 25, 2007


Just wait until the MetaFilter logo redesign...
posted by NationalKato at 10:30 AM on October 25, 2007


The new COMPAQ, KFC, Armor All, AT&T, and NFL logos are, in my opinion, miles better than the old ones.

Pantone, Baskin Robbins, and Dairy Queen I find particularly awful.
posted by juiceCake at 10:35 AM on October 25, 2007


My fingers flew toward my eyes upon seeing the Baskin and Robbins disasterpiece. I should obviously get into the logo redesigning business.
posted by heatherbeth at 10:38 AM on October 25, 2007


I wonder if the Baskin Robbins change was selected because it plays well to kids rather than to oldsters? Perhaps the old logo makes kids think of some place their lavender-smelling aunties might drag them into, while the new one looks like fun.

The ArmorAll change was good. The guy in the new logo is seen from below, so he's big and he's nobly looking into the distance. The guy in the old one, seen from above, looks like he's a little "get off my lawn" man emerging from his garage armed with an old sledge hammer and the lid off one of his trash cans. I don't know how he'd explain the helmet; maybe the loyal order of something slavic by the look of his mustache.

I bet a lot of the bad ones come from weak-willed designers dealing with bossy corporate types who had never thought for two minutes about logos before but, when it came time to redesign the company logo, somehow thought (and bellowed to all) that they knew all there is to know about logos. "OK, OK, we'll take out the jockey and add the twirly thing from the bottom of the sea." (Why didn't Jockey just start with a new name for its women's line but advertise the Jockey connection in women's magazines?)
posted by pracowity at 10:42 AM on October 25, 2007


I think there's a lot of subjectivity to these. I can agree with many of the author's calls, particularly on the bad ones, but I'm not sure about some of the "improved" ones.

For example, I think AT&T's new logo sucks. It's change for the sake of change -- and the all-lowercase? What's that supposed to mean? A 'kinder, gentler' gigantic phone monopoly? They should take a cue from IBM: make your logo a symbol of your dinosaurean power and size, and don't ever fucking change it. Even when you're wallowing on the edge of bankruptcy. Stop pretending to be something you're not.

Compaq and JiffyLube are both terrible. Agree there.

But the new AstroTurf logo? What the hell? Now I'd look at that and wonder whether they make grass, or go around spamming online discussion sites with fake stories. When your name is also synonymous with an obnoxious Internet practice, maybe it's best not to get all Web-2.0-ish in your logo. You make fake grass, OK? Fake grass. Live with it.

The Excel Airways thing just makes me think that somebody is trying hard to justify the purchase of a two-letter domain name, and insisted that the entire brand be built around that. Someone ought to tell them it's not 1998 anymore.

The Qantas one, which the author thinks is an improvement, I disagree with. I think the new text is harder to read than the old block-sans one, although the logo itself is nicer.

And yes, the Baskin Robbins thing is a horrible abortion. I can only hope that some designer did it as a kind of bad joke on the world, just before downing a whole load of sleeping pills and Absolut and jumping out the window. He'll pay for it in Hell, but the rest of us have to deal.
posted by Kadin2048 at 10:42 AM on October 25, 2007


For some reason it took me the longest time to see the AstroTurf logo as, you know, Astroturf. The first time I looked at it I interpreted as some sort of evil black goo dripping down from the top of the rectangle. And the scary thing is I didn't even question that interpretation; I was just like, "Black goo? OK."
posted by the other side at 10:46 AM on October 25, 2007


Chrys Bader is the lead developer of PureVolume.com and an active member of the world. Chrys has been in the web development field as an amateur since 1997 and as a professional since 2001.

So he's a web developer who does a bit of design stuff, pretty mcuh putting him in the dilettante camp. Speaking form the same camp myself I can firmly say it doesn;t make you some kind of actual real graphic design expert.
posted by Artw at 10:46 AM on October 25, 2007


I'm not sure why so many logos need to have that cheesy 3D lighting effect.

I imagine that, when shown their "old, tired, 2-D" logos next to a selection of the new, shiny logos out there the corporate monkeys jump up and down, ooking and throwing feces which the art department translates as "want shiny! want shiny!"
posted by papercake at 10:59 AM on October 25, 2007 [4 favorites]


I was really surprised at how web 2.0 a couple of those new logos looked.

And I don't mean that in a good way. They are going to look completely dated in less than a decade, and have to be redesigned yet again.

And what the hell was Baskin Robbins thinking?
posted by quin at 11:00 AM on October 25, 2007


And I like the top of the new NFL logo (fewer stars, Lombardi-trophyesqe football) but I dislike the font choice and mourn the loss of the bulbous tip of the "L."
posted by papercake at 11:00 AM on October 25, 2007


Yeah, the Baskin Robbins one is god-awful, but it's no 2012 Olympics.
posted by Reggie Digest at 11:07 AM on October 25, 2007


I'm pretty into the Chevron and Bank of American (can't find an old one) redesigns. Though I'm not necessarily for the trend of "3d everywhere," I think these two do it in pretty clever ways.
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:10 AM on October 25, 2007


old B of A logo
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:22 AM on October 25, 2007


It took me some time to figure out what about the new KFC logo made me feel sort of creeped out. Then I realized that the Colonel now looks like a character from Red Meat.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:27 AM on October 25, 2007


Union 76 is another bad redesign. They've been killing off their orange and replacing it with an unimpressive darkish red.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:28 AM on October 25, 2007


> I bet a lot of the bad ones come from weak-willed designers dealing with bossy corporate types who had never thought for two minutes about logos before...

Oh my no. A majority of those were the result of ad agencies pitting one or two dozen artists at the logotype component of an overall rebranding campaign. These are, effectively, the twentieth-round hybridizations and refinements of two or fourteen different design candidates selected from pools of over a hundred apiece. During which many more are engaged in developing standards for logo presentation, sample packaging, commercials, and advertising, along with long-term media rollout project schedules in the case of the really, really huge companies like AT&T. The whole process is supervised intimately by the clients' rebranding committee, usually led by their own marketing experts and senior executives. It's as whimsical as brain surgery.

For a full-body makeover of a sufficiently large multinational, rebranding firms charge anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of dollars per week. If Dunkin Donuts paid less than a six-digit sum for their Baskin-Robbins tragedy, I'd be surprised.
posted by ardgedee at 11:31 AM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


anyone interested in this topic, see Helvetica ASAP! great documentary. i had no idea how ubiquitous it was or what its connotations were vis a vis corporate rebranding. did i use vis a vis right? anyway highly recommend the movie.
posted by jcruelty at 11:32 AM on October 25, 2007


I agree with papercake about the NFL logo, the top is improved but the typography was better on the old logo.

Most of the rest are "meh" but I cannot get past the fact that the new AT&T (sorry, at&t) logo is really awful.

I'm not a logo designer despite being a designer. To do it excellently is difficult work. I could churn out innocuous stuff like that Jiffylube 2.0 logo all day long--which is why it isn't great.
posted by maxwelton at 11:38 AM on October 25, 2007


jcruelty: speaking of "ubiquitous" and Helvetica, my favorite quote from the movie: "Why is Helvetica so popular? ... Why is bad taste so ubiquitous?"
posted by papercake at 11:39 AM on October 25, 2007


I originally read this as the Best and Worst LEGO Remakes of the Century.

The English language contains not the words to express my disappointment.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 11:47 AM on October 25, 2007


And what the hell was Baskin Robbins thinking?

probably something like, "modern sedentary adults aren't going to go to the ice cream shoppe for a date or a stop on an afternoon stroll because they know that's another 45 minutes at the gym, so we really have to market to the kiddies, but let's throw in a clever reference to the old timey Baskin Robbins so that the adults will feel nostalgic bringing their kids here..."

I think that change at least made sense as a rebranding, whereas a lot of the others were just pointless "let's add a swoosh to show we noticed it's the future!" type things, which just make the company look like it's wandering around shrugging its shoulders, not sure where it's supposed to go. I didn't think the blogger's thoughts were very insightful either, and disagreed with a lot of his assessments (and he apparently got all the images from this site which has even more comparisons). It would've been more fun if the image comparison came first, maybe with a vote, and then the blogger gave his preference after you'd had a chance to view without bias...
posted by mdn at 11:50 AM on October 25, 2007


Small change... GOOD!! Big change... BAD!!!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 11:55 AM on October 25, 2007


I, for one, prefer this to this.
posted by googly at 11:58 AM on October 25, 2007


Oh and his 'good' and 'bad' logos are rubbish
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:03 PM on October 25, 2007


I prefer the previous ArmorAll Viking.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:11 PM on October 25, 2007


posted by Ambrosia Voyeur Union 76 is another bad redesign. They've been killing off their orange and replacing it with an unimpressive darkish red.

In their defense, that switch was not really their decision; it's because Union76 was purchased/reined in by Conoco-Phillips who don't understand that native Californians loved our orange 76 balls. Anyone remember the 76 jack-o-lanterns at Halloween? *sob!*

I'll second what mdn said--I've worked on a lot of campaigns similar to these, and I can tell you from firsthand experience the overwhelming majority of these logo refreshes (particularly the Baskin-Robbins logo redesign) are the result of a desperate CEO and executive board who are out of ideas for ways to revive their sagging business. I once worked for a design firm and we had a new client who also wanted to refresh their logo because their business was sagging. I told them if they wanted to improve their business they should have human beings answer the phone when customers call and improve their product.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:12 PM on October 25, 2007


Disclaimer: I like this post.

Lets talk about those last two reviews....

Baskin Robbins
The Baskin Robbins logo is off-putting, sure. But if it were just the center bit? That's an acceptable concept. Clever, even.
But there's something else to consider. Baskin Robbins's target market can't read!
You don't rate a logo for legibility when you're 4. You've definitely never heard of l337 and don't know it's played out. And even if you did, you probably think it's cool. It's the young kids that used to like l33t, isn't it? They haven’t outgrown it yet. BR's logo looks awful to adults. But to kids? I bet it's at least mediocre.

Pantone
The pantone logo doesn’t look that great as it's presented there, but that's because the blogger does it a terrible disservice. For starters, "in the wild" that logo appears in a variety of colors, in contexts that make its use clear. Look at this Pantone site to get an idea about how it's used. It's something the blogger didn't seem to do, based on his comments.

Further, this "Clever Cookie" fellow doesn’t seem to recognize that the logo is an iconic Pantone swatch. Designers everywhere know what that shape means. He seems to think it's a picture when it's used in the old logo, like it’s a Polaroid or something. This is a flat wrong failure of comprehension.

He can be forgiven, I suppose, because he works in digital and more on the code end, but, um, if that shape doesn’t mean color to you, you're not the target market for Pantone.

And that gets me to my real objection to this blog entry: he seems to think design is about making things pretty. Design is a purpose driven field that isn't about "making things pretty" any more than fine art is. Brand design is about communication and identification. It's about narrative and utility. It's about a whole bunch of things that this blogger has absolutely failed to discuss.

Now, I'm by no means an accomplished designer. I'm barely even a professional by the definitional standard ($). But reading that blog post was like reading a review of fine art that complained, "Was there a sale on blue paint?", or "who cares about haystacks?"

Take a look at his critique of the ditech logo. "The original logo has a nicer font [...]." No discussion of who likes those fonts, or why one might be better than the other. Uh, guy? Tell me about market research. Or evocative connotation, or similar usage, or historical trend, or the changing business environment in home loans with the collapsing housing market, or ditech’s badly needed credibility and legitimacy infusion, or something, but for god's sake, don't just say, "the older one looks better."

He's probably right about the web 2.0 stuff, though.
posted by Richard Daly at 12:33 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


The 76 logo change is one of the few I've ever noticed or briefly cared about. It's not just the color change (although I do love me some orange), it's that they got rid of the freestanding ball. And here's a blog with photos of the jack-o-lantern.
posted by IcyJuly at 12:40 PM on October 25, 2007


Now if anybody was in need of a logo re-design, it'd have to be Sherwin Williams.
posted by mach at 12:41 PM on October 25, 2007


Oh no, no no no. The Sherwin-Williams logo is a classic, and should never be changed.
posted by fandango_matt at 12:52 PM on October 25, 2007


Sherwin-Williams
posted by Richard Daly at 1:02 PM on October 25, 2007


Barclays redid their logo because the old one was a little too Nazi-looking.

Barclays Global Investors used to use the Barclays logo, but changed to this because people thought the Barclays logo looked like a screaming chicken.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:14 PM on October 25, 2007


Don't act like you never thought it.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:23 PM on October 25, 2007 [2 favorites]


The AT&T redesign is crap. Photocopy them and you'll see exactly what I mean. There are maybe five people on the planet that know the difference between good design and bad design, everyone else is full of shit.
posted by disgruntled at 1:39 PM on October 25, 2007


Ha ha ha! And you're one of the five!
posted by shmegegge at 2:07 PM on October 25, 2007


Is putting more space between your letters (Delta, Compaq, HCC) the new thing?

Yeah, it drives me crazy how so many TV commercials do the slow letters-drifting-apart thing. It only reminds me how the universe is expanding and how life is coming apart. It's depressing.
posted by troybob at 2:13 PM on October 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


You know who else just redesigned their logo?
posted by Flashman at 2:38 PM on October 25, 2007


Blackwater - I meant to say Blackwater. That's who just redesigned their logo.
posted by Flashman at 2:39 PM on October 25, 2007


THe Barclays change clearly has the Daily Mail readers riled...

More political correctness?

- Peter Fletcher, Buenos Aires, Argentina


Of course you know who else fled to Argentina...
posted by Artw at 2:53 PM on October 25, 2007


MetaFilter: mourning the loss of the bulbous tip
posted by bwg at 3:28 PM on October 25, 2007


Blackwater - I meant to say Blackwater. That's who just redesigned their logo.

Awww, it makes them feel like warm, fuzzy mercenaries. With bear claws.
posted by crossoverman at 7:57 PM on October 25, 2007


I like the new Baskin Robbins logo, and I can't believe some people didn't spot the 31 in it straight off. *hides in shame*
posted by jacalata at 9:15 PM on October 25, 2007


this person is completely crap at judging logos. i was expecting the KFC change to be rated as terrible - the iconic, 3-color acid house style colonel replaced with a flash/comic sans ms version... rotated 15 degrees?
posted by RTQP at 10:20 PM on October 25, 2007


also, i vastly prefer the original AT&T death star, but that may just be nostalgia speaking.
posted by RTQP at 10:21 PM on October 25, 2007


that jockey thing is either 'pubes', 'a crab', or 'panties in a bunch'...so bad.

old navy now looks like a suppository.

at&t shouldn't have the word 'good' near them for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. shame!

americaturf? wtf? (before and after both dreadful)

i'm with r.daly on the pantone logo...good. the color is always different (it was on the old one too, i believe) and the square really gives the impression of 'color swatch'...which is, after all, their core business.

payless...both horrid, but the old one was soooooo horrid that i have to give it points for successful 'irritising' (a word i made up to describe ads that are so annoying you can't possibly forget them...'chicken tonight', anyone?)

also...on a broader note...logos in general=bad. i figure that they appeal to the part of the brain that looks for fruit (once monkeys, remember?)...identical everywhere u see it, brightly colored, simple shapes, etc... and are therefore somewhat hypnotizing in their ability to appeal to the subconscious. as it's generally only large corporations that can afford to smack them up everywhere, they're just another force helping to destroy small businesses (the true backbone of any economy) everywhere.
posted by sexyrobot at 10:43 PM on October 25, 2007


btw, the average american can recognise over 3000 corporate logos, but can identify less than 10 kinds of tree.

(god i'm an anti-corporate prig today...i think i'm getting worse too...it stems from not watching tv anymore...i gave it up over a year ago now, and i increasingly find that things i once either enjoyed or was merely indifferent to now make me angry angry angry. did you know the average american watches over 10 YEARS of television in their life? think of all the things you could do with an extra DECADE in your life. then join the rational and turn it off) (see what i mean?...priggy priggy.)
posted by sexyrobot at 10:53 PM on October 25, 2007


Thank you, sexyrobot.

And now, with an opposing viewpoint: a sassy robot.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:13 AM on October 26, 2007


btw, the average american can recognise over 3000 corporate logos, but can identify less than 10 kinds of tree.

This hardly seems shocking. Easy recognition is the whole point of a logo, isn't it? A tree's purpose is to reproduce, not circulate brand awareness.... Imagine the day when genetic engineers breed an apple tree that displays its identity, nutritional information and corporate sponsor on its leaves.
posted by cardboard at 10:28 AM on October 26, 2007


How could you possibly leave out that ridiculous new Wacom logo?
posted by meta_eli at 6:45 PM on October 27, 2007


« Older Five Easy Ways to Go Organic...  |  An interesting post detailing ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments