If "a brand is a promise" as Walter Landor famously stated, eBay and Microsoft have fallen rather short on the new visual representation of their brands: their logos.
eBay has been evolving quietly but significantly and now it's much more than auction-style listings, it has transitioned from an auction site to a storefront. eBay president Devin Wenig said: "the new logo is part of its effort to reinvent the 17-year-old brand and create a new eBay". Unfortunately the new reinvented eBay logo falls short on communicating such a grand promise lacking the visual uniqueness and personality of the old logo which as quirky as it was at least it was memorable and distinctive, key attributes every logo must have. eBay's color palette (also used by Google and many others) by itself is not enough to set it apart and the generic typography dulls the new logo rather than make it shine. The logo is clean but uneventful, it went from all personality to none and so eBay's brand design "re-invention" efforts fail on its core promise: inventiveness.
“It’s been 25 years since we’ve updated the Microsoft logo and now is the perfect time for a change. This is an incredibly exciting year for Microsoft as we prepare to release new versions of nearly all of our products… …so our logo should evolve to visually accentuate this new beginning.” –Microsoft
"Incredible excitement, new products and a new beginning", big words, however the "new" Microsoft logo design does not support the promise they convey. Although the logo does well maintaining consistency of color scheme and the windows concept, it fails however in fulfilling the promise of excitement and a new beginnings, it's nice and clean but falls short on inspiration and in communicating innovation. Unfortunately Microsoft missed the opportunity to use its 25 year re-branding milestone to make the ambitious "new beginning" statement believable from the brand image point of view. I'm afraid most Microsoft users will barely notice the brand's "update" making the re-branding irrelevant and the "new beginning" promise dubious.
If "a brand is a promise" as Walter Landor famously stated, eBay and Microsoft have fallen rather short on the new visual representation of their brands: their logos.
New Procter & Gamble logo
The evolution of the Procter & Gamble logo
Procter & Gamble, the world’s largest consumer packaged goods company, earlier this year quietly rolled out its new logo. With a low key new logo launch, P&G was trying to leave behind the history of outlandish rumors that its "Man in the Moon" logo had a satanic meaning.
The new Procter & Gamble logo had a clear and important goal for the company moving forward, to present a unified and trusted brand, as Landor (the creator of new logo) put it: "For the first time, P&G is starting to talk to consumers as one company, not just as individual brands, in an effort to build awareness and trust.”
The most obvious change from the most recent logo to the New Phase mark is the switch from logotype alone to symbol with logotype. As we saw last year with Microsoft’s new logo, and with logos in general, such a switch is quite common today.
P&G’s adoption of this new logotype/symbol combination is squarely in line with current logo design trends.
Read the full Emblemetric report .
There have been a number of high profile rebranding disasters in the last couple of years where consumers revolted and demanded their old brands back (rightfully so, they are the actual brand owners anyway). When the companies reacted they did it bringing their old logos back rather quickly, such as in the Tropicana and most recently Gap rebranding fiascos. But going back to an old logo 10 years later is quite an unusual branding move and JAL (Japan Airlines) has just done that.
The old JAL logo was designed in 1959 and 40 years later JAL felt it was time for an update. Unfortunately they went from a logo that conveyed a powerful meaning (in Japanese culture, the crane is viewed as a symbol of long life, prosperity and good health, and red is the color of happiness) to a nondescript logo design. It could have been a coincidence but soon after the new logo was implemented JAL started a steep decline that culminated with a bankruptcy filing in 2010.
JAL's president Masaru Onishi just announced that the old crane logo is coming back (untouched, just in case) and so returning to their core values. The japanese consumers didn't revolt when they took their logo away but ultimately they managed to get their logo back.
Read the full story in @issue
There have been a number of high profile rebranding disasters in the last couple of years where consumers revolted and demanded their old brands back (rightfully so, they are the actual brand owner
For 40 years Starbucks has been a model on how to use branding as a powerful strategic business tool. They have build a strong, distinctive brand and consistently implemented it while keeping it flexible and in constant evolution (not an easy thing to do). From the logo to the store design and everything in between (packaging, signage, displays...) the Starbucks brand is beautifully designed to provide a unique experience that has so well connected with consumers.
While this outstanding branding has helped Starbucks to be positioned as the "world's leading purveyor of the highest quality coffee", it's puzzling to hear its CEO, Howard Schultz stating that the purpose of the Starbucks updated logo design is "more suitable for the future" and allows to "think beyond coffee".
From the design point of view I applaud the simplicity and focus of the updated design, however I wonder how the brand name will look and where will go. It does now seem more of a global brand but lost the appeal of a local coffee brand which in my opinion it's a key asset. Eliminating the black in the logo it also eliminated a touch of boldness and elegance associated with the brand.
November 3, 2010
After the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a ban on restaurant toy giveaways unless the meals meet healthy nutritional standards, a McDonald's spokeswoman officially stated: "It's not what our customers want" read the complete New York Times article.
