[轉貼]The Best and Worst Logo Remakes of the Century

The Best and Worst Logo Remakes of the Century

There are some logo remakes that should be praised, and there are some that should be hazed.

When it comes to re-branding a corporate identity, you would imagine that the CEO would take great care in making such a decision. In some cases, this is not true. In fact, there are many cases where you begin to question the sobriety of those in charge when they decided to remake their brand.

Let’s start off with the logo redesign that sparked my desire to write this.

Paypal, *blank stare*

I’m not too sure what possessed them to take their logo, which has been perfectly fine, and ruin it. From a clear, bold stroke logo, it has changed to a fill with an awkward anti alias and two colors that don’t really complement each other. PayPal now looks like some toothpaste.

Kentucky Fried Chicken

Paypal should take example here and learn from this logo redesign. The difference is clear. The colonel has lost the white jacket and gained an apron… to show he too once worked at KFC for slave wages? Either way, this logo has been modernized and I like it. Way to keep with the times.

Hindustan Construction Company

You may not have heard of this company, but they have been around for 80 years, which is probably when their original logo was designed. This is a great example of what a redesign can do for you. From 80s children’s TV to the 2007 internet world, well done.

Dairy Queen Needs a King

Wow. Let’s take a perfectly good logo and put two streaks of the designer’s entrails on it. The new logo looks like the original logo, but vandalized. Graphic designer? No, vandal. Poor color scheme, not sure what the swooshes represent. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

Armor All has Increased it’s Armor Class

Another great example to learn from. Their logo has been tastefully refined and tightened up. I love it. One of my favorites. I think everyone can agree that this is a very fine redesign.

Payless Gives the Boot to a Great Brand

I’m not exactly sure what happened here. A few questions:

  • What on earth is that circular thing? And how does it represent shoes?
  • Are you trying to go Web 2.0? If so, WHY?
  • Did you realize you had an extremely strong brand and completely washed it away with napalm creamsicle?

This is probably one of the more painful ones to see.

Enterprise makes a good move

Enterprise does a nice job here. They keep their core brand of the green to black rectangle while making their type larger and easier to identify. A good move, though I did like the size of the original ‘e’, but I think I can cope.

Astroturf treads lightly

Unquestionably a sharp new look. Maybe because it reminds me of the Patriot’s logo, which reminds me of football, which reminds me of Astroturf. Regardless, the re-brand is sharp and gives them more of an iconic look. Speaking of football, this reminds me of the NFL logo re-make.

The NFL simplifles

These changes have made the NFL logo bolder, sharper, and simpler, yet give you the same effect. This is a quality example of a good logo redesign. Less stars, less clutter, more scalable. Well done.

Jiffylube, Another Non-Web Company Goes 2.0

I got nothin’. Has the Web 2.0 craze spread into the lube market? Maybe it will make for slicker interfaces… bad pun.

Compaq Should Be Focusing On Things Other Than Ruining Their Logo

Feast your eyes on a logo that appears to have been vomited out by a Commodore 64 on a bad day.

AT&T Has Merged So Many Times, It Better Have a Good Logo

A good example of modernization without overdoing it. Drop the caps, a well done 3D globe without losing it’s flatness. Well done at&t. You must have been influenced by Steve Jobs.

Excel Airlines Excels At Being Bad, XL Bad

Speechless. Let’s change our logo from something mediocre and put it in the hands of child’s party favor balloon artist. Tsk tsk.

MSNBC loosens up

The simple side-by-side comparison here tells it all. Look to the left, you feel constricted and tight. Look to the right, you feel cool and at ease. Well done.

Ditech takes a step backwards

Qantas Takes a Step Forward

Nice change of color and type. The kangaroo seems a lot faster now! A nice transformation.

Delta follows suit

A good modernization. I like the more symmetrical feel of the new logo. A good modernization.

Jockey Loses Their Brand

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.

Old Navy Goes Navy

This subtle change is a nice improvement. A little more navy, and a little less old.

Pantone Loses Its Color

like the idea of trying to simplify, but this change in brand is for the negative. How does white and a pastel make me think of color? I far prefer the original logo that really makes you think of pictures and see their company name.

[update] A lot of people have pointed out that I used Under Consideration’s blog to get almost all of my images, this is true. They were my biggest resource. On the flip side, I did not take the guy’s opinions. I am simply putting my own editorial mask on top of his data. Thank you for the concern, though. My goal was to take his big cookie and give you it all in one of those little bite-size cookies. I highly recommend visiting their blog if you want to be up to date on logo redesigns.

Here’s another horrid redesign that someone has commented on from Reddit:

 



[本日志由 admin 于 2007-10-22 06:22 PM 编辑]
上一篇: CI 與 品牌 Part5 世界設計概況
下一篇: 為什麼需要卡通人物品牌授權圖像Why Product need Characer License
文章来自: 本站原创
引用通告: 查看所有引用 | 我要引用此文章
Tags:
相关日志:
评论: 155 | 引用: -82 | 查看次数: 27316
Maryellen
Maryellen[2017-05-07 01:34 PM | | Mail To:maryellenragan@yahoo.de | 192.99.221.234 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
155#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Marina
Marina[2017-04-22 10:25 PM | | Mail To:marinawheen@emailgroups.net | 192.99.221.234 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
154#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Taren
Taren[2017-03-02 02:35 PM | | Mail To:tarenwheen@live.com | 5.101.222.102 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
153#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Ruth
Ruth[2017-02-20 09:36 PM | | Mail To:ruthsynnot@yahoo.de | 114.44.209.180 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
152#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Malissa
Malissa[2017-02-17 02:10 PM | | Mail To:malissa_tindall@t-online.de | 5.189.138.147 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
151#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Earnestine
Earnestine[2017-02-12 05:09 AM | | Mail To:earnestine.metcalf@gmx.net | 202.92.5.188 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
150#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Percy
Percy[2017-02-09 07:44 PM | | Mail To:percybellinger@gmail.com | 138.128.109.190 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
149#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Geneva
Geneva[2017-02-08 08:15 PM | | Mail To:genevadun@arcor.de | 64.110.132.51 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
148#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Irwin
Irwin[2017-02-07 10:56 PM | | Mail To:irwinmerrifield@gmail.com | 173.232.254.55 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
147#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
Sędzisław
Sędzisław[2017-02-03 05:50 PM | | Mail To:sdzisawpieluchowski@gawab.com | 196.196.88.81 | del | 通过审核 | 回复回复]
146#
[此评论正在审核中,只有博主及评论作者可见]
发表评论
昵 称:
密 码: 游客发言不需要密码.
邮 箱: 邮件地址支持Gravatar头像,邮箱地址不会公开.
网 址: 输入网址便于回访.
内 容:
验证码:
选 项:
虽然发表评论不用注册,但是为了保护您的发言权,建议您注册帐号.
字数限制 1000 字 | UBB代码 开启 | [img]标签 关闭