3 ms·
I have to say that I think the new logo is pretty terrible. It's obvious that they were trying to be clever, but the problem is that, in my opinion, the "space"
by greglockwood 16y ago
I have to say that I think the new logo is pretty terrible. It's obvious that they were trying to be clever, but the problem is that, in my opinion, the "space" is too weak of a space.
The litmus test I use for a logo is to imagine that I were to make a batch of stickers of the logo, that I wanted to go around and stick on walls or whatnot. How well would the logo stand out? How would it make use of the space? And to me, a sticker of the word "My" followed by an underscore does not pass that test.
- lovskogen 16y agoDoes the Nike swoosh pass your test? The brand is the logo, not the other way around. So this would stand out, if MySpace was doing something great. If a logo is supposed to make all impact by itself, and not by the content of the brand – a bright cyan logo with sharp objects would be the best logo..
- marclove 16y agoThe problem is they're trying to do both. Its half graphic, half wordmark. Nike's graphic and its wordmark can survive on their own or appear together. The same can't be said of this. MySpace can't put ____ somewhere and expect people to immediately associate it with MySpace, no matter how much advertising they do to try to ingrain it. Nor can they use "My" alone and expect people to know they really mean "MySpace". Its just a jolting experience. It invites you to start reading it, which you do, and then you run into this underline shape.
- lovskogen 16y agoThat's true, and I agree. I just commented on parent posters litmus test.