5 ms·

I've never seen a major brand complete a redesign without at least a little backlash. People have a natural preference for what's familiar, but in time new bran

I've never seen a major brand complete a redesign without at least a little backlash. People have a natural preference for what's familiar, but in time new brands tend to grow on you.

colmvp 14y ago
True, though I think Massimo Vignelli's eagle is a pretty iconic part of the brand and should've been modernized instead of thrown out. Now the brand just looks bland.
jinushaun 14y ago
You must not be familiar with the history of the American Airlines logo. It's iconic, like the cursive Coca-Cola logo. An evolution would've been better than a complete overhaul.
- _sentient 14y ago
  The same could be said about IBM, UPS or BP, all of which had iconic brands. We now recognize and associate with the new brands, with minimal thought given to what came before.
  - anotherbadlogin 14y ago
    Not really. Sony experimented with a shitty, "funky fresh" logo in the '90s and then went back to the serif capitals they use today. Unfortunately, Pioneer did not have the wisdom to return to their classy-looking logo and font; they continue to use a more recent swoopy, bland, cheap-looking typography.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    "Had?" Check out the corner spot on IBM's page, they actually run though all their previous logos, winding up on the iconic one. http://www.ibm.com/us/en/ http://www.ibm.com/us/en/
snogglethorpe 14y ago
> I've never seen a major brand complete a redesign without at least a little backlash. People have a natural preference for what's familiar, but in time new brands tend to grow on you. OTOH, maybe it's because all the major brand redesigns you've seen have been complete crap... This wouldn't be particularly surprising, because many modern corporate redesigns seem to be best described as risk averse pandering to fads (on the part of both the designers and upper management). As another comment put it, they tend to be very bland. [Of course in reality, it's probably a combination of the two reasons: many such redesigns are very poorly done, but even the ones that are decent risk backlash due to changing something that's familiar.]

I've never seen a major brand complete a redesign without at least a little backlash. People have a natural preference for what's familiar, but in time new brands tend to grow on you.

colmvp 14y ago

True, though I think Massimo Vignelli's eagle is a pretty iconic part of the brand and should've been modernized instead of thrown out. Now the brand just looks bland.

jinushaun 14y ago

You must not be familiar with the history of the American Airlines logo. It's iconic, like the cursive Coca-Cola logo. An evolution would've been better than a complete overhaul.

_sentient 14y ago
The same could be said about IBM, UPS or BP, all of which had iconic brands. We now recognize and associate with the new brands, with minimal thought given to what came before.
- anotherbadlogin 14y ago
  Not really. Sony experimented with a shitty, "funky fresh" logo in the '90s and then went back to the serif capitals they use today. Unfortunately, Pioneer did not have the wisdom to return to their classy-looking logo and font; they continue to use a more recent swoopy, bland, cheap-looking typography.
- rhizome 14y ago
  "Had?" Check out the corner spot on IBM's page, they actually run though all their previous logos, winding up on the iconic one. http://www.ibm.com/us/en/ http://www.ibm.com/us/en/

snogglethorpe 14y ago

> I've never seen a major brand complete a redesign without at least a little backlash. People have a natural preference for what's familiar, but in time new brands tend to grow on you. OTOH, maybe it's because all the major brand redesigns you've seen have been complete crap... This wouldn't be particularly surprising, because many modern corporate redesigns seem to be best described as risk averse pandering to fads (on the part of both the designers and upper management). As another comment put it, they tend to be very bland. [Of course in reality, it's probably a combination of the two reasons: many such redesigns are very poorly done, but even the ones that are decent risk backlash due to changing something that's familiar.]