Kodak new logo
- Started
- Last post
- 101 Responses
- bolus0
all good reasons for a redesign aside, the old logo is beautiful and the new one is ugly.
- laurus0
actually, the older is more legible and recognizable even in smaller sizes.
What do you mean by today's standards? I missed the memo.
- kodap0
I kinda' like it.. too bad they didn't rework the symbol tho...
- neue75_bold0
it's a shame the old logo was dope, the "a" in the new logo needs some work...
- puzzack0
yeah, the old logo was getting stale
- PG6620
Man...that new logo is rubbish...the old one wasn't just a classic it was timeless. I bet the big execs at Kodak are patting each other on the backs. Buget well spent...I think not.
- tank020
Respond
yeah, the old logo was getting stale
puzzack
(Jan 7 06, 10:18)explain why...
to me its still fresh, clear and with a good concept.the new is just a rounded serif with an horible..and the lines..its very kitsch the new...lets imitate al those new tech companies.
its a clear sign that the company is struggling about how to position themselves...
- tank020
ahum rounded sans serif
- 305artist0
I like it. Simple, clean... It's a throwback. Makes me want to eat a whopper.
- skelly_b0
I am not saying this is an ideal solution, but for professionals to not respect the difficulty of this undertaking is silly. Kodak is trying to adapt to age of digital photography. With a name that established do they really need a symbol?
Look at their competitors: Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung, etc.
All these are simple type solutions. Kodak is trying to compete in a consumer market and needs to distance themselves from their film heritage.
- tank020
its not clean.
its very sloppy..look at the typo and the lines...
that a his horrible...tsjees
- laurus0
So basically--it's a good idea to look exactly like everybody else?
- ********0
Looks cheap.
No personality.
Poor branding.
- neue75_bold0
So basically--it's a good idea to look exactly like everybody else?
laurus
(Jan 7 06, 12:48)Sometimes branding by association is not a bad idea, yet this isn't the case here, this is just poor execution...
- tank020
to skelly.
its a wrong philosofy.
for instance sony's typetreatment has been the same for over 50 years.http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-35/…
when rebranding a benchmark logo like that, one should never completely throw it overboard.
- 3rr0r-4040
Ogilvy & Mather’s Brand Integration Group designed this shitty logo..
the type reminds me of the typeface by Herbert Bayer http://www.type.nu/bayer/univer.… ... Bayer was obviously experimenting with geometric typefaces... and didnt get it perfect as Paul Renner did with Futura...
anyways... for little more info on the new logo: http://www.underconsideration.co…
- ********0
Red and yellow with that type of treatment = Fast food to me...
- Melvetica0
That's the problem when you get an advertising agency to rebrand a company and not a design consultancy. I know having worked in both areas that advertising is a little more about banging it out.
Having said that, Landor has made a few mediocre logos in its time... I don't know why they didn't just drop the Kodak name and keep the symbol (with a bit of updating) for their mark. Its so ingrained in our psyche that its universally recognized.The new one is boring, and the kerning feels wrong.
- selfproclaim0
They really should have kept some element from the prior logo. Looks like a completely different company. Like others have said, the colors and design now completely mimmick the iconic looks of fast-food America.
- dijitaq0
the old logo has character the new one is blah