New Farmer's Insurance Logo
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- vaxorcist0
ok, this went totally sideways, possibly my rant..
Logos aren't just "cool designs" ....they have to be appropriate to the brand/company/audience/market... not, they're often re-done in a few years or regretted for a long time...
and I don't think this Farmers logo fits the brand or target market .... of course they're not advertising directly to farmers, but with a name like that, why not at least have some awareness of not being too slick... otherwise, why not just change the name at the same time?
And...even if design firms may compete mostly on "good design", ad agencies with brains and guts know the targeting is what matters more than you think...
TARGETING is a main reason an agency gets more than $99 per logo, otherwise it's just either a "coolness contest" or a "doller per logo" thing... this is why we justify ideas to a client who would otherwise get a dollar logo and turn it into a matter of "whatever the client likes vs whatever the designer likes" and then you go downhill into a messy compromise...
So... this targeting is the trump card, once we lose it, we risk losing our cred and being just another low-budget supplier....
- monospaced0
I think you're overthinking it. The new redesign is a clear evolution, not a complete overhaul, so they definitely took into consideration their 90-year heritage and audience on that front. Otherwise, it's just cleaning up: detailed sun rays were simplified, shield is retained along with color, but without the tiny type (that never worked anyway). And, since they are now just an everyday insurance company, they are clearly looking forward. For everyone saying that this is trendy "flat" design, I will say that it's just clean design. Perhaps they should have used a serif typeface, sure... but I don't think they missed the target, not at all.
- lol @ audienceCygnusZero4
- you know what I mean... families/companies that have been customers for a long-ass time... that's what I meantmonospaced
- Agreed.duckseason
- ...maybe I am overthinking it, part of my guts tell me it looks like 1930's futurism meets hipster flat-design-er-ism.vaxorcist
- aesthetically, I can see how parts of it are quite nice, but what are they trying to say?vaxorcist
- they wrote on every press release what they're saying... but mostly that the logo isn't 85 years oldmonospaced
- do you think there's a problem if i need a press release explaining a logo? i don't get how heritage is a bad thing especially for themdoesnotexist
- especially for themdoesnotexist
- no, I'm just saying that if he's wondering WHY they're doing this, they're totally transparent about itmonospaced
- CygnusZero40
Why is it so little on their site?
- And why is it so big on this page? hehe
http://www.farmers.c…CygnusZero4 - Because they have a douchebag washed up actor on their homepage.utopian
- And why is it so big on this page? hehe
- vaxorcist0
"Make the Logo Smaller" .... maybe that was said in some meeting...
- doesnotexist0
reminds me of this
- I LIKE PURPLEcbass99
- which is basically what vaxorcist is sayingdoesnotexist
- this logo redesign isn't even close to thismonospaced
- it is close!doesnotexist
- they took everything away from the old mark that made it specialdoesnotexist
- they kept all the elementsmonospaced
- I agree that the typeface sucks, and it could have a more hand made feel thoughmonospaced