Rebranding exercises and logo redesigns are conducted all the time, however when the big brands are involved there’s always a mob of eager critics waiting to unleash their thoughts. Even the best rebrands take some flack, but the more unfortunate examples really take a beating! Here’s a roundup of 5 recent rebrands that caused the most upset.
Although not a rebrand entirely, the nature of the logo does follow on from previous Olympics and continues the history of Olympic logos. The London 2012 organisation themselves say; “Our emblem is simple, distinct, bold and buzzing with energy. It’s form is inclusive yet consistent and has incredible flexibility to encourage access and participation. It can communicate with anyone from commercial organisations to kids playing sport.”
Do the decent thing and give us a logo we can be proud of and not this national embarrassment. [source]
OMG! The ‘London 2012′ logo makes me want to pluck out my eyes. And it’s going to be everywhere I work. I may die. Or kill. Or both. [source]
This looks terrible, looks like a kid’s competition entry to me. [source]
This logo is f***ing s***. Feel free to quote me. It doesn’t look like 2012 (which is apparently what it’s based on) and it doesn’t look professional: It does, however, look like a f***ing disaster area, so it probably suits the Olympics rather well. [source]
When I first saw that logo, I had to quickly check the date – thought it might be April 1st. [source]
In 2008 Pepsi Co revealed their $1.2Billion branding exercise that is set to change the appearance of the Pepsi logo and packaging in aim to reconnect with consumers. The new logo uses a series of white stripes, known as smiles, which vary in width between Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and Pepsi Max.
Is this a joke? The series of smiles/grins/laughs kind of reminds me of the icons Burger King uses for the varying levels of caffeine in their coffee (turbo, regular, decaf); which are an eye getting progressively less alert. Not sure how well the smiles will translate to consumers. The provided logo, though it may be preliminary, didn’t look like a grin to me, perhaps a grimace. Guess we’ll have to wait and see. [source]
What a waste of money and effort. You got to be a lot more creative if you are to compete with Coca Cola. Look at Red Bull for example. It’s proof it can be done. [source]
I really, really dislike the variation on the ball. Why they did that makes no sense to me. [source]
I’m not a fan. I think it’s awfully dormant and average. I personally feel that the logo doesn’t have a nostalgic quality at all. I think it’s painfully boring. [source]
I don’t like the redesign. Pepsi is one of the worlds most recognized brands, and this iteration appears like a redesign done by a student in a community college and posted it on DeviantArt. [source]
Rebranding is usually undertaken to freshen up an image or push it into the future, Capital One on the other hand, decided to head back in time ten years and add a swoosh to their logo.
I just wish I could hear the reasoning behind that swoosh. When I see a gratuitous swoosh in a logo like this I try to imagine the conversation that lead up to it being thrown in the design. Do people think they symbolize something specific? Forward thinking? Is a swoosh supposed to evoke some emotion? In the case of a credit card company my deepest creative imagination can’t even conjure up what may have been logical to the decision maker here. [source]
It looks like a boomerang. Why on earth in the current market would any credit card company want a boomerang in their logo? [source]
It’s not like the swoosh, as inadvisable as the addition is, was even crafted into the new design. Nope, just dumped behind the original font. With a gradient thrown in for good measure. And what’s that? A bevel too? Worst makeover of 2008. [source]
That ‘thing’ is such a waste. It wasn’t needed, and brings nothing to the table. [source]
The Discovery Channel’s Animal Planet was due a revamp, this fresh logo aims to drive out the raw, visceral emotion in the animal kingdom. Unfortunately it led to bring out confusion and bewilderment from the public.
This is really quite bad. At first glance I said “what?” and upon further inspection the stretched and skewed type made me cringe. [source]
Dreadful. There’s NO life in this logo whatsoever, as evident by the keeled over M. I’m assuming they tried to play with the relationship between the 2 words (quite literally, Animals “taking over” the planet), but it fails. [source]
The signature seems conceptually sound. Wild unorganized, chiseled, sharp, and unpredictable. Kinda like what would happen if you put ten monkeys in your apartment and then left for the day. Formally it leaves a lot to be desired. [source]
Oh my God! Where is the reflection towards animals or wildlife. Just green text. Horrible. The old one was old, but this is ridiculous. [source]
When I first saw it my immediate thoughts were: 1.) Where’s the animal? 2.) Where’s the planet? Really a sad solution to their identity re-design project. [source]
Wacom are commonly known for their graphics tablet products. Back in late 2007 they revealed their redesigned logo and brand, designed by Wolff Olins, who had previously been featured as the agency behind the the London 2012 logo.
Ironic that a logo for a product that can help produce works of art (with technical flair) is so poorly executed. [source]
I hate to trash yet another corp logo, but are any of these companies following their own creative briefs anymore? Was this designed in Powerpoint by the sales department screaming, “it must be web 2.0-ee”? [source]
In my opinion it’s outdated, a mess and doesn’t project anything specific. Awful colors. Whoever accepted that logo, made a big mistake. [source]
My guess is Wolff Olin’s outsourced the job to a “$99 A-logo-Inc” and cashed in big time. It’s darn scary to see this kind low quality work coming from big shops. Who do we have to look up to? [source]
What are your opinons on these 5 logo designs?