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.
London 2012
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.”
Public responses:
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]
Pepsi
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.
Public Responses:
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]
Capital One
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.
Public Responses:
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]
Animal Planet
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.
Public Responses:
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
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.
Public Responses:
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?
| 
February 27th, 2009 at 12:50 AM
I like Animal Planet. I don’t like Wacom. Don’t know why.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:37 AM
I couldnt agree more with the comments on some of these brand concepts… London is not even legible. Pepsi… animal planet … sounds like there were too many hands in the pot. From Personal experience , thats what tends to break down , a once, good idea.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:53 AM
I thought London 2012 logo was a joke too :)
Pepsi is just inneffective, but still the better on this page!
CapitalOne look like it’s from the 80’s. The idea is bad, the execution is even worse.
The only thing the Animal Planet logo makes me think is: “WHY!?!?”
The Wacom one is terrible too. Really ugly! I think the logotype is not bad, but even if it was the best one in the world nobody nobody would see it. All attenction is for that horrible UFO.
—
P.S.: sorry for my not-so-good english :)
February 27th, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Some of the designs didn’t go down well with me, but I’m disappointed with how people expressed their dislike of the whole rebranding thing – instead of giving suggestions how it could be better, they went on to viciously attack the hideousness of the posters (aka non-constructive criticism). I hope the designers behind the logos don’t take it too personally though :)
The pepsi logo looks like a step back from the older one – I prefer the older, glossy and 3D feel of the original Pepsi icon. The animal planet’s M look painfully out of place, although I applaud their effort to include some textures in the text to bring out the whole ‘wildness’ concept.
And when I saw the London 2012 logo, I immediately thought ‘Flickr?!’ It’s the colour scheme I guess. The old London 2012 logo is indeed a little bland and boring but they’ve overdone it in this logo. Looks like they have to strike this delicate balance between dynamism, impact and appeal.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:01 AM
2012 is amazing. I love it and want giant hyper-color t-shirts with it covering the entire front.
Pepsi Is SOO much nicer now, except that damn gradient on the bottles.
I don’t mind animal planet aside from the dead M. I am not even bothered by the drastic weight differences (is it actually stretched like some people say? or is it just the juxtaposition that makes it seem that way?).
February 27th, 2009 at 2:14 AM
What about the CS4 logo!!!??? now THAT was a truly strange choice.
PS. Wacom AND London 2012?? surely wolff olins are just taking the piss.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:19 AM
You forgot the tropicana redesign! Hilarious that they’re recalling it now.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:24 AM
I know I’m in the minority here, but I love the new identity Pepsi has. It’s not just the logo but their entire packaging design is minimal and beautiful.
For years I’ve looked at their garishly designed cans and bottles and wondered what they were thinking. The logo by itself isn’t anything to write home about but taken with the packaging it is a major brand improvement that should have happened long ago.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:24 AM
That Wolf Olin guy is a total loser
February 27th, 2009 at 2:28 AM
Don’t forget about the Tropicana Orange Juice re-design. It is being pulled and reverted back to the original design, so I would say it should def be on this list.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:31 AM
The Olympic logo disturbs me so much! It’s bad on the eyes! Just bad!
It’s supposed to be something extraordinary and original for crying out loud, not something my niece of 4yrs could draw in a second!
Olympic Games are every 4 yours! Do they really wanna be presented THIS way?
February 27th, 2009 at 2:31 AM
I think all these brands were trying to keep things simple and different in contrast to so much technology doing the rounds. But I guess no one wants simplicity. There has to be innovation with every re-branding. Do agree that none of this logo is a very bright projection.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:32 AM
The most outrageous for me was the Animal Planet logo. When I’d see this one for the first time on tv, I went like fu*k… man the logo before was far far better. If they were going for a rebranding they should have to be looking for something better rather that this piece of crap.
The London 2012 logo also looks like a total crap to me.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Oh God. The Pepsi logo. Yes, how horrible it is indeed. If anything it’s a great example of over thinking and under executing. Caring too much about the thought process behind the mark and not enough of the mark itself.
This is the first time I’m seeing the London 2012 logo. Wow. It should say London 1984.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:40 AM
To be honest, I like the pepsi logo, its minimalist and the colors are softer, its less “out there”.
The others are really the worse a company can come up with.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:48 AM
Somewhere the designers of these logos are out there. I would love to know what they are thinking.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:49 AM
I like 2012 a lot. It’s ballsy, out there and instantly recognisable. Most importantly, people are talking about it. Wacom, on the other hand, comes off as a bit cheap for their brand.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:21 AM
The new Wacom logo never sat right with me…those gradients look like someone applied defaults and didn’t bother to tweak to make it subtle or realistic…I have no idea what that shape is supposed to evoke/represent…overall I feel it takes a step backward. In all fairness, the typeface looks nice, but I still don’t feel like it expresses the image I have come to know over the years.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:32 AM
I guess we should wait till 2012 to judge about the london logo.U neva know ppl may start loving it.
Other logos are bad.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:18 AM
I think all of the logos are a step back, instead of a step forward. The Capital One Bank logo is the worst though, it has gone back to the early ’90’s.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:37 AM
The thing that bugged me about the Pepsi one is that took away the “S” shape from the red/blue circle and then added it to the “e” in Pepsi. I saw the “Pepsi” name first and thought they were going for more continuity between the logo + brand name, but then they ended up changing the shape of the logo. Just seemed weird to kill it out of the logo and then stick it in the brand name.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Don’t forget that a lot of people think that the new Pepsi logo looks like the Obama logo. Some have even boycotted Pepsi products altogether saying Pepsi is just trying to ride on Obama’s popularity.
I personally don’t think they look alike at all.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:31 AM
The only one that I really find objectionable is the London 2012 one. I don’t understand how the almost chaotic style hints at anything that would relate to the Olympics or to London.
The Pepsi one reminds me of the Obama logo, and I wonder if that was a deliberate association: in this time of change, maybe it’s time to rethink your idea of Pepsi, perhaps? It is different, but I could see it gaining affection over time.
The Swoosh is not the most original logo element out there, but then I don’t want to see a bank logo trying new and crazy things. I would start to wonder if the bank was also trying new and crazy things with my money. It does have a retro and patriotic feel to it, and that’s not such a bad thing for a bank logo.
The Animal Planet logo does feel dissonant, almost abrasive, but maybe that is what they were going for: those animals are real wild just you like you crazy kids, perhaps? Not my favorite kind of thing, but if it what they want, then why blame the logo.
I’m not sure what the Wacom logo is supposed to represent, but it makes me think about an artist’s palette or tubes of paint, and that gets me thinking about creating stuff. Considering the products that Wacom sells, that’s exactly the kind of response they should want to evoke.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Just trying to figure out if my picture didn’t show up in the previous post because of the email.
Also keep up the good work. :)
February 27th, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Their all so bad they cant be separated from each other :-) They are the worst I’ve seen in a long time but I’m sure theres a few more clankers to add here.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:02 PM
i love this kind of posts. At the top of ugliness are London 2012 and Wacom, ironically designed by the same design studio.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:18 PM
I actually don’t mind the Pepsi change… all the others are crap for sure though.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:31 PM
I by no means am a logo designer, but these are terrible. They’re more of an eye sore than visually appealing.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Couldn’t agree more with the Animal Planet logo. I’m actually watching AP right now and cringing at the logo. It’s just sad.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I actually like the animal planet logo because to me the m looks like the stripes on an animal. About the london 2012 logo…..its the most ugly thing i’ve ever seen!
February 27th, 2009 at 3:55 PM
I like the animal planet logo, the rest are disappointing though.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Hi Chris,
You’re spot on, there’s always a crowd of over-eager critics waiting to let rip on redesigns. It’s important to view these designs in context.
I published a similar discussion last year, “When is a ‘bad’ logo design actually ‘good’?
http://www.logodesignlove.com/.....esign-good
Some of the readers here may find it of interest.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Thankyou for the comments everyone, great response!
I love some of the witty remarks made in the featured quotes
February 28th, 2009 at 1:13 AM
Great article! I would add the new “Eni” logo (italian brand) that’s awful and inconceivable.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Of them I like the Pepsi one best. The gradients (inner shadow or whatever) on the Wacom logo detract from its simplicity which is a shame and the Animal planet doesn’t seem as friendly as the previous one .
I guess the best thing about companies that like to rebrand is that it probably won’t be too long before they rebrand again.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Ever since someone pointed out that the 2012 logo looks like Lisa Simpson kneeling down and performing a sex act on someone, I can’t see the numbers anymore.
Sorry for lowering the tone… :)
February 28th, 2009 at 3:30 AM
I completely agree with the negative responses all of these logos garnered. Not just because the logos themselves are bad, but because the size and clout of the companies who chose them.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:25 AM
I really don’t mind the wacom logo at all. I think the font is great at the shape is interesting.
We’ve all seen the interpretation of the Pepsi logo as a fatty, right?
February 28th, 2009 at 4:39 AM
I’d be willing to bet that someone on the client side is actually reading this message board and looking for a new agency as we speak. On that note I’d also bet that there was a considerable amount of design by committee that went into these. Its always easy to criticize the final product and blame the firm but a lot of the time many of these blunders are the result of months or years of feedback, revisions, testing, and client service. A couple others terrible rebrands that come to mind : Holiday Inn, Kraft, Jack in the Box, Blimpie, Wallmart, and yes Tropicana ( whos only mistakes in my opinion were, typographic and the choice to get rid of the iconic orange and straw ).
February 28th, 2009 at 8:40 AM
I think alot of the reaction is overstated. In my experience this always happen when you change something – and then after awhile it goes away. While I agree with the London “logo” I think the Pepsi rebrand is simple and elegant. It somehow still looks like Pepsi even though it is different and the effect within the packaging is even better.
the Capital One is probably the worst as it is so generic and 90’s looking.
The Wacom logo is fine. Animal Planet – not that bad.
Not sure I would lump these all together – why not come up with a list of mainstream logo rebrands that you love just as a counterpoint idea.
I’m guessing the comments below them are from people who have never done a rebranding campaign.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Completely agree, but I would add Tropicana and Dryel.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:49 PM
2012 and wacom are the biggest waste of money i’ve seen. even grade school and power point users can do those designs. shame on so-called professional agencies that can’t let their creative brains run.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:45 PM
I don’t think you can always blame the designers. It is the people making the decisions that have absolutely no idea at all.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:52 AM
The London 2012 logo brings to mind that peculiar subclass of identity design resulting from occasions where community volunteers consider, in the same steering committee meeting, the need for a logo AND the need to raise money. The powerful mutual attraction of these forces cannot be resisted, and stars will collide without a competent designer to steer the ship from the reef of certain disaster. Alas, there is no such person on the committee (nor any decent copywriter to avoid mixed metaphors). What happens? Well…
First, someone who’s been thinking hard about the problem for five minutes will suddenly pipe up to say, “I know!!! We Could Get A Free Logo And Engage Our Audience At The Same Time By Holding A Public Contest!!!” This will get high marks for originality and brilliance from everyone present, and be written up in an enthusiastic recommendation to the Board of Directors, after which the committee will adjourn to the nearest bar.
At the Board of Directors meeting, we will find a respectable group of suits containing accountants, lawyers, hedge fund managers, bankers, spouses of prominent executives, and other well meaning people with all the design sensibilities and qualifications of, say, your typical actuary.
The “public logo contest” design methodology is highly reliable, but only in the sense that the outcome can be predicted with almost 100% certainty. Our Board, like a moth to the flame, will unanimously approve it following a thoughtful discussion as to whether contest entries can be submitted by the public at large, or only by children under the age of 10. Either way, the contest will be advertised in some obscure section of the local paper, with a two week deadline. Everyone will be surprised when there are only four entries, and shocked (shocked!) that none were submitted by the local ad agencies. The designs will nonetheless be displayed in a downtown shop window for a month so the public can stop in and vote for their favorite.
The mother of the contestant who submitted the worst design will recruit all their relatives to vote early and often (which will be permitted, because no one is paying attention anyway). This design will receive 187 votes; the others will each have 1 vote (from the artist, each of whom was reminded to vote when they showed up to tape their entry to the window). The winner of the logo contest will be announced, and will get his picture in the paper. The Board will meet to discuss the best ways to avoid using the logo. Future steering committee meeting agendas will be carefully controlled. No money will be raised. And so on.
Anyway, that’s what the London 2012 logo brings to mind for me. It does not, however, put me in mind of the Olympics.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Wow, stay away from Wolff Olins…awful London 2012 logo and Wacom is pretty bad as well. Hated the Pepsi logo at first but it’s growing on me.
March 1st, 2009 at 7:06 PM
There was actually a lengthy discussion about the London 2012 logo, and why it is actually spot-on appropriate to the city of London.
Wolff Olins is based in the UK, and they actually captured the UK pretty well in that logo.
If you all recall, the organizers behind the 2012 Olympics had set up a contest for the public, to submit what they believed could be a better logo. Nobody came close to creating something as distinct or brand-able.
The rest (especially the Pepsi one) are piss-poor.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:13 AM
I think I’m one of the few who have ever liked the London 2012 logo. I think it’s great. It’s bold, it catches your eye. It’s vibrant, it’s colours can alternate to suit the application.
Personally, it’s a good example of future-proof designing. Who’s to say that it will catch on by 2012? Styles and trends change, perhaps by 2012 there will be a focus on vibrant colours and bold statements?
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:26 AM
The public does usually make a big stink about change. People tend to think that when something is working, don’t fix it, although i do think companies should rebrand from time to time. Sometimes an upgrade is in order.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Some of the others are understandable.
But WTF Wacom?!
March 4th, 2009 at 12:24 AM
1. London 2012 = very good logo
Someone commented “my child of 4 could have made it”. No, you may have a beautiful child but that kid couldn’t have made this logo. It’s too solid put togheter. It is not the average olympic game logo and I consider it very brave to try to break a barrier. The style of the logo, and I am not from the UK, reflects very well what I feel when I think about London. I can’t really describe it but it fits the city in a positive way.
2. Pepsi
Again trying to break the barrier. I notice a trend of rejection towards radical new approaches of brands. True, well known brands rely on tradition and consumers often react shocked when they are offered something they don’t expect. Take the example of the tropicana. Consumers rejected the, very beautiful, redesign of the package. Indeed the new design was totally different but fresh and revitalizing. Same happens with pepsi. I think the redesign is very, very good and well executed but it breaks traditions and therefore gets a lot of shouts.
3. Capital One
However I am defending restylings of brands I don’t approve everything. This restyling is an epic failure. The style is passé and therefore not renewing. It’s not because you add some graphical elements you add value too. The swush indeed is old and done, a step backwards.
4. Animal planet
Better than the old logo but not finished yet. It feels like the logo is on the good way but I missing some finetuning here. Stretching letters is dangerous but in some cases you can, I think you can do it here. But I would have put some more contrast between animal and planet and the texture should be a bit more outspoken so things would get less “in between”.
5. wacom
Ouch … This is teletubbie style. Not innovative. I expect Wacom to pull of with a logo more apple style. Clean, technological advanced, 1 color would have been enough. By all these colors and shapes the logo doesnt reflect solid product design and balance.
One thing I’ve learned is this:
When you show an audience 5 propositions and you let them vote, the worst design will be chosen. Sometimes you have to stand up and show people the way even if it’s the hard way.
March 4th, 2009 at 10:33 AM
I personally think that london’s logo is great, it has a lot of personality and after the excerpt i saw from wolf ollin’s website, the applications of the identity seems like open to a lot of possiblities. i think it`s fresh, we’re talking about the olympic games, you got to have guts to design a logo for it, but this requires the double of guts to present it.
I think the typical “ask your friends for opinions on your work” saying musn’t be very solvent in this case.
now, what i really don’t like is the new citroen logo he made, what a huge stupid thing to do when your brand is so strong to change it that much. although, citroen’s marketing department is to blaim in this case, not the designer… or not? can’t tell.
and pepsi, awfull.
loved the comments about the swoosh ^^
animal: don’t even get me started on it, i won’t waste time in commenting a logo that has photo textures on it.
wacom: nice type, but don’t either get me started on this one. i won’t waste time either commenting a logo with gradients, even less when it’s lineal from dark to white…
Jacob: GREAT work, i love this blog! and great job on JCD. waiting for your 3d project! :)
March 4th, 2009 at 10:42 AM
ok, i’m taking back what i said about gradients. just saw the logo of sony ericsson Wolf Olins made, and i always liked this logo…
but THEY-ARE-NOT-LINEAR-FROM-BLACK-TO-WHITE!!! XD
March 4th, 2009 at 10:44 AM
ok. sorry, but i’m browsing wolf olins work, and that guy is the UNILEVER logo guy!! that man has all my respect, he is a great great logo designer!
March 4th, 2009 at 10:56 AM
All,
Thanks for your comments and opinions everyone.
Kaaliss,
This is actually my 3rd project, my second was http://logooftheday.com!
March 4th, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Don’t like any of them. Feels exactly like what we’re studying in class now… where the design does not adhere to the need of the consumer, rather it’s creating a style for the consumer to follow; one that will soon become a style used by all, making it obsolete…
Personally dislike the Wacom logo because it looks less professional than its last…
March 4th, 2009 at 7:55 PM
that’s right, i knew this other one, another great website by the way. ok, so waiting for the 4th one then! ;)
@daphne: I don’t want a world where design is created by consumer, i prefer one where designers create trends, create evolution, changes. we designer need to educate visually the consumer. If all designers had follow what consumers (and clients) wanted, design history would have been a lot more boring. That why i love and support ollin’s work, it’s innovating and fresh. It doesn´t listen to what consumer wants, it educates the consumer, surprises him, makes him think, react, share opinions, good or bad ones. We designers need to support those kind of designers, we’re not a bunch a lazy guys doing drawings, we develop concepts and strategies and give estethical answers. We’re not slaves of the consumers or our client. WE decide, at our own risk…
March 5th, 2009 at 2:58 AM
Actually dated a guy who was a Producer for the Animal Planet. They were trying to attract more adults with that logo. FAIL
March 7th, 2009 at 3:43 AM
Lol maybe a little inappropriate but a friend of mine said the 2012 logo looked like a woman doing “something” to a man…
March 7th, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Hate that new Pepsi logo!! Ugh! Love the rest though. Nice and very modern!
March 7th, 2009 at 12:37 PM
London is terrible. Pepsi isn’t too bad, Wacom is a joke. Animal Planet, while I don’t like it personally…I can see what they were going for. To me it has an African pattern feel to it, and it seems untamed and wild. I can see what the aim was, so I don’t think its too horrible…I think its definitely eye catching…even if it makes you puke.
March 8th, 2009 at 7:43 PM
I think the London 2012 logo is genius, instantly recognisable and memorable.
The only other branding for the Olympics that is just as recognisable was the Munich 72 work.
I think it would have been easy to fall into the same routine and bang out a standard type face with the colours of the rings somewhere and a hand drawn image of Big Ben.
That’s called playing it safe.
Just wait, the doubters will be converted soon enough.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:56 PM
good stuff. really. it seems like these clients have lost the plot. good for us. our work will get better noticed now. as for the above brands, welcome to the world of the crapiest logos! all the money! sheesh! now i can understand why shit costs so much these days! it’s easier to swallow that good stuff! well done, pepsi, london 2012, capitalone, animal planet and wacome! your brands will no longer command the same respect. adios!
March 13th, 2009 at 12:38 AM
I just want to say one thing to all comments here! remember that the publicity is a way to persuade people to buy products or services, so brands needs keep the consumer interesting in they products and services !simple as that! rebranding, redesign, reanything is just one tool to maintain that feeling.
i don’t feel bad with this! i’m a graphic designer from venezuela and if a client ask for a logo redesign i’ll ask for his needs, his expectations, his consumers, and his consumers needs to build the concept and develop a solution, i care about the social reaction, i don’t make design to offending genders or religion, we have to put all our pasion to make design for people considering the clients side
March 14th, 2009 at 3:08 AM
The London logo looks like the paper that you scrunch up after you’ve come up with a bad idea. The Pepsi logo is a least in the flavour of Pepsi. I like the Animal Planet logo, the type is interesting, and the green texture evokes nature without any obvious cliched animal or globe icons. The Wacom logo could be used for almost any conceivable company and be equally vague. And the Capital One logo looks dated and tawdry.
March 14th, 2009 at 9:26 AM
It is intriguing to see all the negative comments that surface regarding the pepsi rebrand. People find the pepsi rebrand “ineffective,” yet Pepsi’s consumer consciousness has actually increased. The target audience of their rebrand was the youth and ironically this rebrand has captivated our youth and has them buzzing quite a bit.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:22 AM
@antonea: I think your point is interesting at some point, but in my point of view, a marketing campaign is for creating a buzz, a logo is a long term image, it shouldn’t point to create a buzz, it should look at the future. with all my respect for your opinion :)
March 14th, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Kaalis,
Good point :) I never really viewed it individually as a logo, and then again as a campaign. Personally, I don’t look at the Pepsi rebrand and think its poorly designed, especially through the eyes of an average consumer. Yet, as a designer I do look at it and question its stability and capability to stick around for more than a couple years. Pepsi changes their logo so often, I don’t think it will even phase them to change it in a couple of years, and they probably will because its apparent that they are always changing their logo per trend and generation. I think everyone would agree that they change TOO much, and maybe this rebrand will open their eyes to their marketing mistake of constantly needing drastic change.
March 15th, 2009 at 6:05 AM
London 2012? The logo looks really odd. I’d never known much about them before this, so I had to look it up, and…well, I can’t say the logo surprises me, since none of their other logos were particularly great either!
Pepsi? As big of a Pepsi nut as I am, the change didn’t bother me. It really SURPRISED me, since all of a sudden after going away on one of my typical and irritating family vacations to a CocaCola-filled DisneyWorld Wonderland (read: hell), I came back to find that Pepsi had gone through some major changes! My immediate response to check out the website. After some careful consideration I decided that, while it was DIFFERENT, it was not a bad change and appeared more “contemporary” to me. (It might help to know that I define that word differently from most people)It seemed more modern. I liked it. Of course, that only made me more desperate to dig up one of the old cans so I could display it along with the new one on my desk.
Capital One? I definitely missed that one, since I don’t have any cards of my own, nor a single bank account. It’s certainly different.
Animal Planet…? Yeah, I must agree that the “M” looks like it DIED. If they had started out with this logo, I doubt anyone would’ve complained. It’s really more of the fact that they changed it, right?
As for Wacom…yes, that’s TERRIBLE. I used to but from them, too. I used their stuff. When I found out that they changed their logo to THAT crappy thing I decided I needed to either find a new company or beat my head against a wall. Since I’d really be stuck without my tablet, I settled for banging my head against the wall.
That is all.
March 16th, 2009 at 3:01 PM
I’m really surprised at the backlash of designers. Many if not all the negative reivews sound like something a grumpy old man would spout. This is just another transitional phase toward the younger generation of designers. Have we not learn anything from art/design history? Every era has its shift. Our time has come. For the better or worse.
The only thing to do now is wait and see if the money follows. If it does, you’d better grip onto your design philosophies or get on the bandwagon.
March 20th, 2009 at 6:25 AM
Upon first glance at the London 2012 logo I wondered what the odd shapes were symbolizing. When I realized they were numbers I tried to understand what the designers were attempting to communicate with this abstractness. All it says to me is chaos, leading me to believe it might have been conceived during a Colorforms accident. Chaos is not a word I would associate with the Olympics, which are full of method and order. All I can say is it’s good someone remembered to slap the Olympic rings and London on it somewhere.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:44 AM
Pepsi’s riding the coat tails of the Obama identity campaign. Extremely similar logos. Perfect timing, Pepsi. Way to be lame and unoriginal.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Its a shame! its sad to see how designers got paid for making stuff like this, seriously the animal planet is the most annoying to me, its have no style or personality, is not remarkable, the worst thing is that “designers” make things like this all the time
May 1st, 2009 at 1:05 PM
looks like the bigger the company/event the worse the logo design
May 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 AM
I personally love the Wacom logo, i got a graphics tablet from them recently and i loved the logo.
May 5th, 2009 at 7:03 AM
Dreadful. All of them. Had not seen the CapitalOne Bank rebrand yet – though, at first glance I could’ve sworn it was Colgate. I will not put my moneys in your teeth-whitening bank, no sir.
But what about the horrible atrocities committed by Landor, with the Sci-Fi Channel rebrand? SyFy? REALLY?? I actually choked on my morning coffee and pinched myself in hopes that it might just be a nightmare. It could just as well have been a rebrand of Syphilis.
May 14th, 2009 at 9:57 AM
It seems like big companies often tend to over think re-branding. It’s not something that always seems necessary, and sometimes when a company is not doing as good as it used to the first thing to go is the “dated” logo.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:28 AM
I appreciate that the 2012 olympics logo tries to be different but that’s just bizarre. It looks like they desperately tried to glue something together. It may look better with different colors and without the square in the middle.
The wacom is weird too. I guess it shows why pyramids are still so standard in branding.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:40 PM
the agencies involved in creating this “innovative” logos must be using the newest graphic design tools: “ms paint creative suite” and “scratch-your-head-5-times-then just-scribble-what-you-like” plug ins.
August 18th, 2009 at 6:24 PM
I think Pepsi is Okay … But How can this London Olympic Logo be granted? Animal Planet logo also doesn’t make any sense
August 26th, 2009 at 7:00 PM
My eyes looking at the Pepsi’s white stripe as a white pigeon…
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:01 AM
Although these logos certainly weren’t the best, some of those people were pretty harsh criticizers. The London 2012 reminds me of some Colorado ski hill from the 80s. I know the whole retro/rave/80s style in huge in Europe right now so maybe that has something to do with it.
The tipped-pver ‘M’ in the Animal Planet logo really does not make any sense. It looks like they were trying to make a crocodile’s mouth or something out of it.
I don’t what happened with the Pepsi logo. it’s not my favorite but it’s alright. Looks very similar to the Obama logo.
September 10th, 2009 at 10:38 AM
It’s too bad you didn’t show the wordmark that goes along with the pepsi ball. I think it’s the reason it just doesn’t work as well as the last design.
The word Pepsi has always interacted with the “Ball”. This new design is beautiful and clean, but it’s just too far from the fun bubbly brand it’s always been. They lost that message in this redesign.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 AM
whats so wrong about the wacom logo? I like it more than the previous one…I don´t know what the icon means but i´m open-minded and I think that icons don´t have to be graphically explicit, right?
I agree the designer(s) could have done it better regarding the gradients and realism, but i like the colors and the type (actually i think it works good on its own)
Maybe they tried to express technology, diversity (of products and services) I don´t know but I don´t think it´s awful.
sorry for my english by the way…im latin
March 29th, 2010 at 10:50 AM
OK can of worms about to be opened here.. Is it only me who LOVES the new Pepsi logo and font?
Doesn’t it convey ALL what we are taught as designers.. simple.. timeless.. etc.?
Quality!
Louis
March 31st, 2010 at 4:52 AM
As a fan of Animal Planet, I noticed right off that they had changed their logo. To me, it look a little strange at first…it has grown on me–and I like it and absolutely won’t forget it!
April 8th, 2010 at 6:29 PM
I intend to do a rebrand of my blog. I am now worried as this is what I searched in Google “Blog Rebrand” only to find this article. The London 2012 logo does look bad. I’m just hoping mine doesn’t end up the same way.
May 3rd, 2010 at 3:24 PM
The only one I find completely inappropriate is the 2012 logo, and even then, one has to admire the “finger-in-your-face” attitude the London designers took for this. They REALLY should have stuck to the london bus red, however. This blue and pink thing looks like someone blew up Baskin Robbins.
Love the Animal Planet one. It doesn’t look good in print, but they’ve executed it brilliantly on TV.
The Wacom one has good letter-crafting. As for the logo, I can’t stand the smooth shiny gradients, and the yellow thingie looks off-balance, but I feel that this wacky explosion of colour and energy is what Wacom tablets are best known for: helping you unleash your talent.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:54 PM
I don’t have a problem with any of them except Wacom, really. I remember when I first saw it, it reminded me of the circus or something, and the way the gradients are, they make it look cheap. I think it would’ve been better solid gray and solid colors instead of with gradients.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:41 PM
nice
August 2nd, 2010 at 9:49 AM
just look like student works for me