17 Comments

Summary:

Paul Kedrosky over on his blog is comparing the logo-shift currently under way. He compares the old-and-new logos of Intel, AT&T and Kodak and sums up the situation, “I’m generally of the view that this sort of thing is a total waste of time and money.” […]

Paul Kedrosky over on his blog is comparing the logo-shift currently under way. He compares the old-and-new logos of Intel, AT&T and Kodak and sums up the situation, “I’m generally of the view that this sort of thing is a total waste of time and money.”

After gazing at the old and new logos, two things scream out. The new logos are not necessarily an improvement over the old ones. Secondly, the logo-makeover cannot distract from the growing irrelevance of these companies. Kodak, the phone erstwhile photo giant, despite its fancy new WiFi digital cameras is slowly being usurped by camera phones, and logo-makeover cannot hide that.

Intel’s logo makeover cannot hide the fact that is a chip company. Do you know what’s inside your Plasma TV, your cell phone or your iPod? In the post-PC world, no one gives two hoots about the logo of a chip company, or the chip company itself. Does Broadcom brand itself? Broadcom what? In other words, Intel Leap Ahead, well that’s Intel trying to convince itself of its relevance. AT&T’s new logo? Its a bell company backing to being a bell company? Enough said!

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. And really….what would constitute an improvement anyway? You could have switched the old and new column and most people wouldn’t really have blinked an eye. I think that companies that are still pouring money into focus grouped logos and “brands” are really missing the point. As Seth Godin said “Starbucks is not Dunkin Donuts with a clever sign.”

    Your experience with the product becomes the brand. Regardless of what the marketing department has always thought.

  2. matt, all right i admit, i was trying to be polite here, and not say that it is plain dumb move and waste of dollars. and what’s worse the old ones looked just fine to me.

  3. Niranjan Kunwar Saturday, January 7, 2006

    Totally agree with you. Once they start becoming irrelevant, instead of focusing at the core, they start giving themselves an external fresh makeover. Which I think is a desperate move and won’t help anyway.

  4. Intel and AT&T logos are definately an improvement in design, doesn’t matter if they really needed or not. However, the Kodak logo is a waste.

  5. Kodak, phone giant? excuse me?

  6. I’d love to know how much they spent on these new designs. Can anyone find out? I bet it was in the millions. Only a behemoth can be that obtuse, a sure indication that their carcasses will soon offer some tasty pickings for more nimble predators.

  7. when did kodak become phone gaint?according to me changing logos is a way of adverstising.

  8. James Bowskill Saturday, January 7, 2006

    New Year New Logos: AT&T, intel & Kodak Rebrand

    Out with the old, in with the new. This month has seen new branding for 3 major American corporations, and with the shiny new logos comes the usual corporate babble….

  9. arun and anon…. good catch. sorry for not proof reading! oops. too quick to get out of the apartment today!

  10. intel’s old logo is better as is at@t’s as is the old kodak logo. basically all the new ones are worse. estimated cost of asking a designer to make a new identity by an experienced designer $5-7000 . Then if this assignment comes through an advertising agency and is for a big client $12-15,000 dollars+. not including all the formats needing changing (letterheads,billing,products,etc). j

Comments have been disabled for this post