View Full Version : Logo season?
01-08-2006, 02:28 PM
Good grief, now Kodak has a new logo as well...
Seems Kodak lost a "K" and lots of yellow. No mention of giant leaps forward though.
01-08-2006, 02:33 PM
Good grief, now Kodak has a new logo as well...Comments here: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=16615854
01-08-2006, 04:10 PM
Perhaps this should have been posted in a previous thread, but since logo season is upon us there might be something to learn in this (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/23415.html) article from Creative Pro!
01-09-2006, 06:13 AM
Comments here (dpreview.com) … Looks like near universal dislike of the new logo. Looks tepid to me, too.
However, you have to love a bunch of professional (?? I assume) photographers suggesting that Kodak should have held a competition and compensated the winning designer with a prize.
Maybe that’s how photographers should be compensated as well: Everyone work for free, and one gets a prize!
Kodak has not said how this design came to be, why they thought they needed it, or who executed the design. But a design project begins with the design brief, and unless we know what that was, it is difficult to rationally critique the quality of the design work.
We can certainly say we hate the result, however!
01-09-2006, 06:25 AM
… since logo season is upon us there might be something to learn in this article from Creative Pro!Makes very good sense. It should it’s by Gene Gable, who knows his stuff.
But the underlying point is that there are so many logos for so many things these days that no one can be certain not to raise unfortunate associations (or trample on someone else’s domain) with any logo.
I think we made a big mistake back in the 1960s when logos suddenly became abstract and sophisticated. Now we have had nearly half a century with these cold-hearted monsters, and it seems clear (to me, anyway) that much has been lost.
The old logos had roots and resonated on many levels — including literal content. (Remember the old AT&T logos (http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/bell_logos.html)?) Today, we rely on a few letters and color choices. Except for Coca-Cola, that rarely is enough!
01-09-2006, 09:30 AM
Looks like near universal dislike of the new logo. Looks tepid to me, too. (...) We can certainly say we hate the result, however! I certainly dislike it. In the original logo the "Kodak yellow" is actually strengthened by the red mark inside it. And that yellow is (was?) everywhere in their materials - bold, solid yellow. In the new logo, the bit of yellow is surrounded by white and overpowered by it - that in itself, I think, makes it "tepid" in comparison to the old logo. But there's more...
I agree with one of the commenters on dpreview that the text looks like it's made up out of two different typefaces; the all-sharp ks clash with the the very rounded d and a (though it's a bit hard to make an "unrounded" o). A modified typeface may protect their mark (as pointed out in the Creative Pro article), but it looks unbalanced. Like they didn't quite make up their mind. Tepid decision making? Certainly not the "old boldness".
I wonder what all their (new) printed material is going to look like - will most of the bold yellow be lost there as well?
01-09-2006, 11:25 AM
I agree with one of the commenters on dpreview that the text looks like it's made up out of two different typefaces … I wonder what all their (new) printed material is going to look like - will most of the bold yellow be lost there as well?Dunno what font(s) they used, but either it was badly designed or certainly all wrong for those 5 characters!
The yellow lines are not weak but spaced badly. I also wonder what they plan to do with packaging. The old Kodak yellow was very easy to spot.
01-09-2006, 01:45 PM
I am inclined to agree. Their brand is (was?) very strong and as you say, you can spot their products a mile off!
On the other hand,they might want to change their image since they are changing their product mix. From film stock to digital, that is.
01-09-2006, 05:10 PM
On the other hand,they might want to change their image since they are changing their product mix. From film stock to digital, that is.I know, I know. But! People retain their emotional ties to a brand, regardless of its literal applicability.
I think marketeers forget that. But what do I know?
01-10-2006, 07:13 AM
I know, I know. But! People retain their emotional ties to a brand, regardless of its literal applicability.
I think marketeers forget that. But what do I know?
Thing is, we all know they're moving from film to digital. Doesn't take a new logo to tell us that. This one isn't visual for me, at least not yet. NowI have to read, and I think having to read, instead of recognize, is a mistake, especially since that "a" keeps making me think I'm seeing a symbol for a short "e" -- dunno why, but I automatically read "Kodek." I must be dyslexic or something, but I "knew" the Kodak logo and now I have to learn this one, and I'm awfully tired of learning<sigh>
01-10-2006, 07:26 AM
… but I "knew" the Kodak logo and now I have to learn this one, and I'm awfully tired of learning<sigh>Aren’t we all, though!
Everytime I install new software and see the inevitable list of new features I just groan. I used to love new stuff, but now am worn out with all the possibilities. I use no more than about 10 percent of the functions in most programs, anyway — an exception being Fontographer; probably up to about 45 percent in that.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.