Yahoo’s new logo and the 30-day punchline

What happens when a CEO and an intern turn designers? About what you'd expect.

Read the whole story

 

[utopia2]

Happysin[/url]":18pesku3]

utopia2[/url]":18pesku3]Sorry Aurich, but the emperor really does have no clothes. You guys are actually worse than the fashion industry. Did you see the bullshit groupthink madness behind pepsi's new logo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... -for-this/

A million dollars to rotate the old logo and stretch it a few degrees.

This sick crap puts human frailty on full display in all it's glory, and people like you are the poster child for it.

$1m is a drop in the bucket for the company the size of Pepsi. That logo is possibly the single-most important part of Pepsi's marketing and advertising, which is a lot more then $1m. That document is almost certainly designed just to make the execs pulling the trigger feel better about the logo, because a one-pager saying "It looks better and more dynamic" kinda makes it hard to feel good about dropping $1m on an icon.

I don't see anything really wrong about what you posted, especially since the new Pepsi logo has been used to really good effect. Including little things like making the white stripe fatter or skinnier for the Max and Diet lines.

Well i certainly can't argue with the fact that you saw nothing wrong with it, that's kind of the essence of what i'm attempting to point out.

The article makes it very clear that Aurich is threatened by what Marissa did here in a weekend and he should be. His entire industry is built on pretending and convincing others that not just anyone can make a logo with a couple of days, an intern, and illustrator. If that illusion starts to crumble he and others like him will be putting their skills to use by over thinking and over designing signs for their local AA.

(That last is levity, but not far from the truth.)

 

[ChrisSD]

utopia2[/url]":313smrnu]The article makes it very clear that Aurich is threatened by what Marissa did here in a weekend and he should be. His entire industry is built on pretending and convincing others that not just anyone can make a logo with a couple of days, an intern, and illustrator. If that illusion starts to crumble he and others like him will be putting their skills to use by over thinking and over designing signs for their local AA.

(That last is levity, but not far from the truth.)

I'm trying to think of a job that you couldn't make the exact same hyperbolic statement about.

Just about anyone can pick up a programming language like Python and get a computer to do stuff. Why do we need to pay programmers so much?

Any idiot can mix chemicals together and see what happens, why do we need chemists?

Acting? Nothing simpler; everyone does it to a degree anyway.

Writing for ars? Well I've just managed to write this post so they should employ me. Heck, they should just let me run the whole site in my spare time, Nothing to it really.

 

[Massolo]

Some people have a spring wound too tight if you ask me. All this over some letters and an exclamation point really tells me people have too much time on their hands. Yahoo needs to get away from inserting an ad everywhere you go on their site or they will alienate their customer base. Having to watch a 30 second ad for a 15 second clip is insane.

 

[Alex Alegado]

"YA" needs a bit more kerning. Oh, wait, the whole logo actually sucks.

I expect quite a bit more typographic-savvy from a company the size of Yahoo. This logo looks amateurish.

 

[utopia2]

ChrisSD[/url]":2n3j4aat]

utopia2[/url]":2n3j4aat]The article makes it very clear that Aurich is threatened by what Marissa did here in a weekend and he should be. His entire industry is built on pretending and convincing others that not just anyone can make a logo with a couple of days, an intern, and illustrator. If that illusion starts to crumble he and others like him will be putting their skills to use by over thinking and over designing signs for their local AA.

(That last is levity, but not far from the truth.)

I'm trying to think of a job that you couldn't make the exact same hyperbolic statement about.

Just about anyone can pick up a programming language like Python and get a computer to do stuff. Why do we need to pay programmers so much?

Any idiot can mix chemicals together and see what happens, why do we need chemists?

Acting? Nothing simpler; everyone does it to a degree anyway.

Writing for ars? Well I've just managed to write this post so they should employ me. Heck, they should just let me run the whole site in my spare time, Nothing to it really.

You really just made my point and i appreciate it.

You can't program if you don't take the time to learn. You can mix chemicals without knowing what your doing if you want but you might kill yourself in the process. Acting? Well that one is subjective, i'll give you that, but Olivia Munn's stint on the Daily Show comes to mind as to why you'd want a trained one.

Writing for Ars, well if Aurich's plea for relevance in this very article is any indication, you could do that too.

As for logos - yep, a weekend will do'er - and it's got Aurich worried. As it should.

 

[Deleted member 14629]

As for logos - yep, a weekend will do'er - and it's got Aurich worried. As it should.

...except the entire internet is laughing at Yahoo right now. Sounds like the only way it can be considered a success is the theory that "any press is good press".

 

[utopia2]

Happysin[/url]":1g8xdt42]

As for logos - yep, a weekend will do'er - and it's got Aurich worried. As it should.

...except the entire internet is laughing at Yahoo right now. Sounds like the only way it can be considered a success is the theory that "any press is good press".

Refer to the very first line in my very first post in this thread.

 

[Fyrebaugh]

brainychimp[/url]":1pqhem4f]this is exactly my problem with the new logo. it's not just that it's bland, it's the fact that they've cheapened the entire branding process into a weekend exercise. sure, it might work for joe startup who's launching a new app, but when you're a billion-dollar company with an extensive history like yahoo, you need to take branding strategy and execution very, very seriously--people already have an investment in the brand and will have strong opinions. did they learn nothing from the tropicana backlash?

Why do you expect a big company to put more into the logo than a startup? The established company already has an established brand, and public image. The startup company doesn't so the customer is, to put it bluntly, taking the new company at face value. What the logo means to the customer is actually more important to a startup than an existing company...

 

[cp1919]

I'm rather surprised at the number of people posting here who discount in importance of design in a product. But I guess I shouldn't be. I've seen way too many engineer-built GUIs *which suck*. It's easier to point out in a GUI why they suck, and why it matters, since if the design sucks, then it's PITA to use.

Of course it's easy to point out examples of spending lots of time and money for something which seems minuscule or laughable, but to discount effort in something pervasive is foolish.

 

[2136enfield]

Yahoo's logo revamp is lazy.

The laziest is eBay's new logo. It went from from something fun and stylish to a mere Helvetica clone with no letter spacing at all. Unimaginative, plain, purposeless, lazy.

Yahoo's latest effort looks positively breathtaking in comparison.

 

[Fyrebaugh]

There are different marketing schemes out there, gone are the days when the brand mark was underneath, hidden from view, only there because the craftsman wanted to put is mark on what he made. Now the "mark" is a product in and of itself. Instead of a company standing on the history of what products and services it has provided to the public, now the companies want to lure people in with a logo, a made up thing that is not for sale but is designed to pass along some feeling for the company it is made up to represent. Company names are also chosen for this reason. To me it is just a way to obfuscate the companies products themselves.

The jewelry market is still one that tries to stand on the reputation of it's designers, and a few designers are standing on their own now, (Vera Wang, Vera Bradley, Stella McCartney, Ed Brown, Versace, etc..), you buy their products because of their reputation.

 

[Hookoa]

Day 10 was really REALLY better.
But, overall, there was NOT a whole lot of professional creativity devoted to this.
I agree that a MUCH improved and better logo, (if they really felt a change was needed), would've been done best if left in the hands of a REAL design firm with a team of REAL designers.

A logo reflects everything about the company, and once its established in the company's tradition, it should NEVER be messed with.
Coca Cola learned that lesson.
Others.

Any changes to a traditional logo must be done so small and subtly that consumers just don't even notice.
Look at IBM, 3M, USSteel, many other major corporations, including all the car mafgrs over the years.
The only thing that all the fanfare on this LOGO change at Yahoo did was to focus attention on how slapdash and amateurish this is.

Bugger!

 

[quakerotis]

The new Yahoo logo is fine. What I find frustrating after 35 years in this business, is just how critical we Internet participants are.

All the analytics in the world regarding typography and the associated minutia are only for crybabies. Yahoo's logo will thrive and all this nonsense will dissipate.

I look at the logo, it says to me that it's Yahoo. Done. Let's move on.

 

[Devin]

utopia2[/url]":wh9ck3lc]

ChrisSD[/url]":wh9ck3lc]

utopia2[/url]":wh9ck3lc]The article makes it very clear that Aurich is threatened by what Marissa did here in a weekend and he should be. His entire industry is built on pretending and convincing others that not just anyone can make a logo with a couple of days, an intern, and illustrator. If that illusion starts to crumble he and others like him will be putting their skills to use by over thinking and over designing signs for their local AA.

(That last is levity, but not far from the truth.)

I'm trying to think of a job that you couldn't make the exact same hyperbolic statement about.

Just about anyone can pick up a programming language like Python and get a computer to do stuff. Why do we need to pay programmers so much?

Any idiot can mix chemicals together and see what happens, why do we need chemists?

Acting? Nothing simpler; everyone does it to a degree anyway.

Writing for ars? Well I've just managed to write this post so they should employ me. Heck, they should just let me run the whole site in my spare time, Nothing to it really.

You really just made my point and i appreciate it.

Did you actually read what was posted? It doesn't really look like it. Your arguments are so vague and nebulous that it's practically impossible to figure out what your position is.

 

[Bondi Surfer]

Who are Yahoo!?

 

[makemineamac]

Well Aurich, I'm not surprised a Creative Director like yourself, (how many of those positions exist anyway?), is not pleased with an end-result someone was able to achieve over a weekend, (Though as others have mentioned here, it most-likely was not completely conceived and finished in a weekend.)

And perhaps the design team actually enjoyed the time the CEO spent with them on the project, is that even possible in your view? Nope. Have you worked with any CEO's that like to be involved at ground level? I have, they're actually enjoyable to work with in most cases, and like others are trying to drive things forward, not back.

This really comes across as you sounding like the bitter IT person complaining about Macs and iPads at the office. "Who do those senior people think they are coming in here and telling me they are going to use their iPad or iPhone on 'my' network. It's the end of the world I tell you. All in an effort apparently to justify your position?

The new logo is fine. Deal with it.

Sometimes these things don't take as much time as you'd like to think or justify.

 

[nox_nox]

Its OPTIMA!!! Yes there are some small changes, it is just a bad ripoff of optima.

In a different article I read they have a whole new font for Yahoo that is proprietary to Yahoo... I wonder how much that looks Optima too.

On a different note I would hate the logo much less if they actually had a clue how to kern the letters in the logo. The HOO are all way too close together compared to the YAH.

Either way, design fail, company fail, does anyone still use yahoo?

 

[Deleted member 14629]

The new logo is fine. Deal with it.

It doesn't scale well, which makes it not-fine.

 

[x76]

FunkTron[/url]":1s977uf0]

gwguy[/url]":1s977uf0]It's interesting how our perception of the person and the company colours the results. I think if Steve jobs rolled up his sleeves on weekend we would be spending today talking about his revolutionary new design.

If it was ballmer Leno would be leading with his logo as his opening joke.

Now *this* is a bull's eye.

If you'll think back (probably before you were born, judging from most of the comments in this thread), Steve & Steve had the acumen to HIRE A PROFESSIONAL GRAPHIC DESIGNER at the outset, realizing that the polished, professional look would serve them well.

 

[jeffrey_jeff_de]

utopia2[/url]":604b0cf5]

Happysin[/url]":604b0cf5]

utopia2[/url]":604b0cf5]Sorry Aurich, but the emperor really does have no clothes. You guys are actually worse than the fashion industry. Did you see the bullshit groupthink madness behind pepsi's new logo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... -for-this/

A million dollars to rotate the old logo and stretch it a few degrees.

This sick crap puts human frailty on full display in all it's glory, and people like you are the poster child for it.

$1m is a drop in the bucket for the company the size of Pepsi. That logo is possibly the single-most important part of Pepsi's marketing and advertising, which is a lot more then $1m. That document is almost certainly designed just to make the execs pulling the trigger feel better about the logo, because a one-pager saying "It looks better and more dynamic" kinda makes it hard to feel good about dropping $1m on an icon.

I don't see anything really wrong about what you posted, especially since the new Pepsi logo has been used to really good effect. Including little things like making the white stripe fatter or skinnier for the Max and Diet lines.

Well i certainly can't argue with the fact that you saw nothing wrong with it, that's kind of the essence of what i'm attempting to point out.

The article makes it very clear that Aurich is threatened by what Marissa did here in a weekend and he should be. His entire industry is built on pretending and convincing others that not just anyone can make a logo with a couple of days, an intern, and illustrator. If that illusion starts to crumble he and others like him will be putting their skills to use by over thinking and over designing signs for their local AA.

(That last is levity, but not far from the truth.)

Sums up my thoughts exactly after reading the first page of comments on this story.

And speaking of Google -- didn´t Sergej Brin come up with the coloured-letters Google logo after fooling around with GiMP for about an hour or so?

It sure hasn´t hurt their success.

If the product is great, no one cares about the logo.

If the product sucks, no logo will convince people to still use the product.

And no one buys a product just because of its logo in the first place.

What does that tell us about the importance of logos?

Exactly. =]

 

[Chuckstar]

ounkeo[/url]":mlay38lv]

It is important, and this isn't the makeover that the name needed. But the last few years have seen companies spend money on rebranding by the truckload only to come up with bland concepts that looked like they were done in a weekend

how a logo eventually looks is decided on the values they want to impart and project. it can be a clear sign of a direction a company wants to take. For all things design, it isnt about making something look good. We spend a lot of time refining on execution and that's where the aesthetic comes from - not specifically that our intent is beauty for its sake. design is communication first and foremost. a logo will reflect that or not. its beauty is peripheral or even happenstance or consequential as a result of the process of communication.

when i look at the new logo, i see a company attempting to show they are modern and relevant but also confused and unclear of their direction, unclear of who they are or even who they want to be.

the animation, while not offensive, is a clear throwback to the 90's. the simplified (relative) is an attempt to modernise. that eye watering chisel effect just spells complete confusion. put them together and you basicalky have:

1990's era dotcom trying to modernize but is confused up the wazoo.

clearly this is why ppl need to leave these things to designers and brand professionals. owning a camera does not make one a photographer anymore than knowing PhotoShop makes one a designer.

I think you're projecting your biases onto the logo. When I look at the logo, I just see a poorly designed logo. One could just as easily account for that by saying "some people got into some serious group think" or "someone's just got bad taste", rather than applying a lot of pop-psychology mumbo jumbo to the analysis.

 

[Chuckstar]

utopia2[/url]":1rp69vao]Sorry Aurich, but the emperor really does have no clothes. You guys are actually worse than the fashion industry. Did you see the bullshit groupthink madness behind pepsi's new logo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... -for-this/

A million dollars to rotate the old logo and stretch it a few degrees.

This sick crap puts human frailty on full display in all it's glory, and people like you are the poster child for it.

A logo redesign is at least an order of magnitude harder than doing a logo from scratch. Because you want to reference the old logo, but make it seem fresh. Redesigns always look "weird", at first, because everyone is so used to the old logo. And there's always someone saying "they paid someone to do a redesign and they only came up with that". There's always that person because the whole point of a redesign (instead of a from-scratch new logo) is to not be too different than the old one.

But I agree that the drivel they spout in explaining the new Pepsi logo is quite shockingly silly. They should have just said "this is still recognizably 'Pepsi', but the asymmetry in the swoosh creates more of a feeling of motion and catches the eye better" (or something like that).

 

[taswyn]

Chuckstar[/url]":2v2c5g70]

ounkeo[/url]":2v2c5g70]

It is important, and this isn't the makeover that the name needed. But the last few years have seen companies spend money on rebranding by the truckload only to come up with bland concepts that looked like they were done in a weekend

how a logo eventually looks is decided on the values they want to impart and project. it can be a clear sign of a direction a company wants to take. For all things design, it isnt about making something look good. We spend a lot of time refining on execution and that's where the aesthetic comes from - not specifically that our intent is beauty for its sake. design is communication first and foremost. a logo will reflect that or not. its beauty is peripheral or even happenstance or consequential as a result of the process of communication.

when i look at the new logo, i see a company attempting to show they are modern and relevant but also confused and unclear of their direction, unclear of who they are or even who they want to be.

the animation, while not offensive, is a clear throwback to the 90's. the simplified (relative) is an attempt to modernise. that eye watering chisel effect just spells complete confusion. put them together and you basicalky have:

1990's era dotcom trying to modernize but is confused up the wazoo.

clearly this is why ppl need to leave these things to designers and brand professionals. owning a camera does not make one a photographer anymore than knowing PhotoShop makes one a designer.

I think you're projecting your biases onto the logo. When I look at the logo, I just see a poorly designed logo. One could just as easily account for that by saying "some people got into some serious group think" or "someone's just got bad taste", rather than applying a lot of pop-psychology mumbo jumbo to the analysis.

Pretty sure Marissa opened the gate on that, and she did a far worse job of it (probably because hers sounded like after the fact attempts to throw positive spin and meaning on to arbitrary choices in the design). And while you can say "it just looks bad," it's not wrong to in turn also say what it evokes in you, or what you read into it in terms of symbolism. Does it make those things absolutely true beyond the logo itself? No, not in that sense, but it's still what the logo communicated to you. As such it may communicate similar messages to others.

Chuckstar[/url]":2v2c5g70]

utopia2[/url]":2v2c5g70]Sorry Aurich, but the emperor really does have no clothes. You guys are actually worse than the fashion industry. Did you see the bullshit groupthink madness behind pepsi's new logo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... -for-this/

A million dollars to rotate the old logo and stretch it a few degrees.

This sick crap puts human frailty on full display in all it's glory, and people like you are the poster child for it.

A logo redesign is at least an order of magnitude harder than doing a logo from scratch. Because you want to reference the old logo, but make it seem fresh. Redesigns always look "weird", at first, because everyone is so used to the old logo. And there's always someone saying "they paid someone to do a redesign and they only came up with that". There's always that person because the whole point of a redesign (instead of a from-scratch new logo) is to not be too different than the old one.

But I agree that the drivel they spout in explaining the new Pepsi logo is quite shockingly silly. They should have just said "this is still recognizably 'Pepsi', but the asymmetry in the swoosh creates more of a feeling of motion and catches the eye better" (or something like that).

Honestly, some of what they said is quite sensible. Referencing the golden ratio makes sense and is a solid foundation. The same with (in most left to right, top to bottom reading societies at least) a diagonal going from bottom left to upper right as being evocative of upward motion, growth, etc.

A lot of the rest sounds like it was crafted just to impress people who don't know any better and might be happily flattered by it. You would HOPE most executives have more sense than to buy in to the type of rhetoric you'd expect from a MLM pitch, but...

Personally, though, I really think they should have put an icecube in the logo. Just off center, popping up out of the white swish. A silver, metallic ice cube. I mean, the entire logo is basically a circular viewport on the surface of a glass of pepsi, so where's the refreshing ice cube to keep it cold!? And then the metallic ice cube could also represent a SHINY borg collective, since pepsi would be hypnotically taking over the minds of millions with their carbonicy... cola-ness... a shining happy borg collective swimming in a galactic sea of pepsi (/totally tongue in cheek)

In all seriousness, humans are deeply symbolic creatures. We use symbols for literally everything. All of our internalized concepts are essentially symbols or combinations of symbols, and we translate down to symbols and then back out to represented objects. It's how we're so quick both to make positive and negative connections and apply reasoning that easily references similarities to good ends and bad. Yes there are bad examples of people trying to tie in what simply isn't there and more importantly won't be communicated to most people (or in some cases, any, like some of the bizarre gravitational references in the pepsi logo design piece) by the object and its symbols in question. But that doesn't mean that inferred symbolism and interpretation in things like logos isn't deeply important (as some in this thread seem to be arguing).

Ideally, you distill and then package up a set of messages into something more compact which is also recognizably visually distinct to identify your brand with, and hope that when it is viewed those messages will by some degree be conveyed. My personal main gripe with the Yahoo logo is it both sounds (from the quotes) and looks like it's just a flat piece of poorly done typographic work with no intent behind it that then had some meaningless and non evident intent statements attached after the fact. It fails aesthetically on a number of counts, and it fails in even attempting to convey some sort of message. Literally why even bother. And that's before we get into the ridiculousness of the artifact issues at different rendering sizes...

 

[Chuckstar]

taswyn[/url]":1xw51dh5]Pretty sure Marissa opened the gate on that, and she did a far worse job of it (probably because hers sounded like after the fact attempts to throw positive spin and meaning on to arbitrary choices in the design). And while you can say "it just looks bad," it's not wrong to in turn also say what it evokes in you, or what you read into it in terms of symbolism. Does it make those things absolutely true beyond the logo itself? No, not in that sense, but it's still what the logo communicated to you. As such it may communicate similar messages to others.

I have a friend that has in the past refused to fly because he had a bad dream the night before. The dream communicated to him that the airline he was about to fly on was unsafe. That doesn't make it a particularly rational critique of that airline, however.

Mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo, regardless of whether it's only "your opinion". If your opinion of Yahoo is already that it's a "1990's era dotcom trying to modernize but is confused up the wazoo", then perhaps you will find that message in any logo they roll, as long as you can apply enough pop-psychology flourish to the search.

(It's the problem with lots of psychological analyses in general. Within a 45-minute session, I once had a psychiatrist make a logical argument for all three of the following (i) how my problems were the result of too much self-esteem, (ii) how my problems were the result of too little self-esteem and (iii) how my problems were unrelated to self esteem. An analytical process that can rationalize any cause for a particular outcome tends to just end up revealing the pre-conceived bias of the analyzer.)

 

[taswyn]

Chuckstar[/url]":nn9sc40u]

taswyn[/url]":nn9sc40u]Pretty sure Marissa opened the gate on that, and she did a far worse job of it (probably because hers sounded like after the fact attempts to throw positive spin and meaning on to arbitrary choices in the design). And while you can say "it just looks bad," it's not wrong to in turn also say what it evokes in you, or what you read into it in terms of symbolism. Does it make those things absolutely true beyond the logo itself? No, not in that sense, but it's still what the logo communicated to you. As such it may communicate similar messages to others.

I have a friend that has in the past refused to fly because he had a bad dream the night before. The dream communicated to him that the airline he was about to fly on was unsafe. That doesn't make it a particularly rational critique of that airline, however.

Except the part where the dream was not something the airline was producing... umm... ok. I realize where you're trying to go but feel it's irrelevant as an analogy.

Mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo, regardless of whether it's only "your opinion". If your opinion of Yahoo is already that it's a "1990's era dotcom trying to modernize but is confused up the wazoo", then perhaps you will find that message in any logo they roll, as long as you can apply enough pop-psychology flourish to the search.

Perhaps you will. What still becomes arguable is whether their logo reinforces your preconceptions or works against them. Your preconceptions and how they affect your assimilation or accomodation of any message(s) inferred from the logo (regardless of the ones intended to have been crafted by the designers) are obviously relevant to your final interpretation. But this argument is essentially a strawman. No one is expecting a logo alone to suddenly change impressions entirely... it's more how it influences them through what it is inferred to have been communicated, and also its impact on brand recognition.

(It's the problem with lots of psychological analyses in general. Within a 45-minute session, I once had a psychiatrist make a logical argument for all three of the following (i) how my problems were the result of too much self-esteem, (ii) how my problems were the result of too little self-esteem and (iii) how my problems were unrelated to self esteem. An analytical process that can rationalize any cause for a particular outcome tends to just end up revealing the pre-conceived bias of the analyzer.)

So, one supposedly bad session with a psychiatrist of unknown qualification leaves you an expert on clinical psychology, and how in turn all psychology (including I/O and research) must apparently be inherently flawed.

And you're complaining about the logo critiques and related bias effects?

This type of explosive generalization from a single experience and related idea attachment is a good example of why good logo design is important.

 

[IsbellDL]

I think this is the best they could've hoped for. I haven't used yahoo in so long that I forgot what the logo looked like, & likely wouldn't have noticed a change. The fact that people are talking about it at all is good for a company that most people have just flat lost interest in. I don't think it's a great logo, but it's not something they typical consumer is going to look at long enough to care, & at a glance it's still quite recognizable. They now have media interest in addition to a logo that's still fairly recognizable. What more could they hope for from something as simple as a logo.

 

[taswyn]

Chuckstar[/url]":2nhgbavt]

taswyn[/url]":2nhgbavt]Pretty sure Marissa opened the gate on that, and she did a far worse job of it (probably because hers sounded like after the fact attempts to throw positive spin and meaning on to arbitrary choices in the design). And while you can say "it just looks bad," it's not wrong to in turn also say what it evokes in you, or what you read into it in terms of symbolism. Does it make those things absolutely true beyond the logo itself? No, not in that sense, but it's still what the logo communicated to you. As such it may communicate similar messages to others.

I have a friend that has in the past refused to fly because he had a bad dream the night before. The dream communicated to him that the airline he was about to fly on was unsafe. That doesn't make it a particularly rational critique of that airline, however.

To return to this for a second, if your friend were flying on the fictional airline Alvi with the following logo (sorry, it's literally a 5 minute mouse sketch mockup), we would be on about the same page for this to be relevant.

 

[Chuckstar]

taswyn[/url]":1vkmxnyx]

Chuckstar[/url]":1vkmxnyx]

taswyn[/url]":1vkmxnyx]Pretty sure Marissa opened the gate on that, and she did a far worse job of it (probably because hers sounded like after the fact attempts to throw positive spin and meaning on to arbitrary choices in the design). And while you can say "it just looks bad," it's not wrong to in turn also say what it evokes in you, or what you read into it in terms of symbolism. Does it make those things absolutely true beyond the logo itself? No, not in that sense, but it's still what the logo communicated to you. As such it may communicate similar messages to others.

I have a friend that has in the past refused to fly because he had a bad dream the night before. The dream communicated to him that the airline he was about to fly on was unsafe. That doesn't make it a particularly rational critique of that airline, however.

Except the part where the dream was not something the airline was producing... umm... ok. I realize where you're trying to go but feel it's irrelevant as an analogy.

Mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo, regardless of whether it's only "your opinion". If your opinion of Yahoo is already that it's a "1990's era dotcom trying to modernize but is confused up the wazoo", then perhaps you will find that message in any logo they roll, as long as you can apply enough pop-psychology flourish to the search.

Perhaps you will. What still becomes arguable is whether their logo reinforces your preconceptions or works against them. Your preconceptions and how they affect your assimilation or accomodation of any message(s) inferred from the logo (regardless of the ones intended to have been crafted by the designers) are obviously relevant to your final interpretation. But this argument is essentially a strawman. No one is expecting a logo alone to suddenly change impressions entirely... it's more how it influences them through what it is inferred to have been communicated, and also its impact on brand recognition.

(It's the problem with lots of psychological analyses in general. Within a 45-minute session, I once had a psychiatrist make a logical argument for all three of the following (i) how my problems were the result of too much self-esteem, (ii) how my problems were the result of too little self-esteem and (iii) how my problems were unrelated to self esteem. An analytical process that can rationalize any cause for a particular outcome tends to just end up revealing the pre-conceived bias of the analyzer.)

So, one supposedly bad session with a psychiatrist of unknown qualification leaves you an expert on clinical psychology, and how in turn all psychology (including I/O and research) must apparently be inherently flawed.

And you're complaining about the logo critiques and related bias effects?

This type of explosive generalization from a single experience and related idea attachment is a good example of why good logo design is important.

1) You just agreed with me if you think the new logo just brings preconceptions to the fore. That was entirely the point of my original post. But the problem with preconceptions is that any result tends to reinforce them, which is why it can be productive to point out to someone if it seems that their preconceptions are driving their analysis.

2) The fact that I only gave you a single anecdote means I don't know anything about psychology? And this from someone who doesn't understand that a psychiatrist may simply be a psychologist that spent the extra time/money to get an MD? Fine... you are right... psychology is well grounded in empirical studies which allow practitioners to accurately make inferences about internal states of mind from things like logo designs.[/sarcasm]

 

[nibb]

What exactly is wrong with this logo?

Just because every company is flattening logos does not mean every one else should.

Personally, all of this companies went back 10 years. The new Chrome logo is ugly, the first ones was allot more elaborated and nicer. Same for the Firefox logo, the new flatten one is ugly, not to mention Windows 8 and every other company that is following this stupid trend.

The excuse its made because of mobile is RIDICULOUS, smart phones are having more and more pixes and some have better screens than older monitors. So there is absolutely no reason why you need to make everything flat in order to display them ok in 2013.

Also, flattening logos was something of 15-20 years back, because most printers could not really print nicely logos with some shadow or curves, so companies tried to maintain colors and design simple.

This is not true anymore as well. Any printer can print even 3D logos fine! And smart phones display them beautiful as well.

Is the world crazy or are designers just plain lazy? Otherwise please explain me why an ugly Firefox, Windows or Chrome logo that is flat, plain, boring and ugly makes a better impression. Go ask users on the Internet and most agree that all this new logos are a step back.

So, excuse me but at least Yahoo is not following this trend. It would be the first company to do so.

This is simple and elegant. All the new logos from other companies are the ones that like outdated. The whole Windows 8 looks like it came from 1990.

 

[nibb]

brainychimp[/url]":188kr1iv]this is exactly my problem with the new logo. it's not just that it's bland, it's the fact that they've cheapened the entire branding process into a weekend exercise. sure, it might work for joe startup who's launching a new app, but when you're a billion-dollar company with an extensive history like yahoo, you need to take branding strategy and execution very, very seriously--people already have an investment in the brand and will have strong opinions. did they learn nothing from the tropicana backlash?

And with this logic, its exactly why the small joe can compete vs big companies. If you think making something simple over complicated is a business advantage good luck.

You don't need to over analyze and spend months in one logo. If you do, then you are an awful designer or creative and you should look another job. You are talking here about a logo, how complicated can it be? Just because you spend thousands of hours means with multiple teams means absolutely nothing if someone that is brilliant can come up with something better in a few hours. Creativity does not have time or budget. A corporate brand is something that takes time but only if you are out of ideas.

If you add multiple people into that, then I can say the productivity of that company is on the ground if they spend so much time in something that is supposed to be fun and simple in the first way. People that can´t make decision or feel insecure are the ones that take forever in accomplishing very simple tasks.

 

[taswyn]

Chuckstar[/url]":3989hk19]
1) You just agreed with me if you think the new logo just brings preconceptions to the fore. That was entirely the point of my original post. But the problem with preconceptions is that any result tends to reinforce them, which is why it can be productive to point out to someone if it seems that their preconceptions are driving their analysis.

2) The fact that I only gave you a single anecdote means I don't know anything about psychology? And this from someone who doesn't understand that a psychiatrist may simply be a psychologist that spent the extra time/money to get an MD? Fine... you are right... psychology is well grounded in empirical studies which allow practitioners to accurately make inferences about internal states of mind from things like logo designs.[/sarcasm]

1) Umm, no, that's not what I said.

2) Yes, in the rare case, a psychiatrist is a psychologist who went back, got an MD, and spent five years in residency instead of continuing to practice psychology *rolls her eyes*... did you miss the part where I stressed "of unknown qualifications?" Some psychiatrists do go out of their way to obtain strong clinical therapy training. Others skate by on the required training standards (which potentially wouldn't warrant a BA in psychology, let alone an MA in Clinical/Counseling or a PhD in Clinical/a PsyD). I've known some perfectly fine psychiatrists who focused on diagnosing and referred patients out for counseling for a reason. Psychiatry's general focus is heavily on diagnosis and treatment within a medical framework. There's nothing wrong with that, but taking a random psychiatrist's apparent attempt at clinical therapy as representative of psychology is. Rather than assuming all psychology completely fails to present relevant models for human behavior and cognition, you might want to consider that you simply had a bad psychiatrist.

 

[Aurich]

utopia2[/url]":31s00pmt]Sorry Aurich, but the emperor really does have no clothes. You guys are actually worse than the fashion industry. Did you see the bullshit groupthink madness behind pepsi's new logo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162- ... -for-this/

A million dollars to rotate the old logo and stretch it a few degrees.

This sick crap puts human frailty on full display in all it's glory, and people like you are the poster child for it.

You caught me. I was hoping that I was a little more subtle, that I could keep fooling the masses, but the goal of my piece was truly to expose human frailty, so under your keen eye I stand exposed and naked.

 

[Aurich]

nicolette[/url]":2sxwchy8]

DriverGuru[/url]":2sxwchy8]

Smeghead[/url]":2sxwchy8]

Yahoo had a great opportunity to advance the conversation about brand and design...

It's early and I didn't get much sleep last night, so my sarcasm detector isn't so much broken as completely missing.

Please tell me you're taking the piss...

It's always amusing to see these little storms of indignation from designers whenever a major company changes its logo. As if it actually mattered. In a week or two it will just be the Yahoo logo.

"Advance the conversation about brand and design"??? What the hell does that even mean?

It means "make some artsy logo designers love but users hate, and gets reverted in a week", if history tells us anything.

Actually it doesn't mean that. It's okay to be ignorant about branding, you might not care, or you might just never have been exposed to what makes it important or interesting. Yahoo had an opportunity to engage the public on both those levels, but they swung and missed. Is it the end of the world? No, of course not. But it's too bad, because it really was a missed opportunity.

 

[Aurich]

utopia2[/url]":2htueb0z]The article makes it very clear that Aurich is threatened by what Marissa did here in a weekend and he should be.

Oh man, I was humoring you until this, now you're just being ridiculous. Good lord, I don't feel threatened in the slightest. Take your bizarre personal vendetta somewhere else please. Along the way you could maybe learn to read, and perhaps find some joy in life. Both would serve you well!

 

[Aurich]

I also really enjoyed this take on the whole situation: http://ia.net/blog/logo-bullshit-co-inc/

I agree with almost all of it.

 

[DriverGuru]

Aurich[/url]":39a2hw25]

nicolette[/url]":39a2hw25]

DriverGuru[/url]":39a2hw25]

Smeghead[/url]":39a2hw25]

Yahoo had a great opportunity to advance the conversation about brand and design...

It's early and I didn't get much sleep last night, so my sarcasm detector isn't so much broken as completely missing.

Please tell me you're taking the piss...

It's always amusing to see these little storms of indignation from designers whenever a major company changes its logo. As if it actually mattered. In a week or two it will just be the Yahoo logo.

"Advance the conversation about brand and design"??? What the hell does that even mean?

It means "make some artsy logo designers love but users hate, and gets reverted in a week", if history tells us anything.

Actually it doesn't mean that. It's okay to be ignorant about branding, you might not care, or you might just never have been exposed to what makes it important or interesting. Yahoo had an opportunity to engage the public on both those levels, but they swung and missed. Is it the end of the world? No, of course not. But it's too bad, because it really was a missed opportunity.

I never thought of engaging the public about such things as part of Yahoo's job. (Not that most of the public really cares.)

 

[sporkme]

Has anyone ever looked at any Yahoo! property and thought to themselves "these guys have an awesome in-house design team!"?

Probably not.

So one weekend or not, 30-some logos or not, maybe the problem is she forgot to fire anyone that had anything to do with the current look of everything Yahoo when she took over.

 

[smoofles]

sporkme[/url]":64938bm5]Has anyone ever looked at any Yahoo! property and thought to themselves "these guys have an awesome in-house design team!"?

Probably not.

So one weekend or not, 30-some logos or not, maybe the problem is she forgot to fire anyone that had anything to do with the current look of everything Yahoo when she took over.

If any of the stories from her time at Google are accurate, she is simply blissfully ignorant when it comes to design. Which makes me wonder what other things she is blissfully ignorant of. And who will buy Yahoo! in 2 years.

 

[smoofles]

DriverGuru[/url]":1ff79a5l]
I never thought of engaging the public about such things as part of Yahoo's job. (Not that most of the public really cares.)

Big corporations often do; if not more to more clearly communicate the intent and motivation behind the rebranding.

Yahoo!’s message behing the new logo and its design process is: "Lulz I liek colrz and Illustrator. Also, rofl, as a CEO I can haz maek pplz work on teh weekendz! Whoo!"

Frankly, it makes Mayer look borderline retarded. But then, it’s not like she’s been setting the world alight with what she’s been doing with Yahoo! so far. Probably won’t matter, she’ll get her golden parachute even is she completely kills the company.

 

[Aurich]

DriverGuru[/url]":3465fj5t]I never thought of engaging the public about such things as part of Yahoo's job.

It's not. Their job is to make money. But I think we can all agree there are interesting and smart ways to do that. They had the beginning of a sharp idea, then fumbled the ball. I'm lamenting the lost opportunity, simply because there just aren't many of them with companies this size with that kind of reach. Ultimately does it matter? No. I'm not a shareholder, I have no vested interest in how well they do, I'm simply commenting on an aspect of a story that has an angle that's right in my wheelhouse.