Opinion BY Armin

Aol. Generation. Next.

Malpractice in blogging isn’t telling lies or being inflammatory or defamatory. It’s being late. Some blog, somewhere will be there first and drag your late traffic away. It’s not every day that Gawker, the Huffington Post, the New York Times, and Fast Company, among other mainstream news sources cover an identity redesign before we do but such was the case with yesterday’s news of the new identity for AOL designed by every designer’s favorite hate piñata, Wolff Olins. For what it’s worth, I was up at my usual 5:30 am yesterday with this news in my lap and I decided against putting it up immediately, patiently waiting for some additional material solely distributed to our loyal readers. The gamble didn’t quite pay off, at least not yet; I might have something new later in the day, but I know you are all very much ready for this.

First, however, the basic premise of what we are looking at: After making the announcement in May of this year, this upcoming December 10, 2009 AOL will become independent from Time Warner, nine years after the two merged to create one of the largest entertainment companies in the world. In that span of nine years, the online world that AOL ruled at the turn of the century, is a completely different organism, populated by people for whom AOL is a punch-line, or a sad reminder that they paid $10 to see You’ve Got Mail, or, most probably, people that have never used AOL at all. This, in some sort of perverse way, is actually the perfect opportunity for AOL to reinvent and position itself as some sort of content catalyst for a new generation of users that either have forgotten about the legacy of AOL or are hearing about it for the first time. But I am getting ahead of myself. Let’s turn to the press release that sets up AOL as a content-driven organization — let’s not forget they own web juggernauts like TMZ and Engadget — and puts its executives already at the the defensive before anyone has even offended them:

AOL today previewed its new brand identity for its future as an independent company committed to creating the world’s most simple and stimulating content and online experiences.

The new AOL brand identity is a simple, confident logotype, revealed by ever-changing images. It’s one consistent logo with countless ways to reveal. The new brand identity will be fully unveiled on December 10, when AOL common stock begins trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

“Our new identity is uniquely dynamic. Our business is focused on creating world-class experiences for consumers and AOL is centered on creative and talented people — employees, partners, and advertisers. We have a clear strategy that we are passionate about and we plan on standing behind the AOL brand as we take the company into the next decade,” said Tim Armstrong, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AOL.
[Emphasis above mine]

A brand video introducing the “reveal” concept of the logo.

The logo can be revealed through anything, from a goldfish to any number of swirls.

Brand New Photoshops so that you don’t have to: Here is the typography isolated.

So there you have the essence of it: No more uppercase “AOL” now it’s title case “Aol.” with a period; the period serves to establish AOL’s content structure as in Aol.Classifieds or Aol.Personals; it’s bare bones sans serif typography; and it’s a bunch of wild card images/objects/whathaveyous that stand behind in order to reveal the logo. Unfortunately this is prime for easy hating as the buzz around the blogs and news outlets has already proven. Truth be told, the way the unveiling was handled, AOL and Wolff Olins got what they deserved, which is rather unfortunate. In most cases you can judge an identity simply by looking at the logo, as it is the root from which the rest of the identity has to bloom but in this case, releasing randomly selected images that look really goofy as a viral JPEG, does not help establish the AOL logo as a root that must spread across a whole jungle. Yes, I’ll stop with the gardening metaphors.

I am guessing that on December 10, the AOL universe will be flipped on its head and its main web site and content sites will be transformed to showcase the new identity. Without this backdrop, the logo unveiling is premature. Consider our recent MSN.com post: The majority of the comments hated the logo but acknowledged that the web site was a vast improvement; even if the logo was a fail, the reboot demanded more careful consideration. Yesterday’s AOL announcement of a look that is revolutionary for them served mostly as a reminder of the dullness that AOL is trying to make us forget.

I am probably one of the sole cheerleaders of Wolff Olins — Wacom notwithstanding — and their weird ways, and I have to say that this is a strong identity hindered by a weak start. As the motion work above shows, the logo is simply a foggy window to what lies behind it, and when executed correctly it can be fairly arresting. The static logos are timid and too random — although the goldfish is a nice to nod to founder Michael Wolff — and I really hope there is more behind the curtain that we haven’t seen. If AOL is committed to shedding not just its Time Warner shares but also its public perception as a web dinosaur then this identity can do it for them. It might take a few years for it to stick but, perhaps foolishly, I do believe in it.

The biggest problem I have with the identity is that, maybe unknowingly, AOL has set itself up for an endless barrage of visual mockery. Anyone with Arial on their machine will be more than happy to slap an “Aol.” on whatever they find funny or demeaning. I don’t find the below particularly funny (except the Peanut Butter Jelly Time banana) and I am not trying to be immature but when you are a media giant, vulnerable to an endless array of criticism, you have to be careful what ammunition you give your haters.

Sorry AOL, this is just a benevolent sampling of what you are up against!

UPDATE 01: Here are some proof-of-concept images with the new identity. Thank you, you know who.

Thanks to everyone for the tip.

DATE: Nov.24.2009CATEGORY: Culture 181 COMMENTS

Jeff Peppers’s comment is:

my opinion is that while the original was simple, and aol may have needed a rebrand to regather the public's attention - what sort of a product can they offer the general public? they'd do themselves a favor in changing their name entirely.

On Nov.24.2009 at 10:47 AM

Dave’s comment is:

AOL is still in business?

On Nov.24.2009 at 10:49 AM

Tony Vlismas’s comment is:

I love how you put the "Aol." in the upper-right box, next to the Brand New logo :)

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:01 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

Beat me to the punch BWJ, ha ha.

Please tell me they did not co-opt the devil's horns from all metal-lovers around the globe?

Now you've done and done it, Aol. Ronnie James Dio as well as Gene Simmons are gonna be p#ssed!

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:02 AM

Patrick Algrim’s comment is:

Incredibly interesting that Wolff Olins would choose this route. I think AOL still has print material, or maybe I just don't get those stupid CD's in the mail anymore... But, I don't think any of the variations would print very well. Not very elastic.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:06 AM

Rob O.’s comment is:

Hey now, I think you've unfairly maligned "You've Got Mail." That was actually a very charming and sorta clever movie.

AOL, on the other hand, is so clueless that they've yet to figure out that their 15 minutes were up more than a decade ago. They shot themselves in the foot by adhering to their closed, proprietary email & messaging. Just as you said, they're little more than a punchline now - and even that's only likely to get a chuckle from us older Gen X folks.

I'll give Steve Case & gang their due props for what they set in motion more than 2 decades ago with PC Link (the precursor to AOL). America Online was really years ahead of the curve, serving as the "WWW" back when only text-based Internet existed. But AOL's doors should've been long since shuttered.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:13 AM

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

AWALL is coming??

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:14 AM

Dennis’s comment is:

They forgot the 'h' and the 'e'. Remember when you would open your mailbox and get a couple of AOL CDs?

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:15 AM

Ben’s comment is:

Am I the only one that reads it as a word because of the period and sentence cap? Aol. A-ole. A-hole. You see how poorly this could go.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:16 AM

DANBILLION’s comment is:

They should put a question mark in place of the period since nobody will know what they're looking at.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:16 AM

Jacob Rens’s comment is:

The impression I get from the branding is that AOL itself is nothing, and relies entirely on the content which it sits upon. Plus, Aol? Is that still an acronym in that form?

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:20 AM

John McCollum’s comment is:

Lol.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:22 AM

Casey’s comment is:

Armin, AOL doesn't get TMZ after the demerger. They currently jointly own it with another TW property, Telepictures Productions, who will take full ownership once the separation takes place. AOL will, however, receive a payment for marketing the site. - C

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:23 AM

Erwin’s comment is:

Not familiar with AOL or it's history, but I'm willing to give this a try. I actually like the vid, the appearing and disappearing of the logo is clever, and with pretty background anims or images it's not all that bad... But that's motion, on print I don't like it as it's kind of dull and the logo itself isn't terrific, AGAIN with the dot????? Please!

But I'm curious!

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:27 AM

TFHackett’s comment is:

Remember when you would open your mailbox and get a couple of AOL CDs?

Hell, I remember the AOL floppies, which you could at least erase and reuse.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:28 AM

Catherine’s comment is:

I like the idea of a simple logo that is versatile enough to fit on many images (even considering the "ammunition" you give haters, haha). I think that's pretty descriptive of their business, anyhow. But as for the lowercase and period, I just don't think it reads right. I liked AOL because it read just like that - A-O-L. But this new logo feels like it's supposed to be read as a word, like "ay-ol". It's not just a new way of looking at the logo, but a new way of understanding it and reading it altogether.

Maybe Aol. needs that though? I guess only time will tell the success of the logo.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:29 AM

Kevin Tucker’s comment is:

Like you say, we should hold off full judgement until we see how it's implemented, but this seems like a great move for them. In other words, it's terrible. But it's far less terrible than practically everything they've done before. But that's not something that's really worth celebrating.

So, now, rather than "AOL" it's "Aol." I'm not sure how to pronounce the new name of the company. Since it's now a word, rather than an acronym, is it supposed to sound like "owl" or more like "aioli" but without the last "i" ? As for the period, I don't understand the idea that it "serves to establish AOL’s content structure as in Aol.Classifieds or Aol.Personals" - that makes it seem like a subdomain, as if "Aol" is a division of "Classifieds" or "Personals". If the idea is to unify all their brands together, it would make more sense for it to be ".Aol", but then that just brings to mind ".Mac" and that never really made sense either.

I think trying to stretch to find too much meaning in the period or spelling is overkill. What this is, is simply an attempt to come across as confident. It's "Aol. Period." They're standing firm behind the name, which is admirable in a way, but what I can see of the implementation comes across as ... sorry, I fell asleep for a second there while staring at the images above. What was I saying?

Anyway, as "blah" as it may be, at least it's not the chronically off-center teal swirly pyramid monstrosity of a logo that already looked like a moldy Trapper Keeper when it was released in the early 90s.
http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/brands/0001/1969/brand.gif

I can't help but think that there's so little brand equity left in "Aol" that they would have been better off to create a new name for the group that is being spun off (like a couple of others have already suggested above), and continue to operate whatever services AOL still offers as an ISP as a division of that group. I mean, wouldn't they have a slightly better public opinion if they named it The Mapquest Moviefone Group? .... For that matter, wouldn't they have a slightly better public opinion if they named it The Compuserve Netscape Group? ;)

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:32 AM

Ryan K’s comment is:

Oh AOL. I remember my love hate relationship with you back in the day.

I don't love it and I don't hate it. I'm willing to see what they do with it. I'm also interested what they have up their sleeves...maybe some kind of new app or program, Aol AIM with Facebook and Twitter integrated (which maybe they have I don't use AIM so I wouldn't knwo). They need something to bring awareness back, and I hope it's not just a site redo.

Speaking of AOL CDs and floppies, I bet I can still find a stack of both hiding somewhere in my parents house. I used to put them in the microwave or throw them around the house, or see how many you can break at one time. After we cancelled back in the 90s I think they used to send a CD every week begging us to come back as a deep discount.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:39 AM

Koyo’s comment is:

Simple as weak.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:47 AM

Denny’s comment is:

I'm totally on board.
Wolff Olins owns the future.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:49 AM

Joachim’s comment is:

I think the acronym change is an attempt to appeal to the younger online generation, especially with the lazy use of acronyms these days where "LOL" is now "lol." Hence, "Aol." Problem is, it looks like a word rather than an acronym.

Maybe it's a reason or simply Wolff Olins experimenting as usual.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:53 AM

Luke Lisi’s comment is:

lmfao(l)

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:57 AM

Brendan’s comment is:

It's not that the concept is bad...I think I just really dislike the images that are put behind it. But maybe these are just microstock (I know I've seen that fish before) that will be replaced with better images.

I'll wait until the full unveiling.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:00 PM

artiepants’s comment is:

Lol.

too soon?

seriously though, as yoda might say, a strong brand built upon weak typography and imagery one cannot.

(i wouldn't find this HALF as embarrassing if they'd done it as "aol." instead of "Aol.")

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:00 PM

doohiggy’s comment is:

Yes, AIM has facebook and twitter built in. It's called Lifestream. In AOL webmail, the AIM plugin also has facebook and twitter built in, so you can facebook/twitter/email all from one interface.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:11 PM

Kaz’s comment is:

AOL? I din't even knew they still existed, I though they were extinct like all those early Internet dinosaurs: Compuserve, Netscape, animated GIFs, IE6 (oh wait...)

As for the new identity it's very, very bland. But maybe is too early to say, better wait for the whole implementation of the brand.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:11 PM

Daho’s comment is:

I would have LOVED this new brand id... 10 years ago.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:13 PM

Courtny Cotten’s comment is:

I think it will be hot. Depends on how they execute though.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:14 PM

Atlanta personal injury lawyer ’s comment is:

Yeah, a soft opening doesn't seem like the right move when a fresh start is really what is required. On the reverse maybe they've made it out of the cultural consciousnesses enough that they don't need a hard reboot,they can just slide in like they've always been there.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:20 PM

twoeightnine’s comment is:

I've actually found superduper secret audio of how the new branding is supposed to be pronounced. Just press play.
http://www.myxer.com/ringtone:2060169/

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:21 PM

Harper’s comment is:

First off: When I first saw news of this yesterday, my immediate thought was "what will they have to say about this on Brand New?" So you can rest easy on the whole trying to get the scoop thing. That's not what I come here for at least.

I really like the video reveals. Especially the way that none of them seem like they're trying too hard. I wonder if they could work this type of video reveal into their website every time you load it. That might be kind of interesting. I just can't imagine how this logo works on their stationary though.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:21 PM

Cameron Jantzen’s comment is:

Interesting that most of the comments are about the brand not the logo. It seems like there's a lot of cultural baggage with AOL, positive and/or negative. We'll see if this is part of a positive reframing, and how they use their legacy.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:22 PM

toby’s comment is:

Aol. Isn't that the synonym for "me too"?

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:35 PM

three’s comment is:

they can redesign all they want, but the fact of the matter is: aol = irrelevant.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:38 PM

Dave S’s comment is:

Okay okay, got it, the logo is, wait for it...there is no logo. The new AOL branding serves as a perfect bookend to what has been a year defined by watered down, uncommitted, under-designed brand identities.

Armin, as a reporter on the state of current brand identities, I would love to hear your opinion on the trend of extreme simplification. Typography reduced of uniqueness to the point of sterility has become a thread of continuity in logo redesign.

From logo work to packaging there appears to be an intentional shift towards a more generic brand presence. While one can argue that minimalism is a difficult art movement to employ correctly, it would appear that the real concern should be surrounding the necessity of identity designers. At this rate, can't anyone simply choose a simple clean typeface and typeset a company's logo?

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:46 PM

BlueEyedPeas’s comment is:

How about AWOL?

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:00 PM

Marcin’s comment is:

ALol...

... but, maybe let's give it a little time...

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:13 PM

Armin’s comment is:

UPDATE 01: Some proof-of-concept images with the new identity have been added at the bottom of the original post. Thank you, you know who.

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:16 PM

David H’s comment is:

To expand on Kevin Tucker's criticism, is the name perhaps "Ay Y'all" now? As in, "Ay Y'all Pers'nals? or, "Ay Y'all Class'fahds"?

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:24 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

This could be a wonderful identity. The notion that it can be manipulated for dastardly means can only mean more publicity for the brand.

However, I agree with the above posters that the brand AOL is irrelevant today...

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:26 PM

Andrew Wilson’s comment is:

Guess I'm the odd man out, but I like it. Something to be said for simplicity and versatility. Feels fresh to me.

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:34 PM

jonathan’s comment is:

The colorful, abstract shapes behind the "aol." on that woman's bag, is the only mark that looks like it makes any kind of sense, they should take that and run with it.

The rest of these images with the logo in front of it, they're so random, SOO bad! And, is this really even a logo? It's like random branding with some type in front. Really poor, uncohesive work by Wolff Olins IMO.

And "aol." is making clothes, bags and coffee mugs now? HA, give it up guys, you're yesterday's news.

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:34 PM

Rico’s comment is:

Geez, does Wolff Olins have some sort of magic pixie dust that they sprinkle in their client's lattes to get them to buy off on their concepts? Most of them seem very disjointed and lazy in my opinion.

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:34 PM

Cory ’s comment is:

Seems like another entry in the recent spat of brands whose logos rely on some bizarrely assorted array of images to convey and carry their brand instead of the actual logo itself.

It's shit. And I don't get why it's now a word, like many others here. How could that possibly strengthen anything? There's no combination of sounds you can make from reading those three letters with the punctuation that is even remotely attractive, memorable, positive, or, at the very least, has anything to do with the online world.

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:47 PM

C42D’s comment is:

It takes balls to pull off something like that let alone sell it to a conservative media company. Bravo, dude.

Any haters just wish they could do something on that scale.... Hey haters what logos have YOU done lately?

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:50 PM

Pamela’s comment is:

Wtf. ?

It's kinda hit and miss. The logo is pretty plain and super uninteresting on it's own...it really relies on the background image it's on top of. And sometimes those images work...sometimes they don't. (I love the little monster on the coffee mug and the CD is kinda nifty too!)

Like the voting option says..."I'm willing to give it a chance at least."

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:58 PM

Tony Spaeth’s comment is:

My snarky two cents: The long term problem here is the original name decision – America, On Line? Six syllables (which forced initials) plus a counterproductive meaning – the Web is inherently and joyously global, isn't it? AOL should now have faced up to this fundamental identity problem, which has been compounded of late by a performance reputation problem, and fixed it with a name change.

Instead, we have a design solution that diminishes, lower-cases, reverses and virtually hides the initials, as if apologizing for them. (It’s a visual equivalent of “if you have nothing to say, talk faster and louder.”)

To be sure, mutable wordmarks (visual play, around consistent letterforms) can be fun. Certainly, MTV and Nickelodeon showed you can get away with it on television, and Google has shown it can work on the Web. But are these particular "Aol." letterforms a strong-enough visual anchor? Not clearly. Verbally, they are still a hole in the hull.

And are we now expected to write not AOL but Aol? (I refuse to add the period, in text.) And thus to speak it as a-awl, or a-owl? The punctuation of the logo introduces uncertainty of the name in text applications… which is not a good a way to build a stronger brand.

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:59 PM

Phillip Maddox’s comment is:

Wolff Olins has done it again. They are riding on the "no press is bad press" train (2012 London) and only time is going to tell if this radical method of breaking through the noise is going to bear fruit.

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:02 PM

Erik Shultz’s comment is:

they can redevelop aol all they want. they missed there window by a couple of years. next!

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:09 PM

Cam Hoff’s comment is:

Isn't this kind of the opposite of what MTV just did by standardizing their logo?

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:10 PM

drewdraws2’s comment is:

The only places that I still encounter AOL (or Aol. or whatever) is through AIM and their blog properties (Autoblog and Engadget). While I don't fundamentally hate this rebrand, I think that it doesn't particularly fit well with any of those spaces and will result in some incredibly weak appearances. How do you sub-brand a blog with this? Without doing something very clever (which, hey, could happen), this will become a disjointed, static, and hard-to-read brand.

Although there is no doubt that they needed to reinvent themselves with a new brand, I think what they really needed was a modern, simple logo that emphasized AOL as a kinder, gentler overarching content owner (which is really what they have become). With so many sub-properties, what would have been a better approach was a common thread, not a disparate "do what you want" branding solution that leads to visual cacophony.

Another strike against Wolff Olins in my book.

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:10 PM

Andreas Lanjerud’s comment is:

If you pronounce an acronym like a word, then it's okay to write it like a word. But you don't say "Aol", you say "A-O-L". If they wanted to change the acronym to a word, then this new logo would be okay, but it's almost impossible to say "Aol". Sounds like Owl? Eyol?

Sorry, this is just Lol.

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:15 PM

Cathy Cotter’s comment is:

Thanks Tony for pointing out the strategic placement of the Aol. logo beside the Brand New logo. I never would have noticed and it really says everything. It is exactly how I feel about this blunder. Thanks for sharing.

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:16 PM

unfunction’s comment is:

Proof of concept identity that lacks any emotional brand relevance?
Acronym spelled out like a sentence?
Very standard first-year-design-student approach to a campaign?

Aol.fail

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:19 PM

EnergonCube’s comment is:

No amount of design is ever going to change my perception of AOL. In my mind, AOL is -- and will always be -- old-school, mid '90s crap.

Unfortunately, the only asset with equity they have to work with is also their Achilles heel. If they ever want to get away from that, they need a name change. Plain and simple.

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:31 PM

Bryan Levay’s comment is:

My initial reaction yesterday was a big "UGH WHAT!?" but now that i've had some time to process it and i've seen it in better contexts, it doesn't rub me as raw. I still don't like the title case. I agree with many of the other commenters here that it makes it too much of a word and less of an acronym. I think the mark would work just as well either in all caps or all lower case, and definitely without the period. I also agree that this initial set of images is rather bland. I hope than when the new identity actually launches they have a little more spice, or at least meaning. Right now it feels very much like they needed some images and footage just to show the idea of the concept, and didn't put much thought into it. I'm definitely interested to check back in a few months and see where things are.

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:35 PM

Hibryd’s comment is:

Hitting April Fools a little early, aren't we, Armin?

Wait, really? This is serious. Oh, god, it's like my mother trying to be cool. They're using the right phrases and going through the right motions, but at the end of the day, they're still AOL, and the harder they try to be hip the sadder the sight becomes.

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:45 PM

Dylan D’s comment is:

This one has not been released yet:

[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2652/4131970760_8f60c3886a_o.jpg[/img]

On Nov.24.2009 at 02:48 PM

iggy’s comment is:

A-'ole.

On Nov.24.2009 at 03:06 PM

SonHouse’s comment is:

I agree with Dave S’s comments above about what seems to be the current trend of minimizing, sublimating, not-commiting, and generally genericising (i know it's not a word) logos. What's going on here? It it related to the economy? It seems like companies are almost fearful of making any kind of bold statement and would rather just blend into the background? Looking forward to the time that this trend starts to swing the other way.

On Nov.24.2009 at 03:31 PM

Robert Scozzari’s comment is:

I see the logo as just the type treatment and the backgrounds simply as usage specifications. While I think they missed completely, I do like the dynamic of colours on the multiple of items.

It's all in the positioning. To position themselves, they need to become relevant, because without relevance, the logo is irrelevant. And finally, to be relevant, they seriously need to innovate. If they simply feed us what all the other websites are feeding us, as in Aol.Classifieds or Aol.Personals, big deal. We have that already They need to give us something new. We'll see what they do next year. Innovate or Die Aol.

On Nov.24.2009 at 03:32 PM

Fonzie’s comment is:

Execution aside, the name is awful. How do I pronounce this? Any clues?

On Nov.24.2009 at 03:35 PM

Miles’s comment is:

Regarding "Aol." being pronounced like A-hole, I expect to see the new logo "revealed" by a photoshopped-in goatse any second now.

On Nov.24.2009 at 03:48 PM

Nathan Driskell’s comment is:

Are we supposed to delineate it as Aol. in running text?

Changing an acronym to sentence case just echoes all of the bad grammar that's endemic to online communication.

Lol.

On Nov.24.2009 at 03:58 PM

Mondayne’s comment is:

I simply don't understand how this could not be liked. It's amazingly cool.

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:01 PM

adwrighty’s comment is:

The identity might be cool, but what does it say about them? 1st, it says something's changed - lets hope when they make the change in December, more has changed than just the identity. I think the split from TimeWarner is a great opportunity to breathe life into the brand, but it won't be easy.
I've written about this at Brandhabits.net.

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:07 PM

Joseph Maguire’s comment is:

Yea I have to say I posted about this the first night and you did a great job gathering all the visual research for this post. Whoever gives you your tips does a great job Armin.

I am a believer in this new Aol.
It really defines k.i.s.s. in a good way.

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:19 PM

Raulp’s comment is:

This is our time's Nickelodeon splat. Nice for a concept, bad for a brand (unless you are a new children TV network).

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:21 PM

Todd Zakk’s comment is:

wow, what a bad logo!

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:23 PM

N Fitch’s comment is:

I think it's brilliant. Love that Aol. is revealed by the "content" behind it. Pure genius!

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:28 PM

Mikael Siirilä’s comment is:

Wolff Olins has truly grasped the future of branding. Brand identities like this one come with an inbuilt capacity to evolve with time - its the other approach to creating 'timeless identities'.

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:40 PM

Moeed’s comment is:

They might as well have done this:

On Nov.24.2009 at 04:46 PM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

Really disappointed that apparently the cleverness is all there is. Really, the same with interesting type wouldn't work better?

But mostly, the way it was released is insanely dumb. From not rebranding everything, to the crappy quality of most of the stock photography and meaningless swooshes (the mockups are better than the real ones!) I swear Wolff Olins is getting more Froghammer with every new brand.

On Nov.24.2009 at 05:00 PM

Paul’s comment is:

AeeeehOOOOLLLLe

On Nov.24.2009 at 05:02 PM

Christopher Meeks’s comment is:

Honestly, the issue here is the "Aol." instead of "AOL" and the typography....

Oh, and the horrible stock imagery behind it.

The concept itself, of the logo being revealed by images behind it, actually is pretty cool. Good idea, really really bad execution.

On Nov.24.2009 at 05:09 PM

ryan K’s comment is:

After seeing the new images, I really like the white bag with the circles. That could have been something. I also like the idea behind the business cards, mostly that there are different ones.

I was thinking, I would feel a little better about it if there was a standard graphic (container) for the logo, and then there were also "others". But to at least have one that's the same through multiple applications, web, letterhead, etc and then they can break the mold for other marketing "stuff".

On Nov.24.2009 at 05:12 PM

Nicholas’s comment is:

Did I miss something? Is AOL getting into the t-shirt manufacturing business? Bookselling?

On Nov.24.2009 at 05:35 PM

Ben Thoma’s comment is:

Aol. You are now living in my negative space.

On Nov.24.2009 at 05:39 PM

elisa’s comment is:

Is it just me or does this seem to be a trend, it's a mark but sort of like bing.com (which I've only been to a couple of times) but their background always changes. I don't really understand the period at the end of the Aol, but I kind of get what they are trying to do.

On Nov.24.2009 at 05:55 PM

danthecreator’s comment is:

From a designer's standpoint, the logos are actually quite horrible. I understand AOL is trying to be different, but these "logos" look like they were thrown together hastily and are trying too hard to be "edgy". Bad move AOL...bad move.

On Nov.24.2009 at 06:11 PM

Tommy Minahan’s comment is:

I think i've counted 5 comments where someone was confused on how to pronounce Aol, while, at the same time they used the acronym "Lol" (with a capital L)

you've all been using LOL as a word.. Typing it with a capital L, yet it's still L-O-L..

nobody reads Lol as "lawl", they read it as el-o-el..
same way nobody is going to be stupid enough to read Aol as a word, rather they will still read it as Ay-O-El...

Sorry, to come across as a jerk, but its kinda funny to see people making fun of Aol, when they're misusing LOL..

On Nov.24.2009 at 06:31 PM

Moeed’s comment is:

Tommy, I think they purposely wrote "Lol." they are mocking it, so to speak.

I never write LOL, if I do write it, it's always lol. In this case, even "aol." would have been accecptable.

On Nov.24.2009 at 06:45 PM

BB Gun’s comment is:

LAST GASP.

On Nov.24.2009 at 06:52 PM

Rx’s comment is:

Childish and stupid idea.

On Nov.24.2009 at 07:12 PM

Sharkskin Slippers’s comment is:

"If they ever want to get away from that, they need a name change. Plain and simple."
-Energon Cube
__________________

Word is born, son.

On Nov.24.2009 at 07:18 PM

Aol.icius’s comment is:

@Armin

Hey! why my first post was deleted?

On Nov.24.2009 at 07:44 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

Last gasp is right. Aol, er I mean Lol.

On Nov.24.2009 at 07:55 PM

Matheus Stortz’s comment is:

LOL.

Wolff.
Ollins.
Sucks.

design is not art, big boys should know that already

On Nov.24.2009 at 08:11 PM

jmk’s comment is:

such a cop out, using a generic font with a changing background. that's just lazy-couldn't-think-of-anything-else design right there.

at least 80s MTV had a cool unique font treatment with their changing backgrounds, this is a slap in the face to design everywhere.

didn't artdirectorclub just do the same thing? boring font with the excuse that hey, you can change the background of it, how hip are we? we're so hip and non-conformist.

they're trying to be apple clean and trendy and it's coming across as a cheap knockoff.

On Nov.24.2009 at 08:51 PM

Mog’s comment is:

I hated it at first, but now I like it. I don't think it would work as well if the wordmark was more complex - it needs to be super simple and chunky, since most of the time we're only seeing part of it and have to complete the rest of it mentally.

Wolff Ollins wins again. Everybody hates on them because they're different (see: London 2012), but they know that identity is all about standing out, not blending in (hate all you want, but their 2012 logo is far better than London's candidate logo, which followed every possible Olympic cliché).

On Nov.24.2009 at 09:07 PM

chickenfriedsteak’s comment is:

I'm sorry but this is nowhere near being "new" or "creative" or any of the other superlatives being thrown around. I find the execution lazy in the extreme even if the concept has promise. This sort of thing was being done years ago by companies large and small and even by myself at one stage. I was a overworked, underpaid freelancer at the time and it was something I did when I couldn't find the time or inspiration to really hammer out a compelling identity. "Nah, it's cool! See how it shows how dynamic and forward thing your company is." Or some such ridiculous spin. I continue to be unimpressed by Wolff Olins.

On Nov.24.2009 at 09:11 PM

Sonia’s comment is:

I really like it. After seeing it on a range of applications it makes sense to me (especially the plastic bag). I find the logotype is instantly recognisable so it really doesn't matter so much what's behind it.

(So what do Aol. do these days?)

On Nov.24.2009 at 09:16 PM

Mark’s comment is:

Wow. The. dot. is. so. creative.
I mean, would it be a logo with just Aol without a dot? Of. course. not.

Would like to see their fax blanks. White on white.

On Nov.24.2009 at 10:59 PM

Mark Lee’s comment is:

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:17 PM

Ryan’s comment is:

So good. A refreshing change from the usual safe/me-too identity work we see everywhere these days.

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:23 PM

Michael Barron’s comment is:

I've gotta say, I love it.
If they want to be a content-driven organisation then this identity system says it simply and confidently. It's incredibly simple yet allows for infinite combinations.

To the point about the potential for the logo to be parodied: so what? Every logo except for those that are the most neutral and dull can be subverted by someone with an imagination. If we judged every identity job on the grounds that it might be made fun of in some way then the design landscape would be extremely risk-averse and uninteresting. I can't imagine thats something we want?

On Nov.24.2009 at 11:26 PM

Marin’s comment is:

I must say that I don't like it. Feel like they didn't want to deal with a logo, but simply choosed to make logotype that actually wont say much about them, but will be really aplicative. Strange that they didn't try to do something with that logo sign that was used before. It's more unique.

On Nov.25.2009 at 01:41 AM

David Zamdmer’s comment is:

I wasn't initially impressed by the wordmark alone, but after seeing how they wish to apply it with the branding I became a fan. I think the logo can play infinitely in this scheme and allow Aol. to wield some absolute ubiquity.

Additionally, I really enjoyed how the video presented the logo. After its first reveal with the paint splatter, I expected the white wordmark to be there even when I could no longer see it on the white background. I don't see anything wrong with a little omnipresence.

On Nov.25.2009 at 02:26 AM

David Zamdmer’s comment is:

It should also be noted that is often some of the things we loathe and tease the most that become the most memorable. Some examples:

1. Carrot Top's commercial appearances for, yes, you know who.
2. The commercials with that duck for, yes, you know who.
3. American Idol's William Hung

So the more the world hates Aol., the better it shall be for A.W.O.L....errrr, ummmmmm W.O.

On Nov.25.2009 at 02:36 AM

Andreas Lanjerud’s comment is:

@Tommy Minahan: My "Lol" was just mocking the word, but as someone pointed out to me, more and more people are actually pronouncing LOL as a word. Just as you do with Ikea (!) and similar brands.

Now, why anyone wanna say Lol instead of just laughing is beyond this discussion.

On Nov.25.2009 at 02:36 AM

CaptainXenu’s comment is:

Remember when you would open your mailbox and get a couple of AOL CDs?

You mean the free drink coasters and frisbees? I think I still have about 30... all scratched to hell with the words DIE.

On Nov.25.2009 at 04:37 AM

mike’s comment is:

i actually like it when its applied..the posters or plastic bags look sweet...
as a logo on its own its weird (and probably not meant to be used anyways), but applied properly it works.

On Nov.25.2009 at 04:44 AM

Warren’s comment is:

Like it, its got a lot of equity in it already as its made a big impact. brave, concise rebrand, something of MTV about it I think. Had this been another corporation maybe it would have got a better reception?

On Nov.25.2009 at 04:53 AM

Gertrude’s comment is:

Lamest of the lamest ever seen.
Sorry, this is my heart's direct feeling when seeing this.
Lame of lame.

On Nov.25.2009 at 07:33 AM

Jake’s comment is:

AOL-ful... but I think it will eventually grow on me

On Nov.25.2009 at 07:46 AM

Hubertus Alvensleben’s comment is:

I liked this design idea with Desigual the spanish trend fashion label. And I like the same idea with Aol now following Wolff Olins' container brand philosophy. Anyway, I don't think that the Aol leadership has a clue where to go to with their company. And the visual identity now reflects that: They can do anything as long it is on a white sheet of paper. Cool.

On Nov.25.2009 at 08:02 AM

John’s comment is:

I will admit that it's difficult for me to seperate my emotional reaction to the brand from this new identity. They could have introduced the greatest identity EV-AH and I'd probably still dismiss it without a second thought.

To paraphrase Paul Rand, what a logo represents is more important than the logo itself. That could not be more true in this instance.

On Nov.25.2009 at 08:24 AM

Rondal’s comment is:

To be honesty, my initial reaction was a strong dislike of this concept. In my opinion, it had been done better by Nickelodeon a few years back, but to see the new Aol. identity applied as you have presented, I'd have to say that 90% of my first impression had more to do with their presentation of it than the actual logo itself.

This may very well be a step in the right direction for the brand, though what relevancy Aol. has to today's Web 2.0 generation remains unseen.

On Nov.25.2009 at 08:49 AM

Paul’s comment is:

It's funny; at first my reaction was terribly negative. I felt that the period was awful (still do, actually), the lowercase change was peculiar, and the non-logo logo was a little too strange.

But particularly after seeing the video and product shots I must say: the whole system works for me. I like that the "logo" is versatile enough to take on different attributes. With the heat-sensitive mug, it's playful. With the bird on the business card, it's proud. It really takes on the qualities of the image behind the logo... which seems to be an analogy to how Aol. is today: subbrands which are, arguably, stronger than the parent. In that case, let the parent brand fall into the background - and that's being done literally here in some cases.

I don't disagree that the typographic treatment is super basic, and some of the examples could be considered lazy. But only when I saw the larger pieces in place did I get it.

I'm surprised too, but I've really come to like this. "File's done!"

On Nov.25.2009 at 08:59 AM

caitlin’s comment is:

nobody reads Lol as "lawl", they read it as el-o-el..

no they don't because it is pronounced "lull". which numerous people say.

On Nov.25.2009 at 09:07 AM

Deron’s comment is:

Is that Futura...

or IKEA Sans?

;)

On Nov.25.2009 at 09:48 AM

Corrupt Network’s comment is:

My opinion: the new Aol. is better than the old AOL. I don't like the cheap iStockphoto photography look though. Nevertheless, it's an improvement. Nobody can really deny this fact.

On Nov.25.2009 at 09:50 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

so now it's Aol. - new identity is irrelevant just like the company. They bought themselves piece of garbage and Wolff Olins sold them this garbage.

On Nov.25.2009 at 09:52 AM

Mark Barilla’s comment is:

Any instance on its own? Weak.

The entire package (especially adding the fun monster mug and the squid collateral)? Actually somewhat interesting.

It's at least DIFFERENT to have this kind of non-identity identity; though I think stepping in and taking white Futura Bold directly from the pages of last year's IKEA catalog was a bland choice.

It's intriguing, to say the least - and the PR buzz, for better or worse, already makes AOL buzzworthy again.

On Nov.25.2009 at 09:57 AM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

This soft brand launch seems poorly handled. AOL's problem is not that their identity is bad. It's that their *brand* is bad. They should've hit the ground running with brand clarification/ reinvention and an announcement of what AOL is actually, concretely going to be doing with themselves. That CEO statement may as well have been "We plan to be good! And also excellent! We are committed to being awesome. How awesome? So awesome! Online!"

AOL has an uphill climb to overcome at least two prior identities, neither of which are associated with a positive brand image. Their last reinvention was part of a failed attempt to... become relevant again, I guess? This one seems like a hipper version of the same thing, albeit less successful. I don't care how they look. I want to know why I should even care that they still exist.

The visuals are leading to an interesting place. It's just on the edge of being too open-ended, but shows room for flexibility and attitude in the writing. But the problem isn't the look. It's Aol. That logotype/name is just silly. It's a confusing visual ("Is that a cap i or a lowercase L at the end?") And *no one* says "aye-oll". They say "A-O-L". What behavior were they trying to modify with this change? I'd LOVE to hear what Wolff Olins has to say.

On Nov.25.2009 at 10:01 AM

Dylan D’s comment is:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2652/4131970760_8f60c3886a_o.jpg,

On Nov.25.2009 at 10:01 AM

David’s comment is:

I love the transparency of this rebrand.

On Nov.25.2009 at 10:20 AM

Caryn’s comment is:

Frankly, I love the design work, I really do... but for AOL? It doesn't add up in my head at all. The transparency is great - well done - however, it's far too broad and "innovative" for AOL... go back to the original.

On Nov.25.2009 at 10:27 AM

Valon Sopi’s comment is:

I love it. Very un-graphic design. Feels like someone got the idea and went with it - 'in the moment' type of thing.

Cool, whoever got the idea.

On Nov.25.2009 at 10:58 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

I never cared for AOL as a company and I've always, always hated their terrible logo. This new approach is a vast improvement... but, I still don't like it. The A-O-L is simply a bad combination of letters and the legacy it carries has no relevance. However, I'm very impressed by the overall approach and the thinking. Every self proclaimed creative thinks he/she "pushes the envelope" or "thinks out of the box". But lets face it, you don't and I don't. Most of our work is mundane as wall paper because we follow the status "design" quo. So, although I do not like this new look, I applaud the thinking and the effort behind it. It takes guts, and it's rare to actually be able to use an over-used word like "creative" to describe something and not lose it's meaning...

On Nov.25.2009 at 11:01 AM

Jourdan’s comment is:

I really love the new logos but does it really fit AOL? Who even knew they were still in business. Maybe this will help them take a chunk from Google and Yahoo.

On Nov.25.2009 at 11:01 AM

Jess’s comment is:

I think the logo and the videos are totally awesome. Feels like some kinda cool surfer brand. The T-shirt looked amazin too.

On Nov.25.2009 at 11:05 AM

olumi_day’s comment is:

I want a donut

On Nov.25.2009 at 11:13 AM

Thorn’s comment is:

I have a question....what IS Aol? I like this look, but I have no clue whether it is a fashion brand or a supermarket...

On Nov.25.2009 at 11:56 AM

Huntley Brinkley’s comment is:

I like the bold use of white space, it draws the eye into the strong background graphics, but the font used for Aol. is just so generic - it reminds me of generic food products. Using a font with a bit more shape/style to the letters would have added some more interest and given them something more to work with long-term. Ultimately, when this rebranding ends and they want to refresh the look they'll likely be forced to change the font.

On Nov.25.2009 at 12:55 PM

Sketchee’s comment is:

Aol really shot themselves in the foot when they bought Time Warner. It wasn't the other way around. That's just how huge they were. The rebranding won't make sense to me until I know what it means. What exactly is this company going to do?

On Nov.25.2009 at 03:20 PM

Brian Z’s comment is:

As far as the corresponding background images are concerned...I think it could have been interesting to mash up the last iphone background image pictured with the swirling magenta image on the cd below it and have variations spring from that. Each variation could be a riff on Sen. Tedd Stevens's re-branding of the internet at large: just a buncha interconnecting tubes.

Or maybe just copy/paste his wikipedia photo,up the contrast and slap an Aol. on there.

On Nov.25.2009 at 03:31 PM

Mark’s comment is:

I like it.

It's new, it's different, it's in your face.

It's the kick in the pants that AOL needed. Now lets see if their service improves.

Well done.

On Nov.25.2009 at 05:22 PM

Marcio’s comment is:

This is actually growing on me, now that I see the executions better. It's not the most imaginative use of this gimmick, Five and Chanel 4 in the UK have done it better, so I see how this is getting people to talk about it again, putting AOL back in the map. not bad.

On Nov.25.2009 at 05:31 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

Most companies are more focused on branding than they are on innovation. I think its what's called obsessive branding disorder. You may have a great branding but if the actual services/performance sucks, it's all for naught.

On Nov.25.2009 at 07:12 PM

Larry Roth’s comment is:

Nice post...you are being too hard on yourself for being "late with it". Like a fine wine it was well worth the wait. Your provided a much more thoughtful commentary that some of the first-to-posters.

I agree with you that they left themselves ripe for ridicule with the veritable plethora of joke logos that could be created. But is that just creative brilliance? Will AOL (or Aol. if you prefer) not be in our conscience and on the tip of our tongues more often? With some of the killer Web properties and services they offer, they should garner more respect.

Some of the comments welcome the "transparency" of AOL. I am not sure that an initial release of part of a identity program counts towards transparency. I, more than most, welcome and encourage corporate transparency, but somethings need to be seen in their entire context.

Ultimately, I agree with a colleague of mine (and the supposition of this post) that we need to see the identity in it's context and need to hold off comment until then. See her post here: http://j.mp/4Y6bzW

On Nov.25.2009 at 09:09 PM

gus’s comment is:

It strongly sucks balls, cmon Arial??? any bg??

On Nov.25.2009 at 10:48 PM

Kit’s comment is:

Motion wise, it really works I think.

Print wise it feels amateurish... Hey look, popy-photos with the name in it!!

I sorta get the intentions of putting pop culture and accompany it with its name. But there's gotta be a better way of using images.

Like...Come on, a goldfish?

On Nov.26.2009 at 12:14 AM

Brandon S. Adkins’s comment is:

What depresses me is how much AOL likely paid the designer to type "Aol." in photoshop. BOOM, 10 minutes, new identity, get paid.

I think it is stretching it to call this ultra-minimalist identity a "logo". "Logo" implies that work was involved in its creation.

On Nov.26.2009 at 12:39 AM

Jhames’s comment is:

This is the same AOL/Aol. that made its name with internet chat rooms, right?

I'll take an interest in the new brand when it appears over genitalia—truth in advertising.

On Nov.26.2009 at 12:54 AM

soully’s comment is:

I've been considering this for a couple of days and I still can't decide whether I think this is brilliant or terrible, I think it's certainly very interesting and brave.

On Nov.26.2009 at 03:18 AM

silas Amos’s comment is:

The flexible nature of the design is smart and appropriate - but nothing trail blazing, as we noted with a more classic example of the principle on Tuesday...

http://www.jkr.co.uk/design-gazette/2009/11/aol-variety-is-the-spice-of-life/

On Nov.26.2009 at 03:28 AM

Bill’s comment is:

and so on :)

On Nov.26.2009 at 04:00 AM

Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:

How the new Aol identity behaves is more important than any of the specific marks of the brand.

This brand transformation demonstrates (further) why it is of limited value to think of brand identity in terms of the design of the logo. The types of marks chosen and how those marks relate to each other is what needs to be assessed in order to appreciate the value of this brand identity.

Aol may have been born in a different era of the internet but the new identity demonstrates that it has grasped the nature of those changes and is serious about moving forward in a way that is relevant to its users.

The name may be problematic but it has equity. Internet users are familiar with Aol, they know broadly where to place the brand and as a result of this transformed identity they have good reason to re-evaluate their relationship to the services on offer.

A discussion about the design of the wordmark is pointless. There is very little that has been 'designed' to appreciate. A proprietary personality emerges from the behaviour of the brand; not the design. At best a qualification of design as a configuration of the elements might make sense but this is a definition of considerably less value than of design as 'form-giving'. Other than the fact that Aol ends with a period and that the form of the brandmark is intentionally generic the design of the wordmark has nothing about it that warrants attention.

In the context of the internet, the period makes sense. It adds meaningful 'textual' personality to the wordmark. It also offers a visual and conceptual 'grounding' that holds the identity relatively stable in a seething flux of infinitely variable content.

The reveal idea indicates how all providers of internet content delivery services should perhaps behave. The Aol brandmark appears as part of the background until it is made visible by content. This is a very clever use of the medium to communicate the reason the brand exists.

Aol has been transformed into another type of brand from the brands consumers are more accustomed to. It reflects another kind of thinking for an emerging era in brand experience enabled by digital media. This makes the new Aol brand identity just like its primary brand mark layered over content...

... outstanding.

A.

Permalink

On Nov.26.2009 at 05:40 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

@ Andrew Sabatier

Here, here!! One of the few comments that demonstrates an actual understanding of branding. Well said!

On Nov.26.2009 at 10:16 AM

Blonde’s comment is:

@ Andrew Sabatier - I agree with you wholeheartedly, a good, informed post.

However, does the earphone pack remind you of this identity...

http://www.shineweek.co.uk/

Not just a little?

On Nov.26.2009 at 11:26 AM

Alex C.’s comment is:

Say what you will of Wolff Olins, you can't deny their willing-to-take-risks approach to corporate redesigns. And I for one have always applauded them for it.

We should especially be thankful for the breath of fresh air they provide in a world polluted by the likes of Landor: the third-world sweatshop of the design world.

I—as most of you have noted—am surprised AOL is even trying to reestablish its market presence, especially after people have stopped buying into their "the Internet is a big scary world, let us guide you through it" approach. And I guess when you have nothing to loose, you're more willing to risk it all for one last hoorah.

Kudos, Wolff Olins! I'm still not going to go back to AOL, though, no matter how interesting or appealing the packaging may be.

On Nov.26.2009 at 01:03 PM

Norwegian’s comment is:

Initially this feels wrong. Seems like someone fell in love with a brave concept and got blind. There is basically nothing to own beside the wordmark, which in it self is just a word.

The idea of reveal seems like a gimmic and would be better for Google or a stockphoto company.

But, Ill give it a chance.

On Nov.26.2009 at 02:26 PM

Bill’s comment is:

@ Andrew Sabatier

Thank you for the lecture. Honestly!
What you said made me look at it in a whole new way.

I think I've shifted from liking it only visually to really liking it, a lot!

On Nov.26.2009 at 05:41 PM

WiBu’s comment is:

Honestly, I think it's pretty ingenious.

It's certainly going to be mocked and parodied with a load of different images; particularly the younger and more internet savvy people. It's different, it's in the news and it's going to be in thousands of mocking images, but it's all publicity.

All Aol need to do now is get their products sorted and they're onto a winner.

On Nov.26.2009 at 05:54 PM

bored out of my mind’s comment is:

Honestly I just don't like the visual viewing aspect of it. It doesn't look as nice, to be blunt. No, I don't like the new one at all.

On Nov.26.2009 at 06:05 PM

Ralph Machio’s comment is:

The period has been done before

http://www.ucgp.com/images/uploadedFiles/Deloitte%20logo.jpg

On Nov.27.2009 at 10:54 AM

Jonathan Keller’s comment is:

I am so bored with Wolff Olins pulling the same old tired rabbit out of its dusty hat..

Look at the London 2012 Olympics logo, and the branding of New York City. 'The logotype serves as a window into infinite possibilities' they say. But what they're really doing is letting the images that they place around or within the logotype speak for the brand instead of the logo speaking for the brand itself. It shows a serious lack of creative capacity on their part in my opinion.

~J

On Nov.27.2009 at 01:54 PM

Joel Glovier’s comment is:

AOL has a serious problem anyway - what purpose do they serve and how do they do it better than anybody else?!!

Gone are the days when AOL ruled the internet world, when 99% of people thought AOL WAS the internet.

Now all AOL has to offer really is mail and AIM, and of course their homepage which showcases news results. But who can REALLY make the argument that anything AOL does is better than any body else's offerings of those products? I'm much more partial to Yahoo mail over AOL mail. Facebook has a better grasp on instant messaging in my opinion because of how much more content facebook can offer about each user than AIM. And even the homepage search, news, shopping, etc - doesn't Google do all that way better (or at least Amazon does for the shopping side)?

AOL's really crisis goes much further than their logo. It has to do with their brand strength as a whole - or rather lack thereof.

The new logo is just something that struggling brands with lots of disposable capital VERY OFTEN do to resolve issues that are in fact quite design unrelated.

On Nov.27.2009 at 01:54 PM

Jonathan Keller’s comment is:

And I could swear this Andrew Sabatier is working for Wolff Olins because that is their exact wording for their strategies in all 3 of the re brands I previously mentioned (2012 Olympics, NYC, AoL.)

And yes, in all three it looks like it should be a stock photography company...

~J

On Nov.27.2009 at 02:02 PM

Chris’s comment is:

In some respects, the concept seems far too much like a lot of the branding as of late, but the problem I have with this is that it feels plain generic. I suppose that would be a personal preference with a level of dislike of the current era, but the logo seems completely forgettable and I would never connect AOL or any other company with it.

As well, it would make more sense as 'AOL' or 'aol' because it truly is said to be spoken as letters, not as a miniature sentence.

On Nov.27.2009 at 10:31 PM

Chuck Spidell’s comment is:

Ditto Dave's very early comment.

I installed AOL once ... back in 2000. This is a heavily needed rebrand. Some of the imagery is executed sloppily and generic - not sure if that's intentional. Hopefully there's a decent budget to avoid use of stock imagery and create original pieces solely for the brand. The strategic use of negative space is intriguing and allows flexible placement of the logo. Either way, it's got potential.

So are we going to see Aol. truck wraps?

On Nov.28.2009 at 05:41 AM

design’s comment is:

I thinks this is really great. I´ve been waiting for a while to see something good in here. Finally something that has an international approach. Great work and thumbs up for Wolf Ollins. I don´t understand all the critical feedback here, specially when I compare the other stuff reviewed on this site such as Killington which is real crap in my eyes.

On Nov.28.2009 at 06:42 AM

Lee’s comment is:

The best way to change your brand perception to actually add something new, innovative, utilitarian and fresh to your product offering. This rebrand is like putting lipstick on a pig. No amount of design can cover up an irrelevant outdated 1990s has been. Google imho is a perfect example of how products drive a brand with quite tame visuals. The only people that use AOL are people who dont know any better, 40 year olds who wear knee socks and fanny packs, and surely they wont 'get' this rebrand.

On Nov.28.2009 at 06:30 PM

Brandy’s comment is:

I like it. Agreed that the unveil was premature. And they'll be lots of living up to it to come, Aol. Long live Wolff Olins, period.

On Nov.28.2009 at 09:35 PM

Blue Buddha’s comment is:

Pros: I always dig flexibility in design. AOL still has a pretty large user-base (though I'm not sure if it's the hip youngsters as opposed to the database they had 10 years ago; i.e. my Mom). Anyway, it's customizable and that can be good for a wide market.

Cons: Because it is now a word, it doesn't mean anything anymore. I think it should have stayed the acronym. I also don't care for when it runs off the image so much it is illegible.

Overall, I give this design a "meh", as in it's OK but not fantastic. It is so varied it has no brand cohesiveness. The word alone just doesn't do it for me. It would have been better if all photos were treated the same, maybe with the 1/2 tone of the horn-hand? Maybe all were done in duotones? Something to keep them together. Think old Nickelodeon blobs.

On Nov.29.2009 at 01:35 PM

Zach’s comment is:

I like it. Its really creative and I feel like they are taking themselves into a positive direction. I think the purpose of where the logo is placed is to really to create a connection with everyday life and how AOL can be connected with these images. I think that this ad campaign really has a "read between the lines" type of appeal to it. which i appreciate. It's smart.

On Nov.29.2009 at 04:47 PM

Jonathan Keller’s comment is:

So, no one is going to comment on the fact that Wolff Olins has already done this before...? Twice...? A sucky logotype offset by pretty pictures to create a 'brand'. That is not a brand! Unless you are branding a stock photography company. I'm going to pull my hair out..

On Nov.29.2009 at 06:42 PM

David Tull’s comment is:

It's just not very impressive coming from a media giant.

On Nov.29.2009 at 11:09 PM

robb3d’s comment is:

Just 1 letter away from lol.

On Nov.30.2009 at 10:22 AM

Chicago Auto Insurance’s comment is:

Nice robb3d's. Yeah, it could work but it's going to take some effort.

On Nov.30.2009 at 03:28 PM

Mauricio ’s comment is:

i think is a good refresh of their image, but i wounder if that image go to have a big impact! maybe not

On Nov.30.2009 at 04:08 PM

Bobby’s comment is:

Could be good; could be bad. Ambival-atastic.

On Nov.30.2009 at 06:06 PM

Michael’s comment is:

I have read your comments, and yes some of the negatives are valid, you might want to consider the positive: The new logo is friendly, approachable, uh, hmmmm, well, uh hmmmm that's all I got.

On Nov.30.2009 at 08:19 PM

Chris M’s comment is:

The design doesn't really do much for me. But I think the purpose was to garner attention for the relaunch. If you don't care if your press is good or bad, as long as you attention, then they've succeeded wildly.

On Dec.01.2009 at 12:23 PM

Rypo’s comment is:

Wow. Took awhile to make it through all the haters. I think the logo is okay. The changing photo imagery in the background is kind of a cop-out, because you could do that with most logos, but it allows for some awesome flexibility. Whether that's for good or bad, we'll just have to wait and see.

My main reason for commenting is to make a correction…everybody seems to think the typeface is Arial or Futura, but I'm 99% sure it's Avenir. Small difference to some people, big difference to typographers, designers, and type enthusiasts. Arial is a crap remake of Helvetica, Futura is a modernist typeface from the 20s (which makes a little more sense, with Aol trying to project itself into modern times), and Avenir is a typeface with both modern and humanist influences, which I think is pretty fitting for what Aol is trying to accomplish for the brand. Just my two cents.

On Dec.01.2009 at 01:27 PM

Chicago Auto Insurance’s comment is:

Don't mind the logo, but I think that it could be construed into some very poor spoofs.

On Dec.02.2009 at 11:06 AM

Ralston K.C. Vaz Jr.’s comment is:

Aol.
America out loud. Perhaps.

I like the new brand treatment really. The point that was made in an earlier comment about likening Aol to lazy, common, youthful acronyms like Lol is interesting.

But fresh brand treat or not, I'm yet interested in installing Aol on my PC. Maybe that bit of inspiration comes with phase two.

There's going to be a phase two, right?

On Dec.02.2009 at 02:48 PM

r4i’s comment is:

Wow AOL really posted some awesome pics. The dog sitting which reads LOL is really awesome one. I even like the one in which AOL is written on the carry bag.

On Dec.03.2009 at 12:23 AM

diz’s comment is:

"The new AOL brand identity is a simple, confident logotype, revealed by ever-changing images. It’s one consistent logo with countless ways to reveal"

so will we see it overlaid on THAT footage of the flag on the moon?

On Dec.03.2009 at 11:47 AM

Essays’s comment is:

I never know of this one that AOL change this slogan. I like the new look of AOL. It rocks! Suitable for the new age online....

Thanks for the article.

On Dec.03.2009 at 01:07 PM

Andy Russell’s comment is:

Who the hell wears a Aol. t-shirt, uses an Aol. carrier bag and buys an Aol. shoulder bag?

On Dec.07.2009 at 04:36 AM

rhinelander car accident lawyer’s comment is:

Could work, but leaves a whole lot to execution. The beginning of the design is simple and I'm too worried about that half of the logo. The problem is they're going to have to have their ad department cranking out new looks for the logo quite often.

On Dec.08.2009 at 01:47 PM

George’s comment is:

Aol's rebrand had to be as radical as this to even stand a chance of succeeding. In a marketplace as vast & competitive as it is, merely being remembered is often the way to do this. Aol realised this, and opted for an approach that would turn heads and trigger debate - the kind of head turning & debate that came with the 'London 2012' logo. You probably hated it then (as did i), but when you're lumbered with it, over time - you learn to love it (or atleast accept it).
I actually admire what Wolff Olins have done here in terms of the design: it's well crafted, beautiful in places and most importantly, you feel the boundaries are endless with a starting point like this.

On Dec.10.2009 at 06:00 AM

Neil’s comment is:

Universal Everything have produced several films as part of the rebrand - if this level of quality is kept up then I can see the rebrand being successful from a design point of view.

http://www.universaleverything.com/294/

On Dec.10.2009 at 07:16 AM

Suhail Amar’s comment is:

I love it.. Branding just doesn't mean how the identity looks its more like how the message is communicated in various mediums.. And I think you can play around with an idea such as this as long as they make that effort.
Wolff Olins work is amazing. Good or bad, their work always gets the viewers attention. Thats more important from the brands point of view.

On Dec.12.2009 at 04:44 AM

Joao’s comment is:

Wolff Olins is making images not design and that is cool.
Wolff Aolins.

On Dec.14.2009 at 11:34 PM

bob’s comment is:

Its a BAD work!! it doesn´t matter who designed its bad...

Is not STRONG, is not CONSISTENT and is WEAK.. use an strong image to back up what should to be strong by itself??? sorry but this is not design....

This rememberme the first years of the internet era were everybody use tons of images as wallpapers!

On Dec.21.2009 at 01:20 PM

Mark-O-Rama’s comment is:

WHY is this NOT on the WORST list? The elitists on this site is showing some severe flaws in judging. All this stuff just looks like a new stock photo house.

On Dec.21.2009 at 01:23 PM

Andrew Pelt’s comment is:

I love the video about the kid who is leaving the dentist. He has had some sort of laughing gas or something, it's pretty funny stuff.

On Jan.04.2010 at 10:12 AM

MB’s comment is:

I really like the simplicity and the execution of the logotype / background idea, to me its very confident and accomplished. The backgrounds will work if quality is maintained, it is a solid basis for excellent re-brand and the applications are limitless.

On Jan.25.2010 at 05:56 AM