Opinion BY Armin

Audi’s Typographic Stylings

As part of its week-long centennial celebration that included news about the upcoming release of the S5 Quattro — which might mean something to autophiles, but not much to me — Audi unveiled an updated logo that gave a new shine to the four interlocked rings, from a matte finish to a more chromalicious one, and it switched out the quirky wordmark for a new bespoke corporate typeface.

While I would have personally kept the old render of the rings, which look more sophisticated and subtle, I am probably one of the lonely souls to say good riddance to the old wordmark, which I have never liked. Neither letter works well with the other and there is no saving grace for that “d” unless someone were to tell me that it stands for a 6 or 9 and either of those numbers represent the number of pistons, or whatever other engine taxonomic detail, that made the first Audi run. But I doubt it. In exchange, the new Audi wordmark is set in the extended bold weight of Audi Type, a Roman and Extended type family commissioned by MetaDesign from Paul van der Laan and Pieter van Rosmalen. Along with being part of the new logo, Audi Type replaces Audi Sans, a modified version of Univers Extended.

The new type family can be seen in full action in the 2008 Annual Report, available as a PDF. The result is a strikingly modern and contemporary look that blends quite well with the Audi cars, slick and sophisticated. For a few more images and background, please visit FontFeed.

DATE: Aug.25.2009CATEGORY: Automobile 91 COMMENTS

Héctor Muñoz’s comment is:

The new typeface is good, but it looks horrible in the logo.

On Aug.25.2009 at 10:47 AM

Pamela’s comment is:

I'm really liking the new branding! Those rings don't look so cheap anymore.

I'm just not too keen on the new logo to wordmark ratio. It seems too small. If you're going to go that small, then why not just get rid of the wordmark entirely?

Does anyone else think the logo alone is enough to recognize that the car is an Audi?

On Aug.25.2009 at 10:50 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

Huge fan of VW and Audi

Even though there was something quirky about that lowercase "d" in the original Audio text, I always new it to be specific - in treatment - to the Audi brand.

The new text seems a little boring and easy to forget from a visual perspective.

With respect to the rings, I like how the bevel was moved closer to the inner part of the circles to create a more of a smooth surface. I like the new rings over the old.

Keep well,
Dale

On Aug.25.2009 at 10:50 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

* meant "Audi" in my first line of text - sorry..

: )

On Aug.25.2009 at 10:51 AM

Phil’s comment is:

The added sheen has a good effect, but I prefer the old 'Audi' text.

On Aug.25.2009 at 10:59 AM

grubedoo’s comment is:

I liked the old rings much better. Although I like the new font better the type needs to be kerned a bit tighter for my tastes. It looks good on the annual report but lost in space in the lettermark under the 4 rings icon.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:12 AM

Maritn Kuplens-Ewart’s comment is:

Not a fan of the new type – feels a bit too much like squashed Verdana…

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:25 AM

Rodrigo Müller’s comment is:

the new typography is good, but only for ads and stationery, not for the logo itself. the old lettering was so much better and unique.

props for the rings though, nicely improved.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:30 AM

Andrew E. Clark’s comment is:

Ditto on the squashed Verdana. My thoughts exactly. Kerning feels like A u di.

Rings resemble onion rings. Mmmmmm.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:37 AM

Esteban’s comment is:

I miss the funky "d", but otherwise, it's an improvement.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:38 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

Oh, no they din't!

I can hear the entirety of McKinney groaning (with glee?) right now.

That Audi Type is sorta nice in its use on the materials, but absolutely not in the wordmark! Atrocious. "Small." Is the word that comes to mind. It feels meager.

The icon rings? I'm okay with them. Flattened, kinda giving it a futuristic feel. Somebody needs to be hog-tied, tarred and feathered for that wordmark, though.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:39 AM

warren’s comment is:

Yaaaaawn at the typeface change, the old wordmark wasn't god with kerning but at least it had character. New rings pop nicely, but I agree with above, If you're not doing anything with the wordmark then just use the rings.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:43 AM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

Not too worried about the wordmark type or size (and there is value in having it for buildings, etc. Gotta train kids and new markets to what it means) but I don't get the alignment. With... nothing? Kerning is also terrible. Looks like someone's admin made it up because she just had the rings and didn't have the full logo, and needed it for some presentation.

Shine is not my thing, but is spot on for today. And it's just a treatment. Easy to change again, subtly, in 20 years.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:56 AM

Carlo’s comment is:

GOD I LOVE the Audi rings logo. It can do no wrong in my humble opinion.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:59 AM

Stormchild’s comment is:

The new rings are fine, I guess. I can't decide if it's actually an improvement, but they have a bit more contrast, at least.

The wordmark, however, is absolutely awful. Granted, the old one was so terrible that almost *anything* would have been an improvement, but the new one looks like someone pulled a 'bing'* and simply mutilated an existing typeface -- in this case, a squashed and stretched Verdana or Tahoma. The size and placement of the text looks positively amateur as well.

The new typeface seems to work alright as regular text. Some of the glyphs are okay; others simply look like Verdana/Tahoma with wrong proportions. Quite frankly they should have stuck with the older typeface. The new one is acceptable, but as a wordmark it looks exceptionally bad.

This needs to go back to the drawing board.

* Congratulations, Microsoft, you have successfully created a new verb, as intended. But unfortunately it doesn't have the meaning you were hoping for. To 'bing' is to commit an act of typographic atrocity.

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:02 PM

Frederick’s comment is:

I much prefer Chevrolet's typographic styling to Audi's, or that of any other car manufacturer. I wonder if there's a feature on this site. I'd like to know what the name is of the font they use.

As for Audi, the font is fine, for secondary text, but to also use it as part of the company's logo? Audi is supposed to stand out in every way, but now the cars have to do all the work (which I suppose isn't as daunting a task as I make it out to be).

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:23 PM

jinushaun’s comment is:

I miss the old word mark. It was unique, looked good and I feel it fits an auto company's image more. For me, the Audi word mark felt like a more effective logo than the rings themselves. The new word mark feels boring.

As for the updated rings, they're pretty negligible. While I agree they look much better than the old rings, most of the details will be lost because the rings are usually really small in actual use.

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:31 PM

Matt’s comment is:

I'll only like it if Andrew Sabatier likes it.

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:32 PM

Darrel’s comment is:

I really like the new corporate typeface. I do think the original logotype had a nice bit of personality, but the cohesiveness of the new typeface does seem to tie things together nicely.

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:41 PM

marcus’s comment is:

What's Clint Eastwood's face doing on the promotion spread?

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:47 PM

EMD’s comment is:

Wordmark fail.

I have a suspicion the old one might come back someday soon.

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:51 PM

Rob O.’s comment is:

I like the new rings and the next lettering style overall,

The "d" character did need to go but they should've kept the flourish atop the "A" to retain some connection with the old wordmark.

On Aug.25.2009 at 12:55 PM

Mark’s comment is:

Well done, this is a definite improvement over the old one.

I never understood what was going on with the "d" in the old logo, it was a very unique typeface though, I'll sort of miss it.

On Aug.25.2009 at 01:22 PM

Mark’s comment is:

One question though, why did they make it so small? It looks so insignificant in comparison to the the rings, it looks off.

On Aug.25.2009 at 01:34 PM

Trent Walton’s comment is:

New typeface is a little bland... cleaner with less character. I think they should just use Eastwood's face as the new logo.

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:01 PM

Jared Ray Scott Ramey’s comment is:

i am a HUGE Audi/VW guy and i do like the direction that they are taking (and i am excited about the S5). the rings do look much better in chrome, but i agree that in smaller applications it will be hardly noticeable.

I think its really important that the logo and wordmark reflect the quality of the cars they build... im not real sure the new typeface does that. german engineering it is not.

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:04 PM

Damon Charles’s comment is:

Strange that they should be striving for simplicity in the wordmark (which I think looks a bit clunky - something about the wide kerning and the extended bowl of the 'd') whilst making the re-render of the rings more visually noisy (but admittedly more realistic)

I can see what they're trying for, getting rid of the nasty old wordmark and trying to align more with their current design ethos, but I'm don't feel the final execution quite hangs together. Maybe it'll grow on me.

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:07 PM

Dirk’s comment is:

Yet another logo lost to the world of clean, bland and uninspired.

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:09 PM

damon’s comment is:

the rings and the type don't feel unified at all.

I agree with most of the above comments, the typeface is kinda cool on the reports etc but the wordmark is bland. why is it so small compared to the rings as well? that's an odd relationship.

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:13 PM

Fish’s comment is:

There is something I really miss about that old wordmark. The funky "d" really speaks to that tight handling/precisely tuned quattro rally car four-wheel drive system. I think.

"The Audi Quattro was the first rally car to take advantage of the then-recently changed rules which allowed the use of four-wheel drive in competition racing. It won competition after competition for the next two years.[1] To commemorate the success of the original vehicle, all subsequent Audis with their trademark quattro four wheel drive system were badged "quattro" with a lower case "q". The original car with the upper case "Q" in the Quattro name is a collector's piece."

I wonder if the design of "quattro" influenced the actual (older version) Audi mark "d" at all?

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:14 PM

Lauren B’s comment is:

I agree--the new typeface is bland and lacks the edginess the original one exuded. However the cleaner/smoother transitions on the interlocking ring graphic is a tremendous success.

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:15 PM

Matt Moore’s comment is:

The type is nice and sleek, but the extended version looks really stretched. The annual report could be a whole lot better too. Instead of screaming "bad-ass engineering," it squeaks out "high school yearbook." meh

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:17 PM

Cory Osborn’s comment is:

One day in art school, my professor caught me using the horizontal scale % slider to make some display type fit.
That was the day that I found out that you should never do that.
Even if someone pays you millions of dollars.
You should still never do that.

_PS Stormchild, thanks for calling out Bing. What an instant failure.

_Cheers!_

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:33 PM

Eirik’s comment is:

Why not some proper interlocking?

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:44 PM

Nathan McKinney’s comment is:

While the old logotype may look a little bit dysfunctional on the whole, I still think it has more personality than this new logotype. The new logotype has the personality of toast, or at least modern toast... and is probably going to look dated in just a few years.. so that brings us back to just toast.

The new proportional relationship with the rings is interesting, but I need to see more to be sold on it. If the intent is to slowly phase out the logotype altogether and just let the rings stand for the brand by themselves, I think that's exactly what they should have done now. The Audi cars are already more identifiable by those rings than anything else anyways.

As for the difference between one set of rings and another, at first I didn't even notice there was a change. But I think the new rendering adds a bit of excitement to the rings that was not there before. I can see Armin's point about the subtlety though. After all, we aren't talking about a Hyundai here. With an Audi, flashy isn't really the name of the game. It starts to stink a little bit like "new money". The old rings worked just fine and are more "old money": classy without being in your face about it. Maybe the designers just had trouble with the old rings popping in some designs. If that's the case, at least the update is very understated.

On Aug.25.2009 at 02:55 PM

Chaun’s comment is:

@ Frederick: I believe Chevrolet is using Stainless (or slight variant) as their current typeface.

On Aug.25.2009 at 03:27 PM

Aaron’s comment is:

@ Eirik: Keeping the rings a single form versus interlocking them allows for an easier production into molded plastics/metals/etc. as car companies so widely use on their vehicles.

On Aug.25.2009 at 03:44 PM

Calvin Buchanan’s comment is:

@ Frederick

Chevrolet uses a custom typeface designed by Process Type Foundry.

I believe it is based of the font Klavika, also a Process Type Foundry font.

On Aug.25.2009 at 04:16 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

The original was better. The big question is why?

On Aug.25.2009 at 05:13 PM

CP’s comment is:

I was dubious about the new Audi Type until the Annual Report scrolled by. I really see it now. The type may be boring but it really gels with what Audi has been trying to establish as a brand identity over the past 15 years. It may not be as exciting as, say, an Italian brand, but to me it really screams Audi. Its really good in a "German Engineered" way.

The new rings are fine. I think they seem more modern somehow than the old ones and are possibly more reflective of the actual rings they put on their cars nowadays, but honestly I don't think it matters as the four rings will always mean Audi to me.

A very effective change that works more to cement the brand direction they are heading towards than it does to change anything.

On Aug.25.2009 at 05:38 PM

Neil Martin’s comment is:

There's nothing particularly negative to say about this. I think it's a worthwhile update and after a few minutes of looking, I've come to the conclusion that the chrome rings do indeed look very nice.

On Aug.25.2009 at 06:40 PM

A.Willians7u87’s comment is:

Trhe Photoshop work is better but the tipology...

On Aug.25.2009 at 08:14 PM

Sebastian D.’s comment is:

The old "d" was not just a design gag. It was used for more than millenniums. The oldest example that I could find right now is in the Roman Cursive, the handwriting of ancient Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive
And as part of the Fraktur it was used in Germany well into the mid-20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraktur_%28script%29
To see one of it's very few modern applications vanish makes me a bit sad.

On Aug.25.2009 at 09:12 PM

Cameron’s comment is:

The old typeface used on the wordmark had character and history that was instantly recognizable.
The new while pleasant enough is entirely forgettable.

On Aug.25.2009 at 10:20 PM

Shauna’s comment is:

I like the new font (the d and A always bugged me) and the new rings but I don't like the new placement of the word, with it smaller and to the side it looks like an afterthought when if anything should be smaller it should be the rings.

On Aug.25.2009 at 10:24 PM

John Mindiola III’s comment is:

Hmm. The Audi Type looks like a cheap ripoff of Verdana or Tahoma. Yuck. The new rings? Gorgeous.

On Aug.25.2009 at 11:02 PM

Kyle Fox’s comment is:

I agree with John -- the new typeface looks like a generic Microsoft screen font.

I think the word "audi" would look really cool all lowercase in a very round, bulbous typeface with the legs cut off.

On Aug.26.2009 at 12:11 AM

Ragulan’s comment is:

The rings are ok with me, but the font is not attractive.

On Aug.26.2009 at 12:25 AM

JKreutzer’s comment is:

It's always a little hard to imagine a new car logo until you see it actually implemented on the vehicle line. The new rings are a nice evolution from the old. The new typeface is a little boring, and in much need of kerning. Seeing the new materials, it seems a little inconsistent. I actually prefer the kerning of the Audi typeface on the red annual report the most. I'm sure once you see the new typeface in usual beveled chrome decal stuck on the back of the car, it'll look more polished.

On Aug.26.2009 at 12:31 AM

Roehrl’s comment is:

@Matt: Why Andrew Sabatier? Do you know him? I used to work with him a few years ago.

On Aug.26.2009 at 03:15 AM

Michael’s comment is:

I'm going out on a limb and guessing that example shown for the new wordmark is not the actual new wordmark, but merely one that a third party has put together using the new type example to speculate what it might look like.

If one compares the kerning to that used for for the heading 'Audi' on the front of the annual report it's clearly far wider (and doesn't look nearly as coherent). I'm guessing the actual wordmark will look like the cover, and not the example Armin has shown.

Time will tell ...

On Aug.26.2009 at 06:45 AM

obse.’s comment is:

Nice type. Love the y.
The new rings render seems a little bit more complex in its execution, but I like the old one anyway. I hate the way the new ones meet.

On Aug.26.2009 at 08:47 AM

obse.’s comment is:

How come the new website has the old wordmark?

On Aug.26.2009 at 09:15 AM

James’s comment is:

boooooorrrring (the logo not the post)

On Aug.26.2009 at 10:01 AM

Matt’s comment is:

@Roehrl: because I'm making fun of him. His pompous "reputation management" posts are gems of self-absorbed designer foolishness.

On Aug.26.2009 at 10:09 AM

C.R. Brown’s comment is:

Eirik’s comment is:
Why not some proper interlocking?

because they represent a merger not a connection. Also you can't lay interlocking rings flat and as such there use on all flat surfaces woud look odd without shadowing.

On Aug.26.2009 at 10:11 AM

Eirik’s comment is:

Well, the original Auto Union logo used interlocking rings, although in some representations it was more like a combination of merging and interlocking. In any case, I think that looks better than the weird mergey thing they use now.

And as the picture shows were able to produce physical them back in 1932, so I doubt it would be impossible today.

On Aug.26.2009 at 10:36 AM

damon’s comment is:

prefer linky to mergy as well.

maybe it's too olympic or something...

On Aug.26.2009 at 11:08 AM

Santa’s comment is:

The chrome wheels aren't really doing it for me. Guess they wanted to appeal to the lowrider pimp crowd and move away from the upperclass.

On Aug.26.2009 at 11:57 AM

Frederick’s comment is:

Thanks, Chaun & Calvin Buchanan. Who knew it would be so easy to just ask?

On Aug.26.2009 at 01:05 PM

G. Alex’s comment is:

Some needed chromed finishes on a famous brand. Fresh and modern...

As for the new typo... I would've come up with an improved version of the old one... No need to change type imo

On Aug.26.2009 at 04:26 PM

Owen’s comment is:

Like the new rings but the font has to stay - Audi are 100 years old this year and should not lose sight of it's heritage.

On Aug.26.2009 at 05:28 PM

erik spiekermann’s comment is:

One small problem here: Aluminum is part of Audi’s core brand values. The new rings are chrome, cheaper and less specific.
(disclosure: i led the design team that designed the new Audi CD back in 1994/95, and Lucas de Groot drew those rings, or rather: he programmed them in PostScript)

On Aug.26.2009 at 07:06 PM

Josh’s comment is:

Type immortality chimes in and doesn't say anything about the kerning on the wordmark. I was just gonna joke that Erik Spiekermann would be ashamed. Almost sounds like it though.

I actually enjoy it at the large display sizes on the annual report there. I'm more with Erik Spiekermann than Mike Perry on how type should work though. One thing I did notice is that the kerning is tighter in the Audi on the annual report than the extracted example. I say tighten it up and it's as serviceable as it needs be.

And yes @Frederick. Chevy uses Klavika by Process Type. So did/does NBC from time to time.

On Aug.26.2009 at 09:27 PM

Tez’s comment is:

Boring! The old type face used in the wordmark gave the brand character and a point of difference even if some out there think it looks wrong. Now it just looks like they got bored and settled on myriad. Or better still someone moved the corporate font out of suitcase and it loaded a system place holder in its place. :)))) What a yawn!

Could everything else they they've had designed look more like its set in helvetica? Sorry to question everyone elses opinion but damn that looks shite!

On Aug.26.2009 at 10:17 PM

Ian Storm Taylor’s comment is:

All of the new is good for me. (Accidentally voted for Sans though...)

The new rings are much nicer because of the high-point not being in the dead center of the band. Much more interesting to look at in my opinion. I'm just not sure I like the "Audi" off to the left like that. Oh well.

Nice redesign overall.

On Aug.27.2009 at 01:28 AM

Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:

This brand transformation seems to be in line with a high definition approach to media that has been enabled by developments in high resolution technology.

The latest rendering of the Audi rings is crisp and visually punchy. It's a challenge not to gravitate towards the shiny rings for these reasons but I have to agree with Erik Spiekermann, who makes the singularly most compelling point about what the new rendering means.

Audi is aluminium at it's engineered finest. It has done well to align it's brand attributes with such a powerful symbol of transformation. Aluminium is a fantastic material for all sorts of reasons, particularly recyclability. It's a future-proof association that the chrome rings are perhaps now working to degrade.

Although customised, the genericisation of the typography communicates an intention to mechanise and make universal the Audi brand. It also suggests that the brandmark doesn't need more than the symbol for recognition.

Perhaps Audi can now afford to consider itself in archetypal terms and so the idealisation of the brand identity is justified.

A.

Permalink

@Matt – Show yourself. You have nothing besides a reputation to trade on. Show us your mettle. Let's see what you're made of!

@Roehrl – Who are you? I'm unable to verify your claim. You're also hiding.

On Aug.27.2009 at 10:02 AM

Julian’s comment is:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't like the new font. The new rings are passable but it didn't need to be done. Why do people make up excuses to "improve" things that would be better left untouched?

Waste of time and money.

On Aug.27.2009 at 04:11 PM

todd zakk’s comment is:

The newer font lacks the "audi" font. It is not a bad logo but the previous font looks more original, this font looks more common or generic. 3 out of 5 stars.

On Aug.27.2009 at 05:55 PM

Bendy’s comment is:

Dig the structure of the newer rings - the thinner lip on the inside of the bevel is a fantastic refinement. That being said, I do hate 'chrome' logos, so a bit disappointed. If anything, I'm surprised they didn't take the opportunity to stray a bit away from the standard of chrome auto logos... maybe rethink application a bit.

I always liked the old Audi typography, so it will be missed. The new Audi mark starts to look a bit toooo much like VW (parental influence rearing its head, I guess). While I think it appropriate to update the mark - there's been a lot of change since the last mark was introduced - it seems odd to sterilize it as much as they did.

Annual report cover is great.

On Aug.28.2009 at 04:33 PM

Tim’s comment is:

The brand evolves just like the car.

Take that very literally. Try putting the old logo on a brand new audi, it's ugly!

Conclusion: It's very audi and therefore a great job!

(I think they where running against the deadline with the annual report though...)

On Aug.28.2009 at 04:58 PM

Matt’s comment is:

Although the new wordmark is quite plain, it makes the old one look very dated. The old wordmark worked at the time, but it was time for a change. The new identity brings some much needed modernity to the Audi brand. On execution, there should have been a more unique wordmark. They should have taken cues from what worked on the previous (like the strange "d") and discarded the things that didn't work (like the awkard serfy thing on the 'A' and the dotless 'i'). But it needed a refinement, and that it got. This will look good on the cars.

On Aug.28.2009 at 05:29 PM

Ian Houghton’s comment is:

Good move Audi. Not too sure on the lack of character of the wordmark, but I definitely prefer the classier finish on the rings. The old one just reminds me of a Flash gradient.

On Aug.28.2009 at 11:20 PM

chase courington’s comment is:

eh, very very neutral. what to expect from audi, nice and clean. i agree with others that it doesn't work as well in the logo, the rings seem much more flat and boring, yet modern and useable/approachable. the old wordmark works much better than the new. aside from the logo and type itself, the book is nicely laid out. improvement? not so sure, but clean and safe nonetheless

On Aug.31.2009 at 01:58 AM

Paul Grant’s comment is:

Personally I feel the old font rocks. It's tight, bold, and the D aligns with the A. I visualize a car speeding down the road when you combine their matching arcs.

Balance... the old logo had it. The new one? Crushing the text under visual weight above. At worst the text should not be less than 50% the width of the graphic above it.

Spacing... there's so much space now between the graphic and the text, they no longer feel as one.

Rendering... I like either render. The old looks like pewter while the new one looks like highly shined metal. A real toss-up. Of course, most of those shiny bits of "chrome" you see on most cars are just plastic.

Final thought... overall, a step backwards in the type department, and mixed feelings on the rings. They fixed what wasn't broke, and modified something to an equal standing. A waste of money it seems.

On Sep.01.2009 at 09:07 AM

Paul Grant’s comment is:

Sometimes I think brands disseminate this stuff online, to get picked up by cool websites such as Brand New, just to use as a focus group testing tool. If that's as far as some of this stuff goes, then that's a good thing.

Cheers
Paul

On Sep.01.2009 at 09:22 AM

Edward’s comment is:

http://holycrossfoundationworld.org/default.aspx Please give now and God will bless you. Help those in need today. Thanks Ed H'
Founder/CEO Holy Cross Foundation World.org

On Sep.01.2009 at 05:03 PM

Chris Maclean’s comment is:

A quick overlay of the logo and the one used on the annual report reveals something sinister. They're not the same. Diferent kerning and even lettershaping. This is one of the pitfalls of using your corporate typeface for your logo. The temptation is to 'type' the logo rather than use a piece of vector artwork. This means you don't have a strong brandmark because it's never the same standard. Big mistake for a company of this size with a large number of agencies and designers using the logo.

The old one was great for me. Distinctive, ownable and unique. The new one jumps on the bandwagon of the 'Verdanification' of b rand identities. It's all driven by Powerpoint and the web you know. How can your brand look the same in print, online and PowerPoint? Simple, use a PC system font. In print, make it a bit more special by using a 'groovier' version of Verdana. It's the way many brands are thinking, because it's more consistent. However, it's not ownable, distinctive or even good.

I don't applaud this I'm afraid.

On Sep.02.2009 at 05:18 AM

Jen’s comment is:

I never minded the old "d" in the logo, but for some reason the "A" (in the old one) makes me want to hurt somebody. I agree that the type is too small in proportion to the rings, but I think they did it right in the annual report.

Just wanted to get a stab in about that swoopy ugly A...

On Sep.02.2009 at 11:24 AM

Jen’s comment is:

Um, I mean the type in the "new" logo...sheesh...

On Sep.02.2009 at 11:25 AM

Ronald’s comment is:

Interesting article on the background of the Audi “new” styling.

- from alu-look to chrome look;
- the Audi-fonttype has been replaced by a regular MS font type;

Main question to me: Why does Audi need a fonttype with a typography that is already so strong and recognizable?

On Sep.03.2009 at 02:50 AM

Antonio’s comment is:

New rings look better. Regarding the font, much better the old one.

On Sep.03.2009 at 02:39 PM

Maed’s comment is:

I really like the former logo, more original than the last logotype.
The former Logo, especially on the "d", neither "6" or "9", gives the movement's impression, in a really elegant and irripetible way.
Circles are circles, more or less metal doesn't change.
(sry 4 b4d eng)

On Sep.03.2009 at 06:40 PM

Banner Printing Service’s comment is:

the most stupid thing about their new logo: you can't find the new Audi logo on the web. not even at the Audi homepage.

how do you expect us to print it on a banner when your logo is non-free!

On Sep.07.2009 at 02:23 AM

IN RESPONSE’s comment is:

To Banner Printing Service: as for the thext, you can just type it in on Verdana and stretch it!!!

Just kidding...

LOL

Regards!

On Sep.16.2009 at 12:36 PM

severedsoul’s comment is:

I think the new rings are just fine. Better than the old ones... Always made me feel like if I was going to hold them in my hand I would get my fingers severed...

The typo is just fine too... gotta see it in action... I think works good enough.

Maybe they are (or if not, they should) walking Apple's way: remember when they dropped the Apple tag set in Garamond... The difference is that Apple was brave enough to drop it completely from the mark. Somehow Audi hasn't been this brave or maybe they are doing something like Imation did; just drop it through the time...

On Sep.16.2009 at 12:44 PM

Mark Wolstencroft’s comment is:

This is a major improvement. By reducing the wordmark against the rings the brand works as more self-confident and cues competence. Modernity is improved. I really like that the wordmark is off centre - less banal than before.

I disliked the 'A' an the 'd' in the old wordmark. They looked cheap and old fashioned - too much 'styling' for a brand that is supposed to be about quality and reliability.

The rings now look stronger, more aerodynamic. don't buy the aluminium concept behind the old rings. Aluminium is much lighter in tone.

Whilst I like the cover for the annual report the inner pages are weaker. This really isn't so important - it is after all a consumer brand first and foremost.

I've seen a few brand modernizations lately that really disappoint - this really enhances the brand. Good old Meta design.

On Sep.18.2009 at 11:53 AM

Webdesigner from Berlin’s comment is:

I like the new one, especially the rings. But I think the "Audi Type" font seems to have a bit too much whitespace.

On Sep.25.2009 at 02:05 AM

JoJo’s comment is:

Here's wishing you a very happy and prosperous new year !

On Jan.01.2010 at 01:35 PM

R4i ??’s comment is:

I like the new logo. The new rings are a nice evolution from the old. The new typeface is a little boring, and in much need of kerning. Good decision by the company. Audi is my dream car and the logo of any precious thing attracts you more.

On Jan.11.2010 at 07:22 AM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

The old rings have style, and Audi have resisted the temptation previously to follow the masses and 'bling-up' with the introduction of chrome. Not necessary.
Matte finish = panache.

A s f o r t h e t y p o . . .

l o o k s b e t t e r o n

the Report & Accounts when kerned somewhat better!

On Jan.11.2010 at 08:03 AM