Update #2: A good branding samaritan has sent in the official logo for Best Buy and the appropriate images have been updated, so the above image is the official logo. The logo is set in a modified version of Klavika.
Update #1: The above logo is not the official logo, I apologize for the confusion. At JasonNessa.com where I got the logo from, clearly states "The replicated logo above will give you a very close look of what the new logo looks like, but NOT the exact look." which was my oversight. Nonetheless there is something odd going on as the logo on the backdrop and the store sign are indeed different.
Founded in 1966 as Sound of Music and renamed to Best Buy in 1983, the consumer electronics giant is one of the largest and most ubiquitous retailers of its kind with its low prices, khaki-and-blue-polo employee uniforms and slightly deafening store experience. With more than 1,000 locations worldwide Best Buy opened a 45,000-square-foot in Minneapolis' Mall of America on August 6 and, more thrilling (at least for me) than the August 8th performance and autograph signing by New Kids on the Block, is the new logo that adorns the entrance to the store.
New Kids on the Mall.
The yellow tag logo that has become so easily identifiable (thanks in part to being rendered as Yao Ming-sized on the front of their stores) is amazingly almost twenty years old, introduced in 1989, and as recognizable as it is, it probably was time for a reassessment. There is no information anywhere about the new logo, and there is no acknowledgment of the change anywhere on Best Buy's web site, so we go by with what we know about design and the brand.
1966 and 1983 logos.
To me, the move was very explicitly done to soften the look of the old logo and make it feel a little more upscale — specially in light of recent news that the latest Best Buy to open in Aurora, Colorado was designed to be more friendly and accessible for women. The old logo definitely felt like it belonged in the $1 bin, perhaps appropriately. The new logo, set in Neo Sans in a modern sans serif set in a modified version of Klavika and with a refined tag, feels contemporary and fresh, I wonder though if it's too big of a departure from the original but it may have been hard to achieve a softer look working within the tag. I do like the new logo, even more so as I never quite liked the old one. Hopefully we will eventually learn more about the new identity. In the meantime here are some Flickr-pulled images from the new store at the Mall of America.
Thanks to Nick Oelke for first tip. And also major thanks to Jason Nessa for having the only graphic of the new logo in all of the internets.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Anonymous’s comment is:
Overall I like it, the font is a good choice but the tracking is a bit open.
On Oct.10.2008 at 07:41 AM
Randy’s comment is:
Two (very) different logos?
Randy’s comment is:
Sorry, broken link.
kristin’s comment is:
I didn't like it until I saw it in the sign.
On Oct.10.2008 at 07:54 AM
Mark’s comment is:
I am noticing some definite typographic differences on the included logo and the pictures of the new logo on mall fronts. I assume that is becuause it is probably more expensive to lite the descender of the Y if it is curved rather than straight. I actually like the more angular look, though I do love Neo Sans.
My biggest problem with the new logo overall is that is just doesn't have that "Wow" factor that the old logo did - whether negative or positive. This new one just fades away into the ubiquitous, sans-serif, "airy and modern" identities of the 2000s, and leaves nothing memorable whatsoever.
On Oct.10.2008 at 07:57 AM
jen’s comment is:
I feel sort of indifferent to this new logo. It's just sort of generic. Beyond that, having worked at a Best Buy during college, I can say even a logo change would not convince me to shop there. They treated their employees -- and their customers -- with such disrespect and disdain. It's amazing anyone ever returns.
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:18 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
It's funny that the old logo screams "WAL*MART" and the new logo screams "Walmart." A necessary redesign ... but this is pretty forgettable.
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:30 AM
sra’s comment is:
I like it, especially the simplified tag and the classier navy/gold combination.
The reg and copyright marks in logos are really beginning to grate on me though. That the reg mark is bigger than the dot in the tag is driving me nuts.
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:45 AM
Dave Klonke’s comment is:
Whether you liked the old logo or not, there was no doubt that it was BEST BUY. If you were driving, you could see it from a mile away. This new version, while better designed, doesn't grab my attention. If going upscale was their plan, they could have focused on the current logo a bit more.
And, what's with the upscale focus anyway? I go to Best Buy because I think I'm going to get the best price. That's been their brand position for years.
Someone compared it to the new Walmart logo, I agree. Big Box stores are eventually all going to merge into one city block.
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:46 AM
Jonathan’s comment is:
Mark is right, the "WOW" factor is totally missing from this new logo, compared to the old.
I'm not liking this at all. Is everyone just going to start doing these soft, sans serif, wimpy logos?!?! I mean, I guess I'm glad its not "Bestbuy" but its close enough. And there was so much potential to play with the angles of that "Y" and the price tag, just seems like a missed opportunity to me.
And if you have to change the "Y" for the sign, change it for print, and keep some consistency... ARGH! Enough of my rant, I'm really mad, this sucks.
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:56 AM
Josh B’s comment is:
There's definitely something fishy about this redesign. The sign in the above images is definitely a a similar-but-different typeface. The T and Y are easy to spot, but the shape of the S is different too, and the Bs appear to be squarer at the corners.
All that might be easy to write off as a sign maker's mistake that no one paid close enough attention to during fabrication. But, now look at the logo on the wall behind the New Kids. Hard to tell at that size, but it looks different to me there too. And not different in the same ways! The T is like the one on the sign. But the Y has a tail like the graphic of the logo Armin posted, except that it doesn't extend as far to the left as the one in the graphic.
Looks to me like they're rolling this out while it's still being "fine tuned". I wouldn't be surprised if we see something different for the official announcement of the rebrand.
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:58 AM
Bart O'Dell’s comment is:
I actually think this is a very refreshing approach to their brand. I feel it accomplishes the "WOW" factor while being a softer more upscale retail look. The only concern I would have is that they are abandoning their signature yellow color for a softer gold shade that seems to be lacking in impact.
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:15 AM
Josh’s comment is:
Why would they trade such enormous brand equity for a complete redesign rather than an update?
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:16 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Update: The "after" logo is not the official logo, I apologize for the confusion. At JasonNessa.com where I got the logo from, clearly states "The replicated logo above will give you a very close look of what the new logo looks like, but NOT the exact look." which was my oversight. Nonetheless there is something odd going on as the logo on the backdrop and the store sign are indeed different.
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:18 AM
Jenni ’s comment is:
My initial reaction was positive. From an aesthetic standpoint, the new logo is certainly an improvement...from a practical standpoint I'm still making up my mind.
It's certainly hard to ignore the screaming yellow price tags currently adorning all of their stores, but will we really not notice the new yellow-outlined tag just because it's not screaming as loud? The big-box stores will still probably be painted bright blue, and the yellow is still there. I'm guessing the new signs will all be in neon, a la the Mall of America photos. It's still going to be obvious that this is Best Buy, and I don't think people will notice them less because of their new look.
While I definitely appreciate the "non-sign" version much better than the "sign" version, I will be very interested to see how the identity is rolled out across the nation once the re-branding is officially announced. Give them a little while to "fine tune" as Josh B. said above, and let's see how it plays out.
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:20 AM
Andrew Meyer’s comment is:
I like this new direction, however I still hate the company. Best Buy has, probably, some of the worst customer service ever.
Also, I feel like Best Buy with their bright yellow and blue has some pretty great brand recognizability going. I would be apprehensive to change things so much. Maybe this new looks is suppose to make the geek squad brand better...
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:34 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
Yuk. I agree with Josh's comment. That giant yellow tag screamed high-energy. Now it looks like somebody turned the wattage down. With this big change, I'm still confused as to why the tag is now just an outline. It should be solid yellow! Aarrgghh! This is completely forgettable. The ONLY thing that can save this horrible decision is if the in-store experience, print applications, and web site are all really sexy. Unfortunately, with a site as robust as theirs, it probably will be months before every page is touched.
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:43 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
I could have seen this coming though. I live in Minneapolis area, and their most recent ads on the buses were set in this Klavika-ish typeface, a stark departure from their usual Futura, which is all over their web site still. I thought maybe it'd be a sign of things to come, something fresh, new, exciting... But when I see this new logo (whichever it is!), I'm totally underwhelmed. I just don't get it. They're Best Buy, they're huge, they can do whatever they want, and they arrive at this? Hmmmmmm.
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:46 AM
Haik Avanian’s comment is:
Aaaah, why can't I ever come in here and find some positive reaction. Perhaps people need to "sleep on it" or something. I understand you've been used to seeing this logo for ages and are having a bit of a moment letting go, but come on now, try and understand why they did what they did instead of assuming that they don't know what they're doing and have failed miserably.
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:55 AM
Kyle Fletcher’s comment is:
“Booooooo. Best Buy slipping into the project brief of "safe, clean, cool, and modern." Lets reduce our tag we've worked to hard to make stand out to a stealthy outline that will soon be removed during the next step in the weight loss program for our brand.
Personally, loved the stark togetherness of the bold type ON the old tag. The slight crook to the tag gave it good personality. It broke the standard grid. Something achievable. Not something that clearly belongs on corporate letterheads and fits tightly into the grid of all branded products. The old mark stuck out and for good reason.
This feels like the first step towards less educated sales associates, more corporate policy, and the general 'Wal-Marting' of best buy. Oh wait, did you notice the similarities of the new Wal-Mart mark to this? Blah. I'll make these corporations a template so they can do this shit for free.
A. Clever sans-serif font nobody else uses but looks very closes to everybody elses.
B. Reduce any personality of the mark to a secondary role so it can be phased out in the next evolution of our brand.
C. Reduce ink coverage to save printing costs by outlining any key items.”
Don't get me wrong, it's aesthetically sound. Aesthetically sound if you're a technology holding company that used to do retail, or a pyramid scheme wanting to look official.
Extremely saddening to see so much personality being stripped from these solid brands of yore.
On Oct.10.2008 at 10:17 AM
max’s comment is:
Dave Klonke’s comment was:
Whether you liked the old logo or not, there was no doubt that it was BEST BUY. If you were driving, you could see it from a mile away.
I second that. Although they might feel the need to change things up for either marketing strategies or simply because they want a fresh outlook, there is no amount of money that can buy what Best Buy has with it's (now former) logo identity. The old logo was as recognizable as the golden arches of McDonald's.
Bad idea, I think.
On Oct.10.2008 at 10:21 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Update #2: A good branding samaritan has sent in the official logo for Best Buy and the appropriate images have been updated. The logo is set in a modified version of Klavika.
On Oct.10.2008 at 10:23 AM
Not Required’s comment is:
I can't help but feel this is a transitional logo. Of note, notice how the tag has morphed into more of an arrow that points at their name instead of being part of their name. I fully expect it to be used as a cursor when they push online offerings. It's a more active rendering that sufficiently nods back to the old tag.
I do agree that, otherwise, it's a softer logo. I don't know that that's a bad thing, though. Branding has become too in-your-face, so I appreciate when companies choose to tone it down. The real question is whether or not this will continue to communicate the Best Buy brand, and I think it will.
On Oct.10.2008 at 10:27 AM
Jimmy Marks’s comment is:
This doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Were sales that lagging or opinion that sour? Why reinvent a brand that actually works?
Also, why is it that when people start re-branding stores and whathaveyou, they leap right for those narrow serifs? I'm still pissed Office switched to Calibri as the default font.
matt’s comment is:
I think the redesign leaves nothing to be desired. This new logo has no energy, no life, and although i really like the typeface Klavika, and have mentioned to my company to buy it in the past, this really makes me second guess my decision. This is as bland and generic as can be, zero personality.
but as Haik said, 'why can't we be positive?' So let's be positive: the new logo sucks, but today is Friday, WOOHOO!
On Oct.10.2008 at 10:36 AM
Roiby Gonzalez’s comment is:
Not feeling it. The old "tag" logo was nothing to write home about but it was brands calling card. On the new logo the tag looks like it doesn't belong... Maybe if it had the same weight as the font? I don't know. But it is friday... so go get a pint after work and complain about the economy to your friends.
On Oct.10.2008 at 11:16 AM
thehappyhuskie’s comment is:
Well, I do like the navy over the ridiculous blue that made me feel like I was at a high school pep rally.
I wasn't a big fan of the logo as a stand alone, tho I do like it fully incorporated with the store front.
While the old logo was a little off, it seemed to me like a logo of a company that grew too fast and didn't have time to rebrand, this new logo says "hey we're a big corporation, capable of crushing smaller ones, but hey, we are kinda friendly with our lower case lettering."
Since I wasn't alive in the 60s...or 70s for that matter, maybe someone can explain what that little swirly thing in the old logo is. (Me thinks Bond....James Bond.)
On Oct.10.2008 at 11:19 AM
oscar’s comment is:
Well, if it works for facebook...
At least they didn't go all-lowercase.
Also, that original "Sound of music" logo kicks ass.
Adam’s comment is:
The 'B' and the 'y' are font crimes.
On Oct.10.2008 at 11:22 AM
PXLated’s comment is:
I was a design consultant at BBY back when they were going on the net in 2000. The problem with their old logo was it had just evolved from the yellow sales tags in the stores, used a generic shape and fonts, and couldn't be trademarked (you'll notice there has never been a TM or registration mark associated with their logo all these years). We had it refined, made it less stark, a little more distinctive while retaining a similarity. We had hopes the rest of the company would see the light and adopt it - they didn't :- (
From the Internet archives BBY.com
On Oct.10.2008 at 11:30 AM
chris’s comment is:
I find this new treatment to the Best Buy brand uninspired and unnecessary. It has been said before and I'll second it- generic, typical of the soft, sans "friendly" look of the 2000's. The former logo boldly and with confidence stated "this is THE BEST BUY", literally- "OUR prices are the lowest". We're losing that energy in the redesign. It feels wrongly subdued.
Did they really need a redesign anyway? They still sell the same stuff and we're all familiar with the store. I don't think they will attract any new customers. If anything, I'll probably pass by it on the road while I'm looking for the big yellow tag.
On Oct.10.2008 at 11:46 AM
Mulciber’s comment is:
PXLated, I'm seeing a ® in the old logo above and a ™ in the link you provided...
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:00 PM
Jesse’s comment is:
New logo is nice, but the big surprise are the New Kids looking healthy and human, ready for corporate endorsements!
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:04 PM
arnoldP’s comment is:
I think the tag is ok, but I HATE THE TYPE!!!!
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:07 PM
Steph W’s comment is:
Hm, certainly not as impactful as the old logo, fo' sho--the new logo is definitely more tastefully inoffensive, and therefore pretty bland. But I think Best Buy has enough equity in their name alone that a logo change won't be a game changer for them. People know exactly what Best Buy is and will continue to go regardless of what their logo looks like. That is, unless BB drastically changes the way they do business to go along with their new logo.
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:12 PM
Jessica’s comment is:
"specially in lieu of recent news that the latest Best Buy…"
I think you mean "especially in light of recent news…"
Lieu means "instead of", which wouldn't make much sense in this context unless they hadn't announced the news at all.
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:24 PM
Matias’s comment is:
I bet there was the word "FaceBook" somewhere in the briefing.
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:28 PM
jRod’s comment is:
to me, its the blue BEHIND the logo that is really setting it off. i am interested to see how they handle the signage in strip malls on that massive blue concave polygon slammed next to the entrance. That would mean that the blue would be much darker, which would be more interesting, and im sure that it will still catch my eye at a distance. i am looking forward to the change. safe, but still well-executed logo.
Armin’s comment is:
Jessica, yes *blush* thank you.
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:33 PM
Josh’s comment is:
@ Mulciber -
The work mark has the TM. The tag does not.
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:34 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Mulciber - The new BBY.com could be trademarked as it was a more distinctive shape. Am surprised there's a TM on the main BBY logo, never saw it when there and was told by several BBY execs it couldn't be trademarked. Of course, it's a TM rather than an actual registration. TM is just intent to trademark.
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:40 PM
Costin Oane’s comment is:
It's a big surprised. really. But it looks great.
On Oct.10.2008 at 12:56 PM
Chris’s comment is:
This is so boring. It's just like the wal-mart logo, but instead of the asterisk it's an uninteresting price tag. The old one was pretty ugly but at least it was ugly in an interesting sort of way. It was very distinctive, which this new version definitely is not.
On Oct.10.2008 at 01:39 PM
exigent’s comment is:
Wow. I am at a loss as to why they changed their logo so drastically. They could have simply updated the angles of the tag, updated the colors to the dark blue and gold, then maybe updated the fonts while remaining WITHIN the tag. They blew it.
On Oct.10.2008 at 02:39 PM
Greho’s comment is:
If they make the new yellow tag as huge as the old yellow tag on the storefronts, then they can preserve some of their consumer recognition. Like a giant yellow arrow saying, "Here we are!"
*****
Off topic, I know, but... Given current financial conditions, is it wise to make new eye-candy upscale logos? A yellow sale sign, implying good prices, is pretty strong in this environment. I want to shop at Best Buy, not The Sharper Image.
On Oct.10.2008 at 02:44 PM
Michael Holdren’s comment is:
The choice in the typeface makes it feel European. It's quieter too, which I don't like. The prices of the store were never "bargain basement" though, as the old logo would imply, so maybe this is more appropriate, however it is terrible timing given the current state of the economy. (Ugh, sorry for the run-on.) Nearly every retailer out there is promoting discount prices, yet Best Buy seems to be going for up-scale. Anyone else hear that game-show error buzzer going off in the background?
Also, no one's mentioned the oddity of the symbol sitting on the right instead of the left of the type. Remember when MBNA re-did their logo a few years ago? The tree was on the right instead of the left. It didn't look right. I can see why it was done with Best Buy though, even if lining up the angle of the tag with the "y" is too easy though and not terribly clever. There's no pizazz.
Honestly, the old logo was fine. All they really had to do was re-work the typography so it was set a little cleaner (possibly with a new typeface). I wonder, would Klavika look better inside the tag?
I will say though that at least it's not a globe.
On Oct.10.2008 at 02:55 PM
Paul C’s comment is:
I like all of the elements separately, and even together they look nice...but as we all know, Graphic Design without a real purpose is just.....uh.....
The old logo was known worldwide and visible from miles away, I'm very curious to see if this logo will be as effective as it's less attractive predecessor.
On Oct.10.2008 at 03:41 PM
Seabiscuit’s comment is:
Heading in the right direction, but a bit too generic. Anyone know who did their redesign?
On Oct.10.2008 at 03:42 PM
Haik Avanian’s comment is:
I think they should replace the "hole" in the tag with the ® mark and simplify a bit, a la:
Josh’s comment is:
Woo Klavika! It's the new corporate typeface that is going to replace Meta. Haha.
Whatever this is for, whether official or not I love the shout out to hometown type designers.
They need an update for the brand. The old identity is memorable and noticeable, but it is aging slowly toward irrelevance. Though this Web 2.0 look is getting out of hand.
On Oct.10.2008 at 05:06 PM
Ken’s comment is:
This is really weird, as I was just staring yesterday at Best Buy's logo on a truck leaving the store. I hope the stores carrying the old logo will make a good transition.
On Oct.10.2008 at 05:11 PM
Laura Stanke’s comment is:
Good idea Haik! Probably some legal reason they couldn't do that.
Not that I like it but I wonder if there is going to be a ".com" version.
On Oct.10.2008 at 05:12 PM
darrel’s comment is:
Now the tag is reversed, it feels like some critter mascot...
Mat’s comment is:
BOOOOOORRRRRINNNNGGGGG! The new logo sucks. The old one had personality and was very recognizable. The new one looks like all the other crap logos out there. Bad move Best Buy.
On Oct.10.2008 at 07:22 PM
Haik’s comment is:
How can you complain that a logo that just came out isn't recognizable?
On Oct.10.2008 at 07:26 PM
Andrei’s comment is:
The new logo looks like the logo for a supermarket.
I think they screwed up somewhat - the big yellow tag was just as distinct (ok, so maybe to a lesser extent) as the yellow pages walking fingers.
It's nice... but it's not as iconic as the old one.
On Oct.10.2008 at 07:45 PM
BJN’s comment is:
Put Mayo on that big screen...
http://www.bestfoods.com/images/product/mayo_olive_jar_bf.gif
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:11 PM
BJN’s comment is:
Sorry:
Kareem’s comment is:
I'm new here, and I have few questions/comments:
Why is there a need to throw out the baby with bath water to cater to a female demo?
I have nothing against the new logo, but unlike Wal-Mart (who is unabashedly going after the homemaker demo), I'm having trouble seeing how this is going to work on a race car (NASCAR)?
That said, I think the logo might grow on me, in time.
On Oct.10.2008 at 08:50 PM
Blue Buddha’s comment is:
This logo confuses me. Not in the literal sense, but do I like it, do I hate it, do I love it, do I loathe it? I don't know.
The tag annoys me; why is it pointing up if it has a string hole?
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:10 PM
J.T. Shaver’s comment is:
Honestly,
The kerning is terrible, especially between the Be and st...it's like Be st Buy. The old one was more than fine, it stood for something. This sucks.
Shaver Design - Print, Identity, and Web Design
On Oct.10.2008 at 09:52 PM
Mark’s comment is:
sigh,I don't like the new price tag shape it looks odd, and put over to the left it looks forgotten. At least the previous logo (even though not the best in the world) looked nice and coherent and were all one object, this looks like two different elements trying to stay together,and a price tag shape trying to imitate the previous one.
It would help if it were all one color.
On Oct.10.2008 at 11:17 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Ok, I'm getting more rational here.
I think the basic argument here is to why so many people dislike this logo is that it isn't ugly, or bad, or even terribly made. It isn't as a logo itself it's quite well done and clean and simple. The problem is that a lot of people are having a collective "WTF!" moment here. It's the fact that Best Buy has dumped it BIG IN YOUR FACE, large bright yellow tag enclosing the name in big bold capital letters that can be recognized anywhere, with a toned down word mark dominant logo with a smaller tag at the end.
I admit I was surprised they did this. It's unexpected that a big box type store would suddenly dump it's dominating big logo for a quieter one like this, right now in the picture it looks like a music store and not a big-large-all-you-can-think-of-warehouse-type-electronics store. Well maybe they're dumping the previous look, the big large screens, the LOUD MUSIC, the huge woofers blaring loud sounds, and all sorts of overbearing garish electronic input that you go on sensual overload. As you can tell I've been in their stores recently, it's an overwhelming experience, it's hard to concentrate on what your looking for when so much stuff is going on in the store. It got to be too much that my parents and I had to leave.
Putting that in perspective, I think they've finally realized that the loud overbearing noise is driving consumers away and since that type of taste doesn't seem to be popular these days due the economy I think they've decided to drop that image.
Now on to the logo, even though it's not that exciting it does has some positives:
It's clean it's simple, and looks like it could stand the test of time, nothing right now indicates that it stems from any trend that is short lived.
It's wordmarked based, it's pretty bare down to it's elements almost, and it let's the name standout for itself, nothing really that distracting.
There's no gradients to be found and it's NOT a globe.
The use of the tag doubling as an arrow is well done, instead of the tag element being static it's actually being put to good use leading the eye to the name.
Now the bad:
the typeface what is going on with the type face? I don't know about you but the divots in the letters look distracting and look odd. Couldn't they fix that?
This logo on a white background risks the tag being lost due to the color, yellow on white hardly ever works.This limits it to black.
putting the name on a single line, looks dull, they could of at least stacked the type, the shapes of the letters look static on all a single line, less dynamic white space results from that.
The tag still looks a little far away, they could move it a bit closer to it fits better.
Also for crying out loud, do we still need that tiny dot in the tag?, it's distracting, and it seems to function no purpose at all except maybe to remind people it's a tag, I'm pretty sure people could know it's a tag shape without the dot.
Thee tag itself, why is it an outline? to make it look cool? they didn't want to fill it in? it could have worked better as a full shape rather than a transparent shape. It wouldn't get lost so easy with the rest of the logo. Oh well just a tiny complaint from me.
On Oct.11.2008 at 12:44 AM
Mark’s comment is:
EDIT:
Ok, I'm getting more rational here.
I think the basic argument here is to why so many people dislike this logo is that it isn't ugly, or bad, or even terribly made. It isn't as a logo itself it's quite well done and clean and simple. The problem is that a lot of people are having a collective "WTF!" moment here. It's the fact that Best Buy has dumped it BIG IN YOUR FACE, large bright yellow tag enclosing the name in big bold capital letters that can be recognized anywhere, with a toned down word mark dominant logo with a smaller tag at the end.
I admit I was surprised they did this. It's unexpected that a big box type store would suddenly dump it's dominating big logo for a quieter one like this, right now in the picture it looks like a music store and not a big-large-all-you-can-think-of-warehouse-type-electronics store. Well maybe they're dumping the previous look, the big large screens, the LOUD MUSIC, the huge woofers blaring loud sounds, and all sorts of overbearing garish electronic input that you go on sensual overload. As you can tell I've been in their stores recently, it's an overwhelming experience, it's hard to concentrate on what your looking for when so much stuff is going on in the store. It got to be too much that my parents and I had to leave.
Putting that in perspective, I think they've finally realized that the loud overbearing noise is driving consumers away and since that type of taste doesn't seem to be popular these days due the economy I think they've decided to drop that image.
Now on to the logo, even though it's not that exciting it does has some positives:
It's clean it's simple, and looks like it could stand the test of time, nothing right now indicates that it stems from any trend that is short lived.
It's wordmark based, it's pretty bare down to it's elements almost, and it let's the name standout for itself, nothing really that distracting from the name.
There's no gradients to be found and it's NOT a globe.
The use of the tag doubling as an arrow is well done, instead of the tag element being static it's actually being put to good use leading the eye to the name.
Now the bad:
the typeface what is going on with the typeface? I don't know about you but the divots in the letters look distracting and look odd. Couldn't they fix that?
This logo on a white background risks the tag being lost due to the color, yellow on white hardly ever works.This limits it to black and other dark colors.
putting the name on a single line, looks dull, they could of at least stacked the type, the shapes of the letters look static on all a single line, less dynamic white space results from that.
The tag still looks a little far away, they could move it a bit closer to it so that it fits in with the name better.
Also for crying out loud, do we still need that tiny dot in the tag?, it's distracting, and it seems to function no purpose at all except maybe to remind people it's a tag, I'm pretty sure people could know it's a tag shape without the dot.
Thee tag itself, why is it an outline? to make it look cool? they didn't want to fill it in? it could have worked better as a full shape rather than a transparent shape. It wouldn't get lost so easy with the rest of the logo. Oh well just a tiny complaint from me.
On Oct.11.2008 at 12:49 AM
A’s comment is:
This seems to be par for the course with retail logo changes nowadays.
Stop & Shop, Wal-Mart, Best Buy...they want to appear less big, bold and scary and more slim, stylish and humanizing.
On Oct.11.2008 at 01:30 AM
Mark’s comment is:
crap more spam, I hope it was going to be a new comment.
On Oct.11.2008 at 04:30 AM
JonE.’s comment is:
I agree with Mark's comments. Its not that the logo is bad or ugly, its just that it departs quite a bit from the original. Not to mention that its jumping, inappropriately, on the "web 2.0/square, new age, soft sans serif" wagon that seems to represent (or at least in the mind of designers) a soft, more feminine, more sophisticated look & feel.
The only thing I disagree with Mark is the typography. I think the modifications they did to Klavika is actually way better and softer then the original. The only thing with the typography is that this kind of execution fits a high-tech company, a computer company or any organization dealing with technology and/or cutting edge products or services.
Now, reworking the typography is one thing, but their one major identifier was sort of lost...that huge yellow tag that we all recognize and are able to identify from afar so well is now reduced to a secondary element that quite frankly was over simplified. The whole logo is way more corporate, which isn't a bad thing necessarily, but again...its too much of a departure from the original look and the vision that the old logo held, which was "we got everything you need, and we're cheap". Now looking at the logo, one would think they have all the good, new stuff but it will probably be more expensive. One could argue that the new logo has absolutely no personality and lacks the excitement that the previous held.
Any way, the logo isn't bad, its just not as good as it could be...I could have done a way better job :)
On Oct.11.2008 at 02:17 PM
Best Buy’s comment is:
A quick background on trademarking regarding iconography and generic elements. Best Buy's previous logo was not trademarked. Anyone could use it.
While the chunky type was rightfully theirs, the tag icon was too generic, and by law, is a public piece of clip art–if you will.
I'm assuming this was a motivating factor in the redesign.
On Oct.11.2008 at 04:20 PM
Best Buy’s comment is:
Looks like PXLated already covered that. Apologies.
On Oct.11.2008 at 04:40 PM
Mongoose’s comment is:
I'll first concur with Jeff's comment: it's a reminder of the WAL*MART to Walmart move. The big-box stores are trying to seem less big and boxy, and seem to be starting with their fonts, seeing upscale and female-attracting powers through the use of lowercase sans-serif. S'alright, but I first frequented Best Buy during college for cheap-ass CDs and computer products, and I'll be personally nostalgic for the logo of that focus (Instead of home theatre, laptops, and Guitar Hero.)
Fontwise, the funky curve on the 'e' and 's' are fair, though I'm not quite sold on the curve on the 'y'. But without it it'd be a bit jarring. The two 'B's are so far apart now, too!
The yellow tag, I concur with those folks who're dissapointed to see it as just an outline: I think fully yellow might've had a stronger look to it, and the sharp-corner instead of the blunt-corner is.. that'll take a bit to get used to. I suppose given the reduced size, cutting that corner would look horrible though.
The overall feeling, I think Chris hit the nail on the head with 'subdued'. That's what Best Buy is looking for, it's everything they intended to shift to for their image. On that level, I think it works very well. The designer did a great job, I'm sure, given what he or she was asked to do.
All told, a coincidental B for a revamped logo that's where they want it, but strangely doesn't feel like an improvement.
On Oct.12.2008 at 03:02 AM
Mongoose’s comment is:
In side notes: Haik Avanian, I like that changeup on the ®! It's very playful, and I think the increased size and simplicity makes for a better logo.
Also, poking at Best Buy's website, this struck me as curious: 
ChrisM70’s comment is:
Here's my take on Best Buy's logo, and trying to keep the old tag in a more recognizable way and using a more straight-forward but clean looking font (Gotham).
I also used a "string" to tie the tag to the type.
Amanda’s comment is:
Chris, I think that looks even more generic.
On Oct.12.2008 at 04:09 PM
JonE.’s comment is:
I agree with Amanda, I think the concept of the tag tied to the "Y" is a good, playful way to keep the tag "equity" however Gotham in this particular instance is horribly generic and looks quite pathetic.
On Oct.12.2008 at 04:26 PM
LadyN’s comment is:
*gasp* How could they?!?!?!
On Oct.12.2008 at 06:06 PM
Durkastan’s comment is:
Gotham... oh god, it's the new Brush Script ;o(
On Oct.12.2008 at 07:24 PM
Justin’s comment is:
Oh Geez, yes Chris how dare you use Gotham. Because it's popular, regardless of whether or not it is a decent typeface I am now a hater of it. Success = Hating, Duh.
P.S. How dare you compare Brush Script to Gotham, blasphemy. You owe a letter of apology to HF&J.
On Oct.13.2008 at 11:02 AM
Haik Avanian’s comment is:
Yeah that's a pretty lame comparison. We all know Gotham is quality, so its up to you to use it well and make something of it.
On Oct.13.2008 at 11:05 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Plus, um, this is not Gotham.
On Oct.13.2008 at 11:17 AM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
Clean. A great update from the 80's-looking original.
On Oct.13.2008 at 12:48 PM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
Perfect. Job well done. I'm usually not very supportive of this new trend of arbitrary rebrands we're seeing the in the current marketplace, but this one's earned it. Not because it's spectacular, but because it's appropriate and valuable.
btw, Haik, nice solution with the ®.
On Oct.13.2008 at 01:29 PM
Haik Avanian’s comment is:
thanks Morgan! Someone should forward that to their design team and see if they want to use it :)
On Oct.13.2008 at 01:49 PM
Will’s comment is:
So, this tag isn't the "new Best Buy logo".
Yes, this logo is new, and yes, it is for Best Buy. But as far as I know, this logo applies only to the new Mall of America store. See how all the pictures provided are either from the MoA store or have MoA signage?
As far as I know, Best Buy isn't spending millions to overhaul all the stores in the company when it's busy trying to cut costs in other, more important things, like not cutting back labor.
On Oct.13.2008 at 04:13 PM
David’s comment is:
I hate the shopping experience at Best Buy, so it will be awhile before I see this in person, but the logo is okay.
On Oct.13.2008 at 04:58 PM
Janet Aubry’s comment is:
Usually when a company changes their signage or logo it is because they are changing a lot of things and want to update their appeal to their market. In the case of Best Buy, I agree that this may be a transitional logo or just a chance to test reactions. I have some knowledge of the company's demographics and I think in a time when Best Buy is well positioned to trounce on Circuit City, something a little more classy is a good move away from the "dollar bin" sign of yore. The logo gets it done by attracting young hip brand oriented kids while keeping the "solid" image for existing clients who are very middle america. If you get too hip you lose your largest base so this is a good choice. I won't say compromoise because it doesn't read as one. It's just newer and fresher. Although I'm known for letting the graphic designed go creatively berserk, in this situation I think the response is exactly what was called for.
On Oct.13.2008 at 08:06 PM
Jayysenn’s comment is:
This was mentioned earlier:
This is not a redesign at all, but a seperate verion of the logo used for the corporation as opposed to the stores. You'll see this if you look at pictures of the corporate offices. I've seen this one before on the "about Best Buy" page.
illusio’s comment is:
This new logo just appears awkward in many ways. The sales tag looks like a morphed version of the National Geographic mark with a little dot. And the registered symbol placement is confusing. BB could benefit from a re-branding in general, just not this one.
On Oct.13.2008 at 11:54 PM
illusio’s comment is:
Oh and Haik Avanian, nice cleanup.
On Oct.13.2008 at 11:56 PM
Design’s comment is:
Sounds like they're updating everything.
http://www.startribune.com/business/30243494.html
Eric Olson’s comment is:
There's a lot to comment on here, but as the designer of Klavika I agree with nearly every negative comment above. I've heard conflicting stories from inside Best Buy (source to remain anonymous) as to the eventuality of this ever being carried through into most stores as the MOA store seems to be a test lab of sorts.
I'm not in love with the old logo, but if your goal is to attract drivers from the highway (this is a 'big box' after all), then I'd say mission accomplished with the giant Futura.
As for art directors slicing up typefaces, for the record none of the glyphs in the logo are original to Klavika except for possibly the lowercase 'e'.
Again, a lot to comment on here. Apologies for being short.
On Oct.14.2008 at 10:22 AM
Typo’s comment is:
Glyphs often change in logotypes. Don't act surprised. Especially in the retail environment.
When you take something that's, say, designed to be used at 12pt—things change when displayed at 1200pt. Things that may or may not be the most appealing.
I'm not saying the tweaks are the very best. But, don't create something for others to use, and act elitist and offended when it changes.
Char’s comment is:
OH MY GOTHAM!
On Oct.15.2008 at 01:08 AM
Charlie Rae’s comment is:
@Typo.... It seems to me that everyone can have an opinion on the logotype at that isn't being elitist. If type designers are used to anything, it's having their work used in all sorts of ways - good and bad. This would be no surprise to a type designer, and certainly no surprise to the many art directors and graphic designers who see their brand guidelines ignored upon implementation. Come on now, let's be real and stop obfuscating with the e-word.
On Oct.15.2008 at 09:31 AM
Typo’s comment is:
Charlie, obviously everyone has an opinion. And, it's just a logo... good or bad.
But, Eric seemed taken aback by what Best Buy did with his type. Perhaps elitist was a tad harsh. Sorry.
Just be humble and maybe even a little flattered that they like your work.
Phil’s comment is:
Sorry, but I think the current logo is much stronger than this new one. The big yellow tag has become a symbol like Apple's apple and MS's Window, or Target's bullseye. I could see tweaking the rigid tag some, but the big bold yellow with the big bold letters set the tone of the brand to me. I do like the new shade of blue/grey in the new logo though.
On Oct.16.2008 at 09:05 AM
MADPHILL’s comment is:
meh. I think it's definitely contemporary and more high-end, but too trendy. I can't see this logo lasting 20 years like the last one as it adheres to trending TOO much IMO.
Best Buy's old mark represented the "superstore" aspect of what makes them unique, but I never found their prices to be the cheapest.
Anyway...what ev.
On Oct.18.2008 at 05:17 PM
Justin Winget’s comment is:
Not a Fan...If it ain't broke, don't fix it...Their old logo stood out in a saturated market, and this one aims more at fitting into it than anything. I could always see a Best Buy from a mile away, and if they stay with this scheme, that won't be the case anymore...Seems to me that some corporate execs were just bored and decided they had a little extra money to throw around.
Owen Troy’s comment is:
I'd been noticing they've started using chester/thirstype's Apex New in their weekly ad and then in recent instore signage. It's a pretty blatant move towards softening their masculine/authoritative look but, well, it's also not half bad. Beats the heck outta setting lots of type in Futura.
I'm just sad that Apex, long one of my favorites and totally underutilized, is about to become 'isn't that the best buy font?' Oh well. Congrats chester, on what I expect was like a 500 seat license.
On Oct.20.2008 at 02:51 AM
mm’s comment is:
The old logo proclaimed loudly, "COME HERE AND GET THE BEST BUY."
And I would stop there and consistently feel lied to. It was never the best buy. I could always get it cheaper online. So, to a large degree it failed as a brand. The logo sent an effective message that the store did not follow through on.
Might as well change it.
On Oct.25.2008 at 05:21 PM
web’s comment is:
I like the new blue... but NKOTB, seriously?
On Oct.28.2008 at 03:18 AM
random dude’s comment is:
Anonymous’s comment is:
Looks like the new WalMart* logo...
It's definitely a more upscale look, but kind of "mall upscale." Will look nice next to Journeys.
On Nov.08.2008 at 02:41 PM
Andy’s comment is:
Looks like the new WalMart* logo...
It's definitely a more upscale look, but kind of "mall upscale." Will look nice next to Journeys.
On Nov.08.2008 at 02:42 PM
Patrick’s comment is:
Well executed (apart from some minor type/kerning changes I would make) but definitely forgettable. Especially with so many companies taking the "web 2.0" approach to their branding. It's very soft. Too soft for a powerhouse like Best Buy. This might come back to hurt them as the brand itself is already weak, being so generic a name. Of course time is on it's side so it's not like people will forget who Best Buy is as a company - I just see it as a risky move to be less in your face.
On Nov.12.2008 at 08:45 PM
Doug’s comment is:
Wow, surprise, sur-freakin-prise. It's not creative, and it's not surprising. It looks generic and cheap. It's Wal-Mart, except the colors are rearranged.
The old logo was a distinct identity. This new one is conformity in every way.
On Nov.16.2008 at 09:06 PM
Kelly Hobkirk’s comment is:
If the goal is a slightly deeper pocket clientele, I'd say this is right on in a generic sort of 'logo 2.0' way, however, given that Best Buy has completely lost the meaning of customer service, I highly doubt they are shifting their market upwards.
On Nov.16.2008 at 09:29 PM
