Guest Opinion from Chris Weiss posted BY Brand New

Better Bread. Better Subs. Better Logo?

Milwaukee-based Cousins Subs was established in 1972 when two cousins, originally from Atlantic City, introduced the Midwest to the Eastern-style subs they had enjoyed back home. From the beginning, the pair were committed to delivering quality sandwiches made with the best ingredients available. Of the company’s 150 locations, 128 of them are located in the state of Wisconsin. Having grown up in Milwaukee, it has always been one of my favorite sub shops. In my opinion, the ingredients and the bread really are better than the competition’s — the logo is another story.

[Ed.’s Note: While we typically pass on smaller regional brands, we received a significant amount of e-mails about this redesign and we are very proud to be able to please our devoted Wisconsin readership! — AV]

Detail of logo without gradients.

I have many memories of the brand from childhood. I especially liked how the sandwiches were finished off with oregano seasoning, they were wrapped in white butcher paper and taped shut with plain-old masking tape (not sure if they still are today). I also remember that logo, in use for about the last twenty years. I clearly remember not liking it. But it was one of those situations where it’s all you’ve ever known and it was so bad, it was good — or at least, it was familiar.

I was intrigued when I found out it had been updated by Welke Group, a Milwaukee agency. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of information available regarding the objectives of the project, but a recent article by a Milwaukee newspaper points to an obvious need for modernization and better legibility.

Redesigned packaging.

Initially I expected something more drastic, but after giving it some thought, I’m glad they didn’t completely change the logo. They were smart to keep the original “sub” shape and I like that it’s been shortened slightly. The slightly thickened rule is an appropriate weight for the shape and while I’m not a fan of radial gradients, it creates a subtle roundness to what was previously a flat yellow pill. The original color scheme has been brightened considerably with an updated red and the addition of green. The new type appears to be a variation on Neutra Text Bold, Gotham, Avenir, Nobel and a number of other geometric typefaces. The oversized “C” interacts nicely with the the “o” while enabling the entire name to rest comfortably inside the capsule shape. However, I don’t like how the space between the terminal and the bowl has been filled on the “u” and “n” — a gesture that just doesn’t seem necessary. Also, the “s” letterforms are an atrocity. Finally, I really wish they hadn’t vertically squished the word “SUBS”.

Window cling and brand brochure.

Other than butchering the type in a few places, I think this is a nice update because I still recognize the brand I’ve known my whole life. It’s kind of like having a good friend with a bad sense of style who got a makeover — and no longer being afraid to be seen with them in public.

Thanks to Preston Knapp for first tip.

Swifty’s comment is:

I expected more. With a name like “Cousins”, there was a perfect opportunity to perhaps have a couple of letters connect - or something - to play off of the name. Instead, we got bland, boring, turkey and cheese sub on white bread with a slice of lettuce and nothing else.
The old logo, while outdated, actually had a little bit of charm…probably because the typography was so outdated.

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:09 AM

Keli’s comment is:

Should have kept the old logo. Growing up in Madison, I remember Cousin’s being good but not the greatest. Big Mike’s, now Milio’s sandwiches, was and still is the best sub shop in Wisconsin… hands down.

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:16 AM

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

how do subs have anything to do with glossy-Mcglosserton logos? sure the type needed updated but a cold, lifeless sans serif?? I disagree…it doesnt feel like a cousin anymore

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:17 AM

buruno’s comment is:

This update looks gross to me, even without the gradients. The former logo had a decent balance between colors, specially black. In the update, besides removing the stroke on the wordmark, they thickened it around the shape.

And the addition of the green colour — possibly an attempt to make the brand look healthier — just made things worse, visually.

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:34 AM

fernando melo’s comment is:

i think that the people who desagree done by a emotional remember and not by a professional act. I´m brazilian. I don´t know the “Cousins Subs”, so, i don´t have a “emotional bound” with this client. And looking by a designer perspective i say “Good job”.

The green color added was a nice decision. I think that it is a demand made by the client, and not a idea of the designers or advertising, but, wharever, make me think of lettuce (did they use this in his sandwiches?), a thin green stripe between the border and the yellow (capsule, how is mentioned above)…

In days where the “health” rule the “food” market, the decision about the not-serifed font, more colors and, otherwise, keep the shape of “capsule” (totally 80´s) is the right work of a designer paid for.

Sorry about my english, i’m trying to improve it.

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:53 AM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

I have to agree buruno.

I don’t think it has been refined anywhere near enough.
The ‘S’ characters are hideous - the wrong weight and they’re falling over (obviously hijacked from somewhere else). Couldn’t they have put a stroke on it to match it up?

The green is totally unnecessary and pointless.
(I’m loving the poor visualising too of the straight logo on a curved cup)

The window cling is visually the strongest piece! (and incidentally, the logo is tiny on that)

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:59 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

Even though Armin acknowledges it in his note, logos of this quality should not be anywhere near this blog. To put it bluntly, this is appalling. Everything about it screams ‘amateur’. And even those ‘renderings’ of the new packaging: they are some of the worst I’ve seen from a supposed professional design agency.

I think we should move swiftly on from this and get a new, and more appropriate to this blog, article posted. Although I am intrigued to see what some on here who thought that the magnificent work of johnson banks (in the last article) was ‘a failure’, ‘a nightmare’, ‘a mess’, ‘an abomination’ etc think of this.

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:01 AM

Deshler’s comment is:

Your poll needs another option: “meh.” I wouldn’t call it great, wouldn’t call it fine, but also wouldn’t call it bad. So, “meh.”

The old logo looks like what I’d expect from a local pizza joint or sub shop. But I came of age in the east in the 80s and 90s, so that’s why it looks appropriate to me. But I recognize that it’s old and doesn’t convey a modern chain of sub shops, so, yeah, I guess it’s time for an update.

The new one? Well, like I said. Meh. Nothing exciting at all.

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:06 AM

Larry W’s comment is:

Its an improvement, that’s for sure, but yeah, more could and should have been done with the typography. The product designs are actually pretty cool.

But, again, this is what happens when you try the stupid Web 2.0 style.

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:20 AM

Sean Farrell’s comment is:

doesn’t seem to compete with today’s ‘leading’ brands.. seems like its still a bit outdated.

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:20 AM

Safa’s comment is:

I agree with Martin Boath, this kind of a logo shouldn’t be on Brand New. My favourite part is probably the green stroke which boldly disputes with both the yellow background and the red text! “Uranium green” is a really appropriate choice for a food brand :D

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:23 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

Not being from the area, but reading the posts of a few that are, I can see how this kind of change would be a little unsettling.

I think it may have been nice if the new design incorporated the ideas from the old logo, but in a refreshed manner.

I am certain that those weird serifs in the old logo are in the minds of many people in Milwaukee.

All that aside, I agree with Martin Boath’s comment with respect to how the work was actually presented. The renderings are horrendous. Worse, the way the designs were tweaked to fit the horrible renderings is skewed and distorted. Visually disgusting. This would have never left my office looking like this.

I naturally visited the Welke Group’s website - and INSTANTLY laughed out loud upon reading their initial proclamation.

“For brands who want experienced pros working on their business”

Aside from being grammatically incorrect (who works ON someone’s business? - like on top of the business? As a designer, I like to think that I work FOR someone), you cannot make such bold statements and then churn out the design turds seen in this article.

Epic Fail.

my opinion, of course,
Dale

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:30 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

WHO CARES? It’s a crap sub shop!!!! Why even waste our time critiquing this???!?!?!

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:48 AM

sukisouk’s comment is:

I also agree with Martin. And also with Dashler’s „meh“. It is better than it used to be, but it is not exciting at all :)

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:56 AM

John’s comment is:

I don’t have a problem with small regional brands per se, especially if the work is compelling. This, unfortunately, is not.

I’ll grant you that the original logo was difficult to look at. Grafting a Eurostile extended “SUBS” to such a quirky “Cousins” makes my eyes hurt. But at least the quirky “Cousins” had character for crying out loud. Granted, I don’t know what the brief was, I don’t know if it was the client or the agency who made the call, but c’mon, all sense of character and distinctiveness has been stripped out of this identity. Now it’s boring, flat and screams “wannabe.”

Just really kind of sad.

On Feb.01.2010 at 08:56 AM

Ivan’s comment is:

“Redesigned packaging” is probably the most amateurish job I’ve seen in years.

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:06 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

This is just atrocious. The entire color scheme feels very “dollar store” to me. The radial gradient is disgusting to look at. I do like the way the “C” interacts with the “o”, but that’s about the only positive thing I can say about this identity.

And no, I am not from, nor have I ever been to, Wisconsin.

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:21 AM

John’s comment is:

Ah ha! It just struck me where I’ve seen that “CO” treatment before:

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/its_a_small_globe_after_all.php

I’m not sayin’ they did. I’m not sayin’ they didn’t. I’m just sayin’.

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:28 AM

Chris’s comment is:

Cousins also has locations in Phoenix, AZ.

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:33 AM

dean’s comment is:

Did they design this in Word?

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:44 AM

Ty Halasz’s comment is:

The type is just terrible. None of the letters seems to flow together and like the post suggests, that it’s created from different fonts. The larger weight in the C relative to the rest of the logotype is amateurish, as is the smaller weight of the S’s relative to the rest.

Also, why lime green? The color scheme seemed nice before, but the green in the logo just kills it for me. I’m not opposed to using green in the rest of the brand livery, it’s a decent accent color. But in the logo? Come on.

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:51 AM

Matt’s comment is:

This is an abomination. What has happened to good design. This has no character what-so-ever. Watch this. It holds up: http://vimeo.com/1465284

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:52 AM

Ty Halasz’s comment is:

Also, what is with the way the logo is sandwiched (no pun intended) on top of the headline type in all of the collateral??

Better bread… We make it better…

They both have this ridiculous logo crowding their space! Talk about bad design.

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:55 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Yes, the old logo needed a way overdue update, but the new design doesn’t make it exciting. It lost its character and has gotten to be very generic. The presentation of all the materials is amateurish.

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:58 AM

Katie’s comment is:

I’m not from Wisconsin, so I have no personal feelings attached to this brand or logo, but I still feel that the original was better. It was better if only because it really gave you a sense of history and seemed to reflect that it was a beloved institution. This is my first time seeing the old logo, but I immediately thought, “I don’t know this place, but I bet a lot of people do, and I bet it’s good.” The new one, unfortunately, wipes out that sense of history and affection, and it doesn’t replace it with anything better. The new one looks like any of those dime-a-dozen subway ripoffs they open near junior colleges, the ones that never last more than a year. I would not stop there based on this new logo. I totally would have based on the original.

On Feb.01.2010 at 10:07 AM

Brian Son’s comment is:

I’m confused, it looks like a Subway branding effort gone terribly wrong.

On Feb.01.2010 at 10:16 AM

Darrel’s comment is:

The old one had personality. It felt more ‘local’ than the Subways of the world.

On Feb.01.2010 at 10:24 AM

Daniel Green’s comment is:

I’ve eaten a fair number of Cousins Subs over the years, but this update does nothing but alienate me from the brand. The Cousins shop near my house is fairly clean, but visually dismal. They could have used an identity make-over to upgrade the overall customer experience. Unfortunately, this won’t get them there.

On Feb.01.2010 at 10:31 AM

ScottS’s comment is:

I’ve lost my appetite. Seriously, this is so bad I don’t think I can possibly walk into their store and wait in line staring at this. I live in Milwaukee and unfortunately this uninspired, unprofessional and thoroughly forgettable design is par for the course around here.

On Feb.01.2010 at 10:43 AM

Sean Edison-Albright’s comment is:

This east-coaster has never heard of the franchise or seen the logo, but I’ve got to admit the original has some personality and a hokey charm that the revamp lacks. Neither is stellar, but my vote goes with old-school.

On Feb.01.2010 at 10:49 AM

bjornyeo’s comment is:

My stand is this. If you intend to change a logo for something much much worse than what you already have, maybe the problem with the business is not so much with the identity but the way its being run, perhaps?

This feels to me like a really desperate (half-hearted) attempt at trying to say something, which I could not point out of course, since it has failed rather spectacularly.

On Feb.01.2010 at 10:51 AM

Alphonse’s comment is:

Absolute shit.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:12 AM

Von K’s comment is:

What a wasted opportunity to do some really sweet custom lettering for that logo. The original was a poor execution of that 70s funkadelic custom van look. Imagine how great this could’ve been with that same concept executed by someone skilled.

The collateral just feels like generic SubWay-esque pap. Totally phoned-in. I usually try not to be so negative, but this whole thing falls flat for me—it’s a disappointing missed opportunity.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:24 AM

aaron’s comment is:

Never been to Wisconsin, nor do I ever care to go. But the old logo had character, if it is sooo old and part of it’s appeal is nostalgia, I don’t think an outdated logo hurts. The new one looks like crap, something a high school freshman makes his first time on photoshop.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:25 AM

Emma’s comment is:

Not bad, but at least you’d be more apt to remember the first — the redesign looks like a gas-station brand of breakfast sandwiches.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:30 AM

Neil Martin’s comment is:

It’s strange really. A few people are mentioning the fact that it looks like Subway’s branding and yet if you actually look at Subway’s logo, Cousins doesn’t look anything like it. Even still, I too first thought that it looked like Subway. Does Subway now hold the rights to green and yellow as Coca-Cola does with red?

Either way, it seems as if a lot more could have been done with this brand. I know nothing of it so I can only judge this from a design point of view but still, it’s so lacklustre. Was the tagline necessary? In fact, was “SUBS” even necessary? You don’t see McDonald’s logo with “Fast Food” underneath it.

Either way, poor branding.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:43 AM

Juliana’s comment is:

I think this is a bad client problem. I think they wanted to look more like subway and lose the local feel. If you wanna stand out in the sub market I think trying to be different is a better idea.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:44 AM

Maya’s comment is:

I agree with Ryan. Why are we discussing this logo?

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:54 AM

Aaron Asbury’s comment is:

While I do agree that the rebrand is quite bad, it is a big step up from the first one. Perhaps we could offer constructive critisism though, rather than “why are we discussing this logo.” Even bad work can give us reasons to learn from design.

I find that with the production value added to the logo and the additional assets, that it really doesn’t look that bad. The big problem is when flattened out to a simple, two color logo, it is quite boring. Also the secondary text doesn’t seem to fit with the logo.

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:58 AM

Dennis Van Staalduinen’s comment is:

I agree with all those who say this is a regional brand’s “me-too” attempt to LOOK like a big league player (that is, to look like Subway in every superficial way), without actually understanding the big league branding game.

The logo is a marginal improvement only in terms of legibility and generic “professionalism”, What it loses is any distinctiveness - the old one at least had some folksy rough edges that could make it endearing to a hometown crowd.

Oh, but while I agree that this is a fail, it’s an instructive fail.I totally don’t agree with those who say this doesn’t belong on Brand New. Thanks for keeping the mix interesting.

On Feb.01.2010 at 12:07 PM

tobias b köhler’s comment is:

And I thought calling a sandwich “sub” was an invention by SUBWAY …..

On Feb.01.2010 at 12:51 PM

John Mindiola III’s comment is:

First off, this logo revision IS worthy of discussion on BRAND NEW. And, as some have noted, chains do exist outside of Wisconsin. I grew up near Milwaukee, but now live in Minneapolis, and there are Cousin’s sub shops here.

Secondly, just because it’s regional shouldn’t automatically mean it’s unworthy of a posting. The New York, San Fran, and Dallas crowds need to realize there’s an entire country between you all. Was I upset when I saw an update of a New York library on here? I’ll maybe never visit New York, and if I do, I probably won’t make a stop at your library.

Now, to the logo. It’s atrocious. Decades of a sub love affair shot in the face with ugly gradients and bad type. I can’t express enough how confused I am by this redesign. I, being a designer, would love to shower the client with all the criticism, but some of it must go to the designers’ shoulders as well. Surely, if something really great hit the boardroom, the client would have been able to tell. Is it utopian to think this way?

Time and again I wonder if all the companies featured here really need logo redesigns in the first place. I think updating the overall brand scheme — including but not limited to color, type, imagery, format, and attitude — is far more important, as that is what will most speak to the consumers anyway.

On Feb.01.2010 at 01:00 PM

Alex P.’s comment is:

No character. No soul.

On Feb.01.2010 at 01:27 PM

oscar’s comment is:

That article is hilarious - what exactly made the old Kraft and Walmart logos “esoteric” in their opinion? Never mind that Kraft only changed their corporate logo, not the one we see on packaging…

On Feb.01.2010 at 01:41 PM

Rhode Island breathalyzer refusal lawyer’s comment is:

Love the new logo, great update.

On Feb.01.2010 at 01:47 PM

Q. Pheevr’s comment is:

Chris Weiss wrote:

while I’m not a fan of radial gradients, it creates a subtle roundness to what was previously a flat yellow pill

I agree that it adds a hint of volume, but I think the execution is lazy. The gradient is circular; they could have made it suit the shape of the outline better.

Overall, I agree with the people who have said that while the old logo wasn’t great, either, it at least had character.

On Feb.01.2010 at 02:17 PM

Req’s comment is:

Is no one else noticing Rhode Island breathalyzer refusal lawyer’s obvious attempts at getting their Google ranking up by adding their link everywhere? The fact they love this logo should be a dead giveaway!

On Feb.01.2010 at 02:53 PM

This One Guy’s comment is:

@Req

Yes, but I figured anyone who chooses to make a living getting drunk drivers back on the roads has enough problems without us piling on.

On Feb.01.2010 at 03:00 PM

phanyxx’s comment is:

The gradients were truly the most offensive part of the redesign. Maybe they could have added a lens flare behind the text as well haha

On Feb.01.2010 at 03:47 PM

Ryan K’s comment is:

I didn’t know it was April 1st already, I thought it was Feb 1.

It’s bad, period.

On Feb.01.2010 at 04:30 PM

Erwin’s comment is:

@ phanyxx’s

Good call! Worked for Lipton Ice Tea! I wonder when they will be doing a rebrand, I bet there will be massive protests! ;)

As for the new Cousins logo: meh…

So the logo has no character, that’s still better than that ugly disco-texas-ranchy travesty they had before the new one… Only nostalgia can make a logo like that look good, such hideous letterforms with that awful black outline, sjeesh! Not a fan of the new logo either, don’t get me wrong…

Just another missed opportunity…

I’ll admit my portfolio isn’t all that good, but I believe I could’ve made a better logo than the 2 mentioned above! ;)

On Feb.01.2010 at 04:32 PM

Joseph’s comment is:

The more I look at the mock-up packaging presentation, I become less disgusted and more pissed off. I mean really? I don’t think even a student would think that is acceptable. I mean, the design of the packaging is kind of blah, but the presentation is an insult to anyone who’s ever earned a degree in design.

And to reiterate my earlier sentiments, I hate the new logo.

On Feb.01.2010 at 05:11 PM

Johnny Socko’s comment is:

Every so often, someone will come in here and say, “Based on the comments here, you designers come across as a bunch of elitist pricks.” And then some designers will chime in with a passionate defense, reasoning that the quality and integrity of the profession requires its practitioners to maintain a perfectionist air.

…And then a bunch of morons will (for example) deem a redesign unworthy of discussion solely because of distaste for the region in which the customer is located, which merely has the effect of forcing me to side with the “designers are elitist pricks” camp.

So…thanks, I guess?

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:30 PM

MarcusVss’s comment is:

If they had to keep something from the old one, the typo would be a much better choice (not to keep it exactly as it is, but with some changes it could be good)

On Feb.01.2010 at 07:50 PM

Scotron3030’s comment is:

The relationship between the “C” and the “o” is reminiscent of that of The Cosby Show logo. I am not complaining, I love subs and the Huckstables. just saying.
http://www.freewebs.com/mikecash/lg_cosby-show_season-1[1].jpg

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:34 PM

Laura’s comment is:

further evidence that ad agencies should not be hired for identity work

On Feb.01.2010 at 09:56 PM

nutrimill grain’s comment is:

I agree with many of the other comments - while dated, the old logo had clear personality and charm, the new one looks like a gas station logo with no personality and nothing new or interesting to offer… stick with the old one!

On Feb.01.2010 at 11:02 PM

stinkyboy’s comment is:

Hannah is one of the hand-picked Millennials in the Welke Group. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Peck School of the Arts with a major in Graphic Design in 2006. Hannah wowed us with her portfolio and in the short time she’s been with us, the “wow” has not worn off. Her work is consistently fresh and fun. And she’s fun to work with, too.

:rollseyes:

On Feb.02.2010 at 12:56 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

This blog, to me anyway, seems to be a place where the best identities in the world are discussed or, for greater debate, where some identities that have been poorly rebranded, be the identities themselves high profile or the agency in question.

Further to a few comments placed on here I feel I need to put a point across: that this logo is taking a beating is nothing to do with the fact that it is for a region-based brand, or for that matter, the particular region in which it’s based – it’s because it’s downright poor.

The reason this logo should not be on this blog isn’t a regional issue, it’s because it’s simply not good enough. Brand New could post 20 of these a day but thankfully don’t. I just can’t see why this one was chosen in the first place.

On Feb.02.2010 at 04:05 AM

Armin’s comment is:

> I just can’t see why this one was chosen in the first place.

Just for the record: Yes, there are a dozen bad logos I pass on daily and this is typically one of them, but when I get over a dozen e-mails about any given identity I have to consider that as I decide whether or not to post. Quantity doesn’t mean quality, but it signals that a large part of our readership is interested in reading/discussing a particular identity.

Yes, this logo is very mediocre and the applications are excruciating to look at, but I always find that looking at bad design brings out as many good lessons as looking at top-notch design.

On Feb.02.2010 at 05:54 AM

Matt’s comment is:

Having seen this throughout my childhood and clearly remembering the Cousin’s logo, it’s a shame that they scrapped a unique identity entirely. A talented designer could have made those great retro letters sing. Instead we got so some bland web 2.0 meets local sub shop. yawn.

Armin, being a Wisconsin native, you are certainly giving the outside world little reason to respect creative professionals here. First the Wisconsin tourism board atrocity, and now this? Why not post some of the fine work being produced by studios like Planet Propaganda?

For those who need proof that high quality design exists in Wisconsin, visit planetpropaganda.com and forget this nonsense. (And no I don’t work for them)

On Feb.02.2010 at 07:16 AM

John Mindiola III’s comment is:

@Matt: You’re absolutely right. Wisconsin, specifically Madison and Milwaukee, are more than capable of producing great design. I grew up in Waukesha, and when I see a favorite of mine, Cousin’s Subs, crap their pants like this, it makes me heart cry. Thank you for sharing the Planet Propaganda site. Their work is genious, and would rival any design shop in any city. Their work for the Dick & Jane identity is brilliant.

On Feb.02.2010 at 10:29 AM

rylee’s comment is:

The falling over S’s are extremely poor.

Agree with all above comments suggesting the brand has lost any individual character. A shame to see yet another average logo execution when possibilities existed to give this a nice updated treatment.

On Feb.02.2010 at 08:31 PM

Thomas’s comment is:

Ugh. Yeah, I have nothing new to add - lazy, ugly, missed opportunity, but I have to mention D’Angelo subs in the northeast did this a few years ago too. Their old logo was kinda pac man 80s nerd chic, the new one, if I recall, is badly kerned copperplate awfulness. Why throw out a funky identity for something so anonymous?

On Feb.02.2010 at 10:31 PM

Gary Marlowe’s comment is:

It’s hard to understand why anyone would have designed, submitted and, worse still, approved this updated logo. To me, they either should have left well alone or started afresh. This just says ‘we have no taste’ and want to be a bland brand. I’m also surprised they retained such a lame strapline.

This is yet another example of ruining something whilst trying to improve it. As much as I dislike the new logo, one has to admire the sales skills of whoever persuaded the client that this was the best thing since sliced bread!

On Feb.04.2010 at 04:07 AM

Stephanie’s comment is:

I find Martin’s comment somewhat offensive in that the vast majority of designers around the world don’t work for high-profile, world-class design firms who are churning out amazing work every day. Most of us work for ho-hum firms or freelance or in-house somewhere where it’s not always easy to push through our best or award-winning work as often as we’d like.

I agree this logo leaves much to be desired. I don’t like it. It’s very boring and the colors next to each other create a strange vibration that is pretty unsettling.

However, I, as I’m sure most of us, have been part of design projects that for whatever reason (client, internal conflict, etc) didn’t go our way and we just thought - “well, I guess that’s how it’s going to go, but that one WON’T be going in my portfolio.”

On Feb.04.2010 at 06:50 AM

Rudi Seitz’s comment is:

I think it’s fun that a fairly plebeian logo is being discussed here. Scores of people see this logo every day – it’s not just a theoretical exercise in aesthetics – so of course it’s worth discussing.

The newer version strikes me as completely devoid of personality. The older version has a shabby charm to it.

In the old version, the letterforms have a distinctly pudgy quality. Notice how they are all thick at the bottom, thinner at the top. I wonder if the desire to appeal to health-conscious (or simply weight-conscious) customers was a motivation for the redesign. I doubt that the addition of a little green is sufficient for that goal. The new logo cries packaged-food sterility.

I clicked the link to the Cousins website and saw a modified version of the old logo there. Same fun, pudgy lettering, but a brighter background with a gradient. I wonder if Cousins is having second thoughts about the redesign, or just hasn’t rolled out the changes on the website yet. Hope they stick with the (slightly updated) old.

On Feb.08.2010 at 05:03 PM

Brent W’s comment is:

Cousins is delicious. This new logo is disgusting. The gradient.. gross. The old type was much more unique and interesting.

On Feb.28.2010 at 07:52 PM

enrolled agent’s comment is:

Definitely an improvement. The new logo is far more up to keeping up with the times. The fonts are clear. The logo looks better overall.

On Mar.13.2010 at 03:52 PM