Opinion BY Armin

Cadillac Switches Materials

Cadillac Logo, Before and After

Cadillac, maker of cars that I am willing to assume are out of our budget, has quietly introduced a revised version of its emblem, which has been evolving for more than hundred years old when it first appeared in 1906 as a depiction of the family coat of arms of the founder of Detroit in the early 1700s, Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac, after whom the car company was named. Over the years — here you may find an interesting article about the previous redesign and a summary of all logos — the logo has evolved ever more minimal, dropping the ducks and crown from the original, arriving at a stealth-looking logo in 1999, the year of the last redesign.

Cadillac Logo, Detail

There is no press release and the new logo is not even on the Cadillac web site, but its Facebook page merrily sports the new logo and the latest campaign, “May the Best Car Win,” from its parent company, GM, signs off with the new logo. I also believe it’s here at a tiny size. It took me a few minutes to confirm that the new one was indeed the new one, since it looks like a step back, or at least a step away from relative simplicity. The old one felt more like stainless steel and the new one like a metallic crown filling or, put less graphically, cheap. The texture in the coat of arms is kind of interesting and it has been executed much better than the wreath for sure but it feels overly detailed. The old emblem is something that would look great on an Escalade, the new emblem should probably be run over by one.

Thanks to Alex Donegan for the tip.

DATE: Oct.09.2009CATEGORY: Automobile 61 COMMENTS

Comments › Jump to Most Recent

Benihana’s comment is:

just when you think the logo couldn't look any more out of your price range...

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:03 AM

BWJ’s comment is:

Warm up the color of the old wreath and put it on the new crest and I'd be happy with it. The new texture is a bit extreme, but it's been executed well.

I think the mercury look of the new chrome is over the top and in its effort to make the brand look more luxurious, it's succeeded in making it look cheap.

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:20 AM

Matt’s comment is:

Sure the new one is more complicated. But if I was going to spend more money on a car than my entire graduate class' tuition, I'd want the car's logo to SHINE on the car, and in the brochure. The new logo looks like it's for a rich person, so it works.

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:33 AM

Ian’s comment is:

The "old" logotype is more fitting. American car manufacturers are getting out of hand with the 3d rendering of classic logos. Which is unfortunate because it completely puts the ca-bosh on any "nostalgia" or the notion of an "American institution" associated with these cars, diminishing there already fading niche in the market.

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:38 AM

EMD’s comment is:

Wow. I am in the minority so far, but I like the revision. It looks more 'badgelike' to me and actually more nostalgic in a way -- the added texture and color enhancements look as if they are from an era when yacht-sized Fleetwoods and Coupe De Villes dominated the luxury auto market.

I think the before looks cheaper, to be honest.

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:43 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

I don't understand why everything is so detailed. Perhaps they should have just snapped a high resolution photo of the tailgate of an escalade and called that the new logo - rather than developing something that looks so photorealistic. What is the point, really?

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:50 AM

Sunforce’s comment is:

Too much shine can look cheap.

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:53 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

The older one looks cheaper, the blue tone and dull sheen make it look plasticy. The old wreath does look better though.

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:56 AM

Josev’s comment is:

"the added texture and color enhancements look as if they are from an era when yacht-sized Fleetwoods and Coupe De Villes dominated the luxury auto market."

Which, I believe, is an image they're trying to move away from. When I think of Cadillac now I think of models like the CTS. I wish they would have simplified it rather than added more detail.

On Oct.09.2009 at 10:57 AM

ocelot’s comment is:

no one else seeing a transformers head ?

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:03 AM

Mark’s comment is:

I like it.

I don't get what's so bad about this one, it looks more detailed cleaner,clearer and shinier. It's an upgrade.

The old one looks less polished.

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:10 AM

Austin’s comment is:

I like the new one. It is more bold and has that 'attention to detail' that you would hope a Cadillac would have.

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:26 AM

Stereo Radiation’s comment is:

I vote for the new one. The bolder colors and texture enhance the mark nicety. I believe the impression of the design will be influenced by what it is attached to. Cadillac's image would be improved by using names like Eldorado and Fleetwood instead of abbreviations like STS and CTS-V, and by making powerful, long-lasting luxury cars instead of Cimarrons and Cateras.

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:39 AM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

I'd be willing to bet that Cadillac's market would near-unanimously prefer the new one.

Also, I think the decision to bring in the detailing on the shield is worth more consideration. While there's a reflexive response: "Bleh! Super-detailed logos bad!" I think the detailing works and has a physicality and, in a way, retro appeal (for me, anyway). Plus, the details fade out at small sizes without becoming a mess or losing crucial detail.

The metallic sheen is more complex and maybe not ideal from a designer's perspective, but it fits with the concept (or what it seems to be): this represents a physical object.

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:44 AM

Darrel ’s comment is:

The patterns in the new one make me immediately think of cheap plastic tail lights.

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:51 AM

PALE FACE’s comment is:

Just because you can render something 3-D, doesn't mean you should.

Old one wins for its simplicity and all around ability to be reproduced on a variety of materials.

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:52 AM

jason Parry’s comment is:

I like the new one a lot, the added contrast makes for a better logo, the patterning matches perforated leather or their mesh grills and the shiny chrome looks all the more american

On Oct.09.2009 at 11:59 AM

jonathan’s comment is:

The shadowing seems wrong on this new mark. In the old logo its on the top right, and mark appears to come forward... now its on the top left, and the logo appears to be dented, it just makes the perspective off IMO.

I'm usually a fan of texture, but not on logos, old mark for me please.

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:00 PM

Danielo Gómez’s comment is:

The new Cadillac logo is certainly bold and modern but says little that the previous logo version did not say. The evolution of the logo is interesting at a time when most American car manufacturers are repositioning their brands to be either closer to customers or more innovative. This logo fails to do either. Instead it likes eerily similar to the Transformers logo.

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:10 PM

Rob O.’s comment is:

Cadillac no longer represents luxury; it just represents excess.

If they were going to revamp the logo at all, why didn't they aim for a less stodgy, more innovative or contemporary design? Sadly, the tweaked new logo distinctly reflects their stale, heavy-handed automotive design concepts.

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:18 PM

Nathan McKinney’s comment is:

The old one looks like an airbrushed graphic from an old car ad from the 50s or 60s compared with the new one. At least this change is more dramatic than the one that Audi did a few months back.

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:27 PM

Peter K. O'Connell’s comment is:

I think the updated logo looks sharp and is a nice improvement on the old one.

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:37 PM

T Resudek’s comment is:

Looks like someone messed up the alignment on this version.

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:46 PM

Matt Puchlerz ’s comment is:

@T Resudek That was the first thing I noticed as well.

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:55 PM

jinushaun’s comment is:

Do. Not. Want.

This feels backwards. It would make for sense if we swapped the two emblems, where #2 turned into #1. But to transform into something MORE complicated? No, don't like it. I guess Cadillac is done chasing the Germans and is going after a gaudier demographic.

On Oct.09.2009 at 01:22 PM

Andy’s comment is:

@Chris Rugen

Couldn't have said it better.

I think people are looking at this and (without thinking too hard about it) saying "The new one is too detailed. I like the old one." But you're failing to realize the fact that this new mark is exactly what the old one was trying to be: a detailed rendering of the logo as a metallic badge. Sure, the old one gets the idea across, but it doesn't do it particularly well. The color blends, highlights and shadows are too simple, too generalized.

The new mark looks as if it was born when Cadillac's art director told his/her staff, 'We weren't that great at rendering the chrome look back when we made this logo in 1999. We know what we're doing now, so lets do it right." We saw Audi do the exact same thing a few months back. They replaced their 1990s metallic logo (it also featured a very simple, symmetrical and generalized metallic look) with one that features a much sharper, more realistic chrome look.

The texture inside the logo is also a nice retro touch. The colored inlays are very reminiscent of the way badges used to be made. The bolder colors are a big plus in this new logo. The contrast is much greater across the whole mark, and it really gives it a greater presence, which is exactly what Cadillac is all about.

If they had wanted the 1999 logo to be simple, they could have done that by using a flat logo with no gradients or metallic shine. It would have looked great and it would have been loved my many of us for its simplicity. That's not what they did, because that's not what they were after. They were after a logo that looked as big and important as the cars and brand it represents. This newest update simply evolves that original vision into something a bit more realistic and with a bit more personality, and there's absolutely no harm in that. Great update if you ask me.

On Oct.09.2009 at 01:28 PM

New Target Audience?’s comment is:

I like the use of bike reflectors in the shield! Crafty!

On Oct.09.2009 at 01:48 PM

Rodrigo Müller’s comment is:

I'd go with the new centerpiece inside the old wreath, and properly aligned. this new wreath draws all the attention to itself with so much chrome and details.

On Oct.09.2009 at 02:08 PM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

Detail: It's clearly just trying to look like the actual physical badge on the car. Which is awful. You know some executive made this snap branding judgment, and he should have been stopped.

Overall brand: Agree, they need to move on. With this sort of brand presence, I have NO inclination to ever go onto a Cadillac lot. Even with some of the more modern offerings. I'll hit their euro/japan competition way faster.

Alignment: I did a project for a pretty well known brand not too long ago. They rejected my logos in favor of one from someone internal... but I still took it upon myself to send them cleaned up versions. Not centered, layers didn't line up, colors were inconsistent between sections, gradients didn't quite go to the edge of fields, etc., etc. This is totally typical, and I am not sure what causes it.

On Oct.09.2009 at 02:10 PM

tetra’s comment is:

When is chrome too much chrome? Maybe the question is when is chrome actually effective?

The textures -- while overdone -- look nice enough but the old wreath looked much much better. Paired with the alignment noted above, this is not very good. I think this would have done the trick just fine

On Oct.09.2009 at 02:35 PM

kyleobriendesign’s comment is:

I will give Cadillac a nod for this update.

While viewing the old/new logos side by side, the new rendition makes the previous appear blurry to an extent.

The old logo presented nicely just wearing a shirt and tie, but the new logo is wearing a 3-piece suit, cuff links, polished shoes, with a Rolex on one wrist and a briefcase handcuffed to the other.

This will look great in High Definition.

On Oct.09.2009 at 02:38 PM

John’s comment is:

I guess Cadillac is done chasing the Germans and is going after a gaudier demographic.

Well, they do look nice with 21-inch spinners...!

Booyah, baby!

On Oct.09.2009 at 03:07 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

Sweet update. Now with even more bling!

On Oct.09.2009 at 03:54 PM

grubedoo’s comment is:

This is gonna look great at the end of my chain link necklace.

On Oct.09.2009 at 04:47 PM

Roth’s comment is:

The darkness of the hoop compared to the shield means they look on two different plains or atleast like we're looking through one to see the other further away, which i'm pretty sure isn't the desired effect.

On Oct.09.2009 at 07:19 PM

Eli’s comment is:

"Embellishment is the ultimate sophistication."

Yeah...

Neither wins in my book.

On Oct.10.2009 at 12:22 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

Let's just say that if you're a purchaser of a Cadillac SUV in this day and age ... you deserve this logo.

On Oct.10.2009 at 07:36 AM

Joe Bloggs’s comment is:

JEEEEEEEEZZZZZZ the colouring on the silver elements is TERRIBLE and just.... well, WRONG!
The beveled border of the inner badge also isn't resolved.

BTW: I've heard a story that the person Cadillac was named after was actually a sham and a convict who dreamt up his title and the emblem, any1 know if it is true?

On Oct.10.2009 at 07:41 AM

izzy’s comment is:

simplicity is so last year. it's all about authenticity now, and i think cadillac's updated logo is a great example of this -- it is an unabashed expression of the brand's true essence. why shouldn't "bling" look like "bling"? i'd say this is a great step in the right direction for cadillac, and i wouldn't be surprised if we start noticing other luxury brands following suit.

On Oct.10.2009 at 04:56 PM

Barry Quinn’s comment is:

Audi did a similar make over of their metalic portions. It looks like they use more authentic materials. Neither are amazing, though the new one seems to have better contrast and that makes it work better as a logo. I'm sure it pops well in the black field of their advertising, good since like jaguar this logo is seldom seen on white.

The old mark seems to be stuck somewhere between 2d and 3d. If you are going to make it 3d, go for it (the new one may be a bit too much). I would love to see how the 2d version has been 'improved'.

On Oct.10.2009 at 09:24 PM

Chuck Spidell’s comment is:

'77 Seville. White with burgundy interior.

On Oct.11.2009 at 04:15 AM

Chuck Spidell’s comment is:

On Oct.11.2009 at 04:16 AM

Nick Kask’s comment is:

My biggest problem with the new one is the "white and blue flag" portion no longer looks cohesive. If you compare old to new, the old one's white/blue flag still looks like one piece, instead of a blue thing floating in awkward white, as in the new.

On Oct.11.2009 at 08:53 AM

Noah’s comment is:

This is a much better history of the Cadillac logo:

I love the ducks.

Anyone else remember Cadillac using cartoon ducks during the "Caddy that Zigs" campaign for the Catera?

On Oct.11.2009 at 11:28 PM

nando’s comment is:

if i can see so a so detailed metal symbol on the front of my car i would love it. the old one looks like a cheap pin.

maybe is all to much shiny, that may give you an idea of plastic when you see it standing alone on a white background, but i guess this effect depends how the logo is presented.

and if you see this logo on a gangsta-rapper-overtuned cadillac would be the extasis of kitsch...

but i don't like the crown around. it looks like a coreldraw clipart.

On Oct.12.2009 at 04:31 AM

Beezer’s comment is:

I agree with Izzy. Spot on-I say Don't be afraid to get your grill on!
Its not Daddy's Caddy anymore and lets face it, if your sporting one of these around your not turned off by conspicuous consumption.

On Oct.12.2009 at 11:55 AM

Hibryd’s comment is:

The new logo is not too detailed for the application. I measured the emblem on an Escalade in a parking lot: it was 6 effing inches tall! The "flat" logo looked pretty boring at that massive scale; the new emblem will bring some welcome texture to a real-world, 3D logo.

On Oct.12.2009 at 12:58 PM

Aaron Scamihorn’s comment is:

IT does look way better super small on the website. I love the old days where companies were willing to take a seriously leap with their brand. Solidly remaining cadillac, but not stressing over "will people still know it's us?"
Love the timeline of their emblem.
'42 & '71 are amazing.

On Oct.12.2009 at 01:12 PM

shaunstrack’s comment is:

Actually Chevrolet and Buick also moved their badges (not emblems) in this direction. GMC went the opposite path and switched to a straight red. Either way I like the new look. It's true that the intense detail is lost at smaller sizes but it adds a a nice texture. And when it is large the detail is a kind of interesting surprise.
It just kind of makes sense to me that the digital version of the badge reflects the experience of it in a real space.

On Oct.13.2009 at 08:25 AM

Brian’s comment is:

I think the new logo is sharp. It has a classy look to it. Just like the big Caddy always has. Classy. What I wish they would do is go back to having an actual name. I have a 2005 Cadillac DeVille DTS. Back when the DTS designation had some meaning. Now, they all say DTS and there is no way to distinguish one DTS from another. 2005 was the last year that the cars had a name and not a series of letters. The DeVille was the last car to drop a name for letters. Bring back the DeVille & SeVille nameplates. (you can keep the Catera). Call the XLR an Alante. (Although I miss the El Dorado, it was never a 2 seater as the Alante was).

On Oct.13.2009 at 12:21 PM

Knee Knocker’s comment is:

Redesign cost $$$$$$.$$ What did you expect from GM aka Government Motors, your TAX dollars at work!

On Oct.13.2009 at 01:17 PM

Joe Turner’s comment is:

Like the logo, the name means much less than it did in the 40's and 50's. It was then the Premier brand in the USA and most of the World. They lost it and we caused it .

Now the logo means nothing, whereas in its pure form , it represented "Royalty". Means nothing now that they hav pick up trucks .

On Oct.13.2009 at 01:23 PM

Mark T’s comment is:

From ten feet away you'll never notice the difference. But I do miss the six ducks.

On Oct.14.2009 at 12:21 PM

Aaron Belafonte’s comment is:

I also like the new one better. The old, while nicely executed, is a bit flat for a car company.

I think we all need to remember that they're making luxury vehicles. Not launching a web 2.0 product.

The new logo is definitely relevant to what they're doing.

On Oct.15.2009 at 02:28 AM

Bob D’s comment is:

The new one looks richer. If you look at the emblem that was replaced by the current one it is more intricate. GM is actually going back to that design minus the ducks. (Maybe they should add the ducks also letting us all know that they are animal friendly)?

On Oct.16.2009 at 05:09 PM

Jen’s comment is:

I like the tone of the new one, but it just seems overly fussy to me. Maybe it will rawk as a car ornament instead of a web graphic though - context matters...

On Oct.21.2009 at 02:46 PM

Nik Daum’s comment is:

I actually think the new logo is one of the better ones of the bunch in that it feels both modern and classic. It's much better than the 1915 version that's a heraldic arrangement of lettuce.

Still, the flat version looks very airbrushed. I'd much rather see it as an actual emblem on a grill.

On Oct.22.2009 at 06:37 AM

Blind Acre Media’s comment is:

I don't care for the patterns in the new logo. This has turned into a web 2.0 looking logo. Was it necessary to make it look even more shiny? I think it is starting to look tacky.