INTL. REVIEW BY Dado Queiroz POSTED BY Brand New

Flat goes the NET

Brazilian NET is the biggest cable based multi services company in Latin America, providing cable TV service to more than 3 million customers and broadband internet to more than 2.5 million. Controlled by media giant Globo (the 3rd biggest privately owned broadcaster in the world, after CBS and NBC and whose logo was previously reviewed on Brand New), NET began as a cable TV provider in 1991, to later offer also internet access and VoIP services. Recently, a new NET logo was released, with almost no noise about it — perhaps a symptom of the overall neglect that logo design is still treated with in Brazil.

In an attempt to make the logo more contemporary, the internal team that took the job seems to have gone for the general “contemporize” formula: they maintained the overall concept of the logo, lost the arched effect and gradient (sticking with the lighter colour), set the three-striped “E” proportion to the 16:9 widescreen standard (like MTV), gave the “N” and “T” some round corners and set the whole thing in a slightly lighter stroke.

The former logo had something of a “curvature of the world” shape, probably reminiscent of the “we are so very much global indeed” era of logos (and also of its owner’s name, Globo). In the new one, the rectangle shape, the 16:9 proportion of the “E” and the perspective with a vanishing point at the center, seem to evoke a screen projection cone, thus taking the logo away from the “we are global” approach to something more aggressive and less idealistic like “we shoot images made out of light into your eyes.”

Although I understand that the old logo did need some facelifting, I can’t help but feel that the new one is poorly executed. The “E” bothers me. When mixing parallel lines and arches so closely together, one should pay attention to some basic “gestalt” principles. The effect is awkward, not so beautiful and in smaller sizes or on screen, seems more like a defect. I also see a small kerning problem: Checking the logo on my latest cable bills, the distance between the “E” and the “T” seems to be identical to that of the “N” and the “E”, when, given the empty space under the “T,” it should be smaller, to balance the counterforms.

Regarding the concept, it’s interesting to note that when idealized, the former logo used the stripes of the “E” just to evoke interconnection. But as the company widened their scope to provide internet access and VoIP too, the three stripes became also an appropriate analogy for their three-product combo.

Thanks to Guilherme Appolinário for the tip.

Antonio’s comment is:

Yesssssssssssss, first!

On Mar.30.2010 at 06:55 AM

Andrew Sipe’s comment is:

I prefer the previous version to the new one. The arched E has so much more character than this new stiff E. Sometimes, it feels that simplification is a step in the wrong direction and this is a decent example of that. How old was the previous logo anyway? Because it still looks pretty contemporary to me.

On a side note: When I read about Globo, I couldn’t help but think of that Mr.Show skit about Globochem and their pansexual spokesthing, Pit Pat. Now that’s branding.

On Mar.30.2010 at 07:18 AM

soully’s comment is:

I think I would have much preferred the original with a less wide E, The 3d effect and shadow worked there whilst the new one feels a bit like giant text flying through space for me (not particularly sexy).

That said even though the new one is less distinctive, it looks clean and the new colour is nice. I must say I continue to dislike the cutting corners off of letters to make them somehow original or ‘custom’ that continues to be popular, it’s just meaningless.

On Mar.30.2010 at 07:48 AM

Nathan McKinney’s comment is:

The new logo is an improvement, (a massive improvement), but yes, I agree it’s subtly flawed.

I’m mostly wishing they had skipped over the rounded parts of the “N” and “T”. It works okay on the “N”, but the chunk out of the “T” looks like an accident.

The kerning thing doesn’t bother me quite as much. It could be that if they had tightened in the “T” it may have felt lopsided, making the tighter gap look more like an eye trap. This may have ultimately been the more elegant solution.

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:13 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

Meh. It’s not terrible. I actually quite like the simplified color scheme (dropping the gradient is worth a couple points in and of itself). Having said that, it’s not particularly better OR worse than the old, just different. Neither is amazing, neither is terrible.

My biggest gripe with the new word mark is the rounding of the bottom corner of the “T”. It makes it feel top heavy, like it’s going to fall to the right at any moment. The wide space between the “E” and the “T” (pointed out by the author) only goes to heighten this less than desirable affect.

Ho hum.

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:13 AM

Nick’s comment is:

I accidentally voted for “New Wins” because my brain wouldn’t allow me to think the new one was the new one.

In other words, I like the old one.

Too early in the morning, I guess.

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:18 AM

buruno’s comment is:

I noticed there was something different with this logo, but it was one of the cases I didn’t care to analyze carefully – even though there’s not much to analyze. Besides the [removal of the] gradients, I’m glad the new one is more compact.

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:41 AM

Matheus Wahl’s comment is:

This is one of the nip/tucks that work well in theory, but go terribly wrong in practice.

Skavurska!

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:44 AM

Matheus Wahl’s comment is:

(On the previous comment, I accidentally pressed the “submit” button before finishing.) The link above is a (poorly autotranslated) story by a Brazilian blogger I put to demonstrate the terrible reputation NET has when it comes to internet services. I think this is was one of the motivations of this rebranding: “Ok, let’s put some rounded corners here and some strange perspective to make it look more Web 2.0.” No. It doesn’t work this way.

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:51 AM

Rx’s comment is:

poorly fix’d

On Mar.30.2010 at 09:11 AM

Rx’s comment is:

Matheus, não acho que essa tenha sido a motivação, essas reclamações existem a muitos anos, a net nunca foi uma empresa lá muito competente, mas nos últimos anos ela tem recebido prêmios de qualidade serviços.

On Mar.30.2010 at 09:15 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

The kerning and round corners bother me, but still prefer this one over the old logo.

On Mar.30.2010 at 09:35 AM

Cristina Ludwig’s comment is:

For me and in my opinion, this is one of the worst rebrand projects so far.

They try to give a contemporary look to the logo as all the companies are now doing the same damn thing (such as pepsi, at&t, walmart….) it’s is getting over done. This is not the solution on how to rebrand your brand now. To some companies it work, but not all.

Anyway, they simply destroyed a such nice, modern, simple and direct brand that used to work pretty fine as it was.

On Mar.30.2010 at 09:36 AM

Brian Lindstrom’s comment is:

Is it just me or does anyone else read the long ‘E’ as two? “NEET”

I think the new one is an improvement over the old arc and gradient, but not in love with either…

On Mar.30.2010 at 09:48 AM

Esteban’s comment is:

The E just doesn’t look like an E to me. When I look at either the old or the new logo, I see N—T.

On Mar.30.2010 at 09:51 AM

Neil Martin’s comment is:

At least you can read this version:

On Mar.30.2010 at 10:07 AM

MarcusVss’s comment is:

Too much similar to this station break (don’t know if it’s the right word in english)of Rede Globo too

http://www.sempretops.com/wp-content/uploads/Filmes-Tela-Quente.jpg

On Mar.30.2010 at 10:19 AM

Cristina Ludwig’s comment is:

I think that the first logo you can read the E just fine.
Sometimes is good to let people exercise the mind a little bit. =]

Anyway, as I said. The first one for me was great is it was.

Rebrand is necessary. YES. But not in every case and not all rebrands are successful in doing it and this one proves that.

On Mar.30.2010 at 10:22 AM

Rafe’s comment is:

Ouch! They really need to have taken this out of house. The attempt at giving this dimension with the vanishing point in the three bars just does not work. Neither of the marks are truly great and wonderful. I just don’t see anything memorable about them. Both are a really superficial attempt at an identity.

On Mar.30.2010 at 10:39 AM

Zanda’s comment is:

Why bother at all – recreating a mess is not a redesign. Where have all the designers gone? Nyet, No, Bad, Horrible, Useless, Tasteless, Boring, Uninspiring, Weak, Lame …

On Mar.30.2010 at 10:57 AM

Anthony ’s comment is:

Both lose.

On Mar.30.2010 at 11:47 AM

Warren’s comment is:

The colour and rounded corners look like another cable giant identity - UK’s Sky - any word on corporate links?

On Mar.30.2010 at 12:19 PM

Bill’s comment is:

The original is better.

On Mar.30.2010 at 12:48 PM

Tim Gengler’s comment is:

This seems like a needless change. The old logo looks great to me, and the new does very little to improve upon anything (and actually takes a step back in colors). I can see the new shape working better on most implementations, but modifying the “E” on the original a little could have achieved the same.

On Mar.30.2010 at 12:52 PM

Vaughn’s comment is:

Neil Martin has the right idea with his tweak.

On Mar.30.2010 at 01:01 PM

Guilherme Appolinário’s comment is:

this new logo really botter me, mostly for the reasons that the text talks about and for the colour… it seems weird to me and in my non-HD Philips tube television it gets even worse. btw,i feel happy that brandnew enjoyed my tip.

On Mar.30.2010 at 01:04 PM

Cory ’s comment is:

NEEEEEEEEEEEET?

Both are terrible.

On Mar.30.2010 at 01:28 PM

Essani’s comment is:

I have to disagree with most of you. The old logo is terribly annoying. The new logo looks 100 times more fresh and polished in terms of shape, color and effect. And yes, I actually like the rounded corners too! :)

On Mar.30.2010 at 01:41 PM

qwertyale’s comment is:

all boring

but common people goes new

On Mar.30.2010 at 02:57 PM

ag’s comment is:

The new is a vast improvment, even if it’s far from perfection… comon

On Mar.30.2010 at 03:20 PM

obse.’s comment is:

International correspondents make me sick.
And, I like this rebrand.

On Mar.30.2010 at 04:22 PM

Stormchild’s comment is:

Before and after both suck. Throw it out and start over.

On Mar.30.2010 at 05:30 PM

Eduardo Felipe’s comment is:

I like the new shape and colors. It’s a way better an interesting and simpler solution for the old one.

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:07 PM

Kris Robinson’s comment is:

I like the older version better, all they should have done was bring the N and the T closer together so it reads “NET” instead of “NEEEEET”.

On Mar.30.2010 at 08:43 PM

Matthew McKim’s comment is:

The original is definitely better. How any designer could possibly think that this version is supierior absolutely tickles my imagination. I couldn’t even begin to understand how this new identity is an improvement, by rationale of either aesthetics or concept.

I would love to sit down with some of you and pick your brain for an hour. Sometimes I come here and read the comments and think to myself, “Is this person serious? Really?”. I understand that, as designers, we will not all rally together with a common perspective. But Jesus, some of you make me want to punch a baby in the nuts.

On Mar.31.2010 at 04:59 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

That’s quite a statement to make Matthew. Best be careful that the people who come on here to comment don’t go to your homepage and begin dissecting your work, especially from the lofty viewpoint you seemingly hold yourself in.

On Mar.31.2010 at 07:14 AM

obse.’s comment is:

@ Matthew
Martin said it better than me, but, quoting yourself, I couldn’t even begin to understand how you call yourself a graphic designer. Some of your work make me want to punch a baby panda in the nuts.

And this is a good rebrand. That curved E was a mess.

On Mar.31.2010 at 02:06 PM

izzy’s comment is:

this would be appropriate for NT Construction Company… including the “cheap” feel that always seems to accompany contractor signage. it’s so damn B—-D, it’s quite a guilty pleasure to trash! NOGENTO!!

On Apr.01.2010 at 12:04 AM

gus’s comment is:

Both suck strongly, shorter version should be good

On Apr.01.2010 at 06:46 PM

enrolled agent classes’s comment is:

I agree. The shorter version should be better and more readable. I think there isn’t any sense in changing a logo design if it doesn’t really improve the image of the logo overall as to make an impact.

On Apr.02.2010 at 01:44 PM

Andrei Gonzales’s comment is:

I agree with everyone who said it reads as NEET. It does.

On Apr.03.2010 at 05:30 AM

Nora Brown’s comment is:

I want to comment not on the logo redesign, but on the review: Awesome. I’m subscribed to many many RSS feeds about logos, design, web design, etc., but the writing on this site makes it the one I read consistently. This made me chuckle:

thus taking the logo away from the “we are global” approach to something more aggressive and less idealistic like “we shoot images made out of light into your eyes.”

Keep up the great work!

On Apr.05.2010 at 09:54 AM

Gareth Coxon - Dot Design’s comment is:

Certainly a better treatment and update. Glad they lost the curve, but added a hint to the letterforms. Overall thumbs up!

On Apr.06.2010 at 01:09 PM