Opinion BY Armin

Follow-up: AOL, Round 2

Six months after rebooting their identity and to coincide with their 25th anniversary celebrations, AOL has unleashed its “2nd Collection” of logos and animations with help from designers, illustrators and animators around the world, with direction by Wolff Olins. To consolidate this effort, AOL has launched AOL Artists, a repository of all the contributors and snippets of their work, a fairly generous move to acknowledge these artists’ work and give them some additional exposure. AOL Artists also introduces “Project on Creativity,” a year-long celebration that highlights one creative icon — Chuck Close being the inaugural one — and also awards twenty-five scholarships, each of $25,000, to upcoming talent. Finally, a new corporate site for AOL is now live.

Whether you drink the AOL/Wolff Olins Kool-Aid mix or not — you all know I do — you can’t deny that the visual and cultural transformation of AOL is pretty impressive and after seeing the work below, you have to pretty jaded to not admit that, at least some of it, is simply cool. Most of you probably still see AOL as antiquated and lame, but all this — from the un-corporate corporate site to associations with artists like Close — will start to slowly change the perception of AOL. Looking forward to Round 3!

People involved in the 2nd Collection: Darren Booth, Rachel Thomas, Sarah Stout, GHAVA, James Taylor, James Wojcik, Universal Everything, Nathan Fox, Mr Kiji, Helen Musselwhite, Robert Samuel Hanson, Phillip Low, Mike Perry, Mark Verhaagen, Kristian Hammerstad, Jenny Bowers, Jon Burgerman, Hvass&Hannibal, Hawaii, Harry Malt, Eva Hjelte, Dylan Griffin, Dave White, Chrissy Angliker, Celyn, Alan Kitching, Anna Maria, HunterGatherer, Antoine+Manuel, Genevieve Gauckler, Klaus Haapaniemi, and Siggi Eggertsson.

New reel of spots by Universal Everything.

Three out of fourteens spots by GHAVA, see all at their website.

Jake’s comment is:

I think the biggest problem I have with the identity is that there’s no sort of consistency between the “background” parts of the logo. Some are real, some are fake, some are detailed illustrations, some are simple or abstract.

Maybe that’s the “genius” thing about it, but I’m just not the biggest fan.

On Jun.02.2010 at 07:07 AM

Sam’s comment is:

Uh oh. The corporate website doesn’t didplay properly in my browser :(

On Jun.02.2010 at 07:25 AM

Benn’s comment is:

Whatever you think of the ‘logo’, (and I side with Armin), you gotta love their new corporate advertising catchphrase over at advertising.aol.com:

“AOL: Come for the ROI, stay for the funky logo.”

Brilliant.

On Jun.02.2010 at 07:36 AM

James’s comment is:

Did the brown pyramid / cube thing in the video remind anyone else of the smoke monster from Lost?

On Jun.02.2010 at 07:41 AM

Cristian Loghin’s comment is:

I really like some of the illustrations… And I like the whole idea… So why does it leave a bad taste in my mouth? Maybe because I can’t believe a corporation can be this hip? Or maybe it’s because it looks as if AOL is trying to own those images by stamping their logo on them? I have no idea, but it would be refreshing to see a photo of some dog crap with AOL on it. It would somehow make me feel that justice has been done.

On Jun.02.2010 at 07:45 AM

Scott Lerman’s comment is:

Have you been to the AOL home page? They’ve gone from corporate blandness incarnate to random incoherence. If there was some focus and clarity to environment, the exuberant, illustrated ID could work really well. But as used, the identity is counterproductive, simply adding to the chaos.

On Jun.02.2010 at 07:48 AM

Joshua Wentz’s comment is:

Yes, these are pretty cool. They’d be even cooler if they didn’t have a giant AOL plastered on top of them.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:14 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

Much ado about nothing.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:16 AM

Sergei’s comment is:

While I really like all the above executions, I don’t see how they fit within the whole Aol schematic and for what purpose.

Reminds of logo applications a designer shows to a client that look fantastic but will never be executed.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:17 AM

Pink’s comment is:

Random artwork with a white AOL logo stuck over the top it - or is there more to it than that?

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:25 AM

Jason’s comment is:

I’m so bored by these. I look completely past the brand when I see these out in the world.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:27 AM

Daniel’s comment is:

Lipstick, pigs, etc.

High quality (and expensive) lipstick, to be sure, but it’s still on a farm animal.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:35 AM

David H’s comment is:

My clipart program has suddenly become a professional logo design tool.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:42 AM

Tim Smith’s comment is:

It doesn’t matter how fantastically creative your advertising campaign is, if you don’t have a good product to offer it’s all just smoke in the wind.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:59 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Six months ago I commented that I liked the idea but wasn’t crazy about some of executions. Six months later I like the idea even more!! But part of the idea is that the executions will always be give and take based on personal taste.

As a brand and marketing effort, this is a huge step for AOL that really puts itself out there for criticism and I applaud their guts and the adoption of this fresh approach.

The actual layout and specific design could/will always need improvement here and there but it doesn’t devalue the idea… which is what the masses will (or will not) respond to.

To me, this initiative gives the the big middle finger to all those out dated designers and marketers who are stuck in their traditional thinking where a logo has to work in B+W and always placed in the same bottom right corner. Look around folks… B+W is dead! Theres colour everywhere!!

Consistency is in the expression the familiarity is built around AOLs core message that they are about ideas. Sure every company is trying to say the same thing… but AOL is saying it differently… and in this case, better!

A+ for AWESOME!

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:04 AM

Cameron Jantzen’s comment is:

One thing that’s really great about this is that they’re supporting artists and designers with real money and real recognition. It’s against the current grain of crowdsourcing.

Love it or not (I think it’s too broadly artistic and therefore niche for the mass nature of the AOL brand, which is sad thing to have think), it’s brave, and it’s refreshingly not exploitative.

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:20 AM

james kwon’s comment is:

no. I will not drink the kool-aid. This is like the time, when you were a kid, took all the kool aid packs from the store and mixed them together — a purple/brown glop of disgusting drink. you think to yourself, SUGAR! SUGAR WILL FIX THIS NONSENSE! and, the answer is still no. It still tastes like shit, doesn’t it.

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:26 AM

jen’s comment is:

It all seems kind of whiffy to me as a set, but I seriously love the red guy with the big glasses.

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:46 AM

niko’s comment is:

aol. all things to all people.

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:49 AM

Everett’s comment is:

I really liked this at the initial roll-out, but was/am skeptical if they’d be able to pull it off long-term. It seems their chances are improving: this is phenomenal ID work. Shame it is for a vague and lackluster product.

The fact that the examples shown are almost all full color and not reproducible at small sizes is no bother. With an ID program like this you’ve got enough room to make it work for any application, at any size. Any constraints that the logo must work within are just an art commission away. That is the beauty of the program; it isn’t necessarily limited to what you see explicitly presented here.

The whole project makes me think of a new take on the adage: fast, cheap or good: pick two. The new choices are: Great Product, Great Client, or Great Design. Guess which ones were picked.

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:50 AM

Everett’s comment is:

The Achilles heel for such a program is that, because they don’t stand for something explicit, they stand for nothing.

@Cristian Loghin’s comment about AOL on a dog turd would fit just as well in this campaign as any artwork shown above. Absolut was able to pull off a similar program because the artwork they commissioned fit their constraints: the bottle. For this to be really successful, AOL needs to implement some kind of restraints for the art to fit within and not just a simple logo

On Jun.02.2010 at 10:00 AM

Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:

There is no coherent brand here. It’s just a disaster of leadership.

Aol. = Wtf.

On Jun.02.2010 at 10:11 AM

Samir Zahran’s comment is:

I don’t think there’s anything particularly creative about a logo that changes like this.

For one, it’s an idea that a lot of people have. The only difference is that this time a large corporation actually implemented it, very thoroughly too.

And secondly, I actually think this is the antithesis of creativity. It’s the result of not wanting to put time into actually rebranding your company and settling for thinking “Hey, if we just slap some letters on everyone else’s hard work, it’ll look like our awesome brand!”

Actually, I know of one company who did this that was successful: Nickelodeon. But they put their wordmark on slime splatters (relevant to them) or random simple shapes (actually still kinda relevant to them) and always in the same bright orange. Do you hear that Aol.? Cohesion.

On Jun.02.2010 at 10:16 AM

Steven Hoober’s comment is:

Color me jaded, then. Don’t get it at all. If this was the second round one of my people brought me after the initial notes, I’d fire them.

Forget the un-logo, it’s now an un-brand. How does that serve anyone?

On Jun.02.2010 at 10:39 AM

obse.’s comment is:

Besides I’m still not sure if I like the whole of this approach or not, I must admit it works pretty well as what it is: a courageous strategy to realunch the brand in a way WE ALL take notice of.
It makes us talk about the brand, it makes us rethink the brand, and wether we like it or not, we still didn’t like Aol. before, so if we don’t like it now either, we haven’t gone backwards.
In the other hand, if we do like it now, we’re gonna like it a lot. And that’s great.

What really disappoints me here is the implementation of the identity on their website, I mean, all these images are cool, but where do I find them? ‘cause when I go to the website I just see a Cyan+Red+Purple on White mess. And I don’t get the same “is it cool or awful?” feeling, in their website, the whole brand feels just awful.

Agree with Armin that our perception of Aol. has changed, but I don’t see any consistency even in their inconsistency.

On Jun.02.2010 at 10:52 AM

Rod Salm’s comment is:

Love the art, can we see it without the badly executed sorta-logo/type on it?

On Jun.02.2010 at 11:13 AM

adam’s comment is:

wait. time-out. has anyone even considered whether or not this will be able to fax?!?!?!?

On Jun.02.2010 at 11:22 AM

Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:

As I wrote last year… http://bit.ly/5VeRsK

… outstanding.

Aol is doing a ‘Picasso’ in brand identity. Love it or hate it, it will be difficult not to acknowledge that, on such a grand scale, Aol did this first.

I hope the business behind the brand has got what it takes to go the distance.

A.

On Jun.02.2010 at 11:52 AM

Nik Daum’s comment is:

Is all this eye candy supposed to be anything more than eye candy? I don’t get how any of the imagery really relates to AOL, sorry Aol.

On Jun.02.2010 at 11:54 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

@ Nik Daum

Tell me Nik, what do you think AOL does?

Kodaks sells memories, NOT film
Disneys sells entertainment, NOT animation
Movies sell real estate, NOT entertainment
FedEx sells speed, NOT deliveries

@adam

There’s always one dude with the “fax” question. The last time I fax anything was the last time I use QuarkXpress… 5 years ago! B+W is dead and CORPORATE IDENTITY work is NOT BRANDING.

On Jun.02.2010 at 12:24 PM

Glenn’s comment is:

I agree that the pictures, videos and illustrations is high quality work, but the problem with aol remains. At a distance, you would have no idea which corp it was since they all look completely different from each other.

On Jun.02.2010 at 12:31 PM

Mary Shu’s comment is:

I like the illustrations/imagery.
I think this is a bold move from AOL and Wolf Olins, as Frank Zappa said “Without deviation progress is not possible”

But…I feel the concept is submerging the main goal of the logo, to identify that this is AOL.

I see art, then AOL.

On Jun.02.2010 at 12:45 PM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Glenn>

You could make the same comment about Ray Gun magazine or Nike (minus their little logo) but I would argue that the consistency should lie in the spirit of the brand and not be so dependent on a little graphic called a logo.

Ray Gun is or rather it’s spirit is recognized with or without a logo or the words “Ray Gun”. The message in inherent in the personality because that’s what ultimate determines perception.

Nike celebrates “human will” and presents it in many different ways. The logo is a moot point… In fact, in their guideline, is says to use the logo small.

Do people like you Glenn because of the clothes you wear or your personality. Your clothes are an expression of who you are just like graphics are an expression of the company. You can change your clothes… but you’re still GLENN.

Yeah… I’m not too busy today…

On Jun.02.2010 at 12:49 PM

Yaco Roca’s comment is:

The idea to go all out and support art and then use it to help boost your brand is and has always been a good one, being an artist myself. The fact that AOL seems to be using this more to their advantage and using the results of those commissions within their branding is an interesting take on the matter. But the lack of cohesion between : Art, commissions, support, Brand, seems to make the objective and most importantly, the cohesion of the whole campaign, seems inexistent.

Plenty of companies want to be New, Hip, Trendy, and reach out to emerging markets, so while this clearly states that, it could be ANY of a thousand logos trying to blend into these images. I don’t think communication should be literal, but it should have a clear objective, even if that objective is to not be so clear.

Easy workarounds… use the AOL logo in a similar fashion in all images, have the same areas blend in with the negative space, either keep the same scale between logo and image or not, maybe even let the campaign use a consistent, coherent slogan throughout, giving relevancy to such a varied set of styles and subjects in the artwork.

On Jun.02.2010 at 12:58 PM

Yaco Roca’s comment is:

Is this a more recent version of MTV style ads?

On Jun.02.2010 at 01:02 PM

Nicole’s comment is:

Oh Aol. I love what you’ve done here, but for your sake I wish you had spent all this money on actually making a viable product instead.

A lot of these logos are beautiful, I like your concept, but when Apple saved their company with good design, they actually had a product behind it that was pretty decent, too.

You suck, you have always sucked and I don’t see you sucking less any time soon. A shiny new logo isn’t enough to make me think you suck less- it just makes me think you have no idea how to run a company.

On Jun.02.2010 at 01:19 PM

Niall O'Kelly’s comment is:

I have to say, my first thought is that I’m very impressed that an American corporation with the history and scale of AOl would have the guts and, dare I say it, vision, to approve and run with as groundbreaking an identity as this. While I could see it happening with a medium sized European company (most likely based in Rotterdam!), I don’t think it’s unfair to say that there’s an inherent culture of conservatism running through most of the Fortune 500 in terms of branding and marketing.

While this is not always a bad thing (I don’t want any banks to start appearing even more ‘creative’ than they already seem to be with their accounting for example!), it is certainly refreshing to see it attempted for a consumer / retail facing company such as AOl. It is my hope that this campaign, regardless of how one feels about it visually and/or creatively, is a huge success, as it would then become a rebranding-starting point for others (given the tendency of many large companies to replicate rather than innovate). It is then that we might really see the future of what branding can be and mean.

I think that this is a bold idea, and is interesting for its difference moreso than for the content itself. It is great to see a large company willing to commission custom artwork and illustration if nothing else, something I think is sorely lacking in the contemporary design landscape due to the rise of istock et al. This identity system can provide something for us to point to when clients need to be educated on just why spending more than $20 on their primary brand imagery could be a good thing. AOL have even helpfully provided us with precise examples from their first phase to point to!

I think that the corporate website is a little incoherent to be honest, but again, it is a world away from most corporate sites, so that in itself is to be applauded. I would like to see what they’ve planned for the consumer site, as that is sorely in need of some work.

My main concern with these ‘logo’s’ is that I’m not seeing how and where they are going to be used. All the spots that I saw were of other things revealing the ‘AOL.’, and it/they do not show up on the corporate or consumer site except as part of a press release type article about them. I guess we will have to see how it works out over the coming months.

Nonetheless (and apologies for the long/rambling post!) I think this is an excellent rebranding, well thought out and executed…showing the enduring power of a very simple concept brought to another level with high quality supporting artwork. Fair play to Wolf Ollins for getting it through the AOL management, and to AOL itself for taking a chance on something so different, and with the confidence to take it and run with it to the extent that they have done so.

Niall.

On Jun.02.2010 at 01:46 PM

orangetiki’s comment is:

I really like Mr. Kim’s line ” and CORPORATE IDENTITY work is NOT BRANDING. ” quote. May I use it?

These logos although static here seem to me like they are treated as google’s word marks and not as a logo. They work to give a flow to their website(s). AOL is meant to be everything the web is ( speaking as if I were from AOL ) and so the mark should resemble the same. It’s no longer hide behind a logo kind of company. We all know AOL. They should stand out as more than just a cold newspaper style website. Let the art flow!

Now I will say it should be reeled in 9just) a little. a quick example would always use the ball and the AOL negative space but let it be the guy’s head or part of some wacky box some guy is wearing, a part of the beetle or a section of the illustration. And of course exceptions could be made like the melted chocolate heart; Brilliant. The horse and paint; Fantastic. After the 9th sock puppet, not so much.

On Jun.02.2010 at 01:48 PM

Jeremy’s comment is:

Nevermind the fact that some of the art is very cool/hip/boundary pushing. That’s everything that AOL is *not*. People still think of it as the company that mailed out billions of CDs in the 90’s, and abandoned it years ago. They may as well try and rebrand Prodigy or CompuServ while they’re at it.

Lame.

On Jun.02.2010 at 02:16 PM

Mike Williams’s comment is:

Ditto on most everything Niall said.

I love the evolving logo idea, but it is unusual to find situations where it’s a good fit from a practical standpoint for most corporations. The constant updates and evolutions are expensive and require a commitment from leadership, and either strong in-house design or a a good relationship and a retainer with the design firm that created the ID system. Either way, it’s an uphill challenge from selling the initial idea through implementation. I was curious to see if Aol. would pull it off over time, but so far they’re doing a good job. I’m impressed, especially with the same spirit in the ID work being present in the Aol. corporate and advertising sites, down to messaging, imagery style etc.

That said, I too would love to see just a hair more of a consistent thread through the logo campaign, a-la Nickelodeon or Absolut, as others have suggested. I’d agree with Mr. Kim that the brand’s essence should be able to carry this consistency, but that essence usually gets killed in the management of a brand - in big organizations, too many different agencies with different visions take the brand in different directions. Ray Gun & Nike have such great consistency because they each had very clear vision set under Carson and a long term relationship with W+K, respectively. Thus far, Aol. has not shown that degree of consistency, though perhaps things are changing.

On Jun.02.2010 at 02:24 PM

Rob O.’s comment is:

I agree with others who’ve said that there’s no coherent identity in this. This advertising mismash is a reflection of how unfocused & irrelevant AOL has become. I’m amazed that they’re still afloat.

On Jun.02.2010 at 02:28 PM

C Jones’s comment is:

HOOORAY AOL AND WOLFF OLINS! I dont care what Aol. sells I am in. Hell i think i would buy t shirts from them at this point.

On Jun.02.2010 at 02:42 PM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Folks, lets give AOL a chance. It’s only been 6 months so it will take a while for yesterday’s “Compuserv” to become tomorrows… uh, Apple? Coke? FedEx? Esquire? Take your pick.

What I like about AOL is, not so much the individual applications, but rather the platform. If a brand is a LIVING, BREATHING entity, then surely it must be allowed to grow and evolve. I believe the new platform allows it to do just that. Times change, trends change and people interest will also change.

I submit to you that AOL is now in a better position to respond to change quicker and better then most current popular brands. That’s how Nike and Coke have remained relevant all this time. Not because of any consistent use of a graphic locked up in a corner… but because they continue to remain meaningful in the hearts and minds of their audience.

However, being able to execute is a very different thing. I guess we’ll see if AOL management is on ball or if they’ll become another Kodak and miss out on the market they helped define. So far, the signs suggest that someone is awake over there…

Good luck to AOL.

On Jun.02.2010 at 02:44 PM

Daho’s comment is:

The artwork is an improvement over the first round, which felt like clip-art. I do love the concept for thinking out of the box.

But it all seems worthwhile without a vital brand. As someone above mentioned, there’s no innovative product underneath all this cool packaging.

On Jun.02.2010 at 02:58 PM

dave s’s comment is:

The whole thing feels so insincere.

Spotting a Shepard Fairey print in an alley in China Town is cool. Seeing one in an expensive frame hanging in a board room still just feels wrong. Aol is simply trying to latch on to the visual vernacular of the hip. But should the huge corporation simply rollover and give up? Like so many others I appreciate the attempt but in the end i just don’t buy it.

On Jun.02.2010 at 03:09 PM

Todd Z’s comment is:

The “AOl” is too plain. Has no identity.

On Jun.02.2010 at 05:04 PM

Jason Tselentis’s comment is:

No matter their identity (old or this new one), I’m at a loss. Moreover, one question remains for me: Who uses aol? This design/redesign doesn’t speak to their consumers, target market, nor media. I’m as much a Wolff Olins fan as the next designer. But, really? What are they trying to do here? It’s still not salient.

On Jun.02.2010 at 05:30 PM

Scott Lerman’s comment is:

Sorry, but bold quirky illustrations crowdsourced from users do not make AOL cool or trendsetting. It is pure surface. Shallow eye candy. Borrowed interest. As someone noted, Absolut took this road years ago with conviction and purpose. Their sustained collaboration with artists has delivered real insight and emotion. Armin, I know you admire the disruptive spirit of Wolff Olins—and so do I. But they miss as often as they hit because their work is often driven by their spirt, not the client’s.

On Jun.02.2010 at 05:35 PM

Ryan’s comment is:

I never thought I’d say this, but I love Aol. This new identity keeps getting better. Ditto what Niall said about Wolff Olins selling it to them… surprising and encouraging!

On Jun.02.2010 at 06:25 PM

room34’s comment is:

I doubt anything could change my negative opinion of AOL. I mean Aol. Certainly not this.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:43 PM

Monika’s comment is:

Fancy Schmancy Nothing Specialness.

On Jun.02.2010 at 08:59 PM

Monika’s comment is:

Okay, I should have waiting to comment until I watched all the Videos. It works better in motion, as the subject matter reveals and disappears the Aol. It is growing on me, and it probably will change perception to make it seem more “cool”, but I’m still not sure how it works as a system. I guess it’s supposed to be the unsystem, right?

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:02 PM

Alisha’s comment is:

Meh… it doesn’t do much for me, and honestly it’s because I haven’t seen any use of the logo on any sort of collateral. I want to know how it’s going to look on a business card. Are they going to use different pics on every individual person’s card? How about the letterhead? I think once I’ve seen these pieces I’ll feel better about the whole “we’re going to have a consistent identity in that it’s inconsistent” philosophy.

I wonder what the standards manual looks like, specifically the “do not do this to the logo” page.

On Jun.02.2010 at 09:35 PM

Sonia’s comment is:

I thinks it’s great. It’s not about the logo, it’s about the brand and changing people’s perception of the brand. I don’t live in the States, so I have no personal experiences with Aol. I just believe this is a pretty cool way of brand interaction. It certainly gets people talking about them.

On Jun.02.2010 at 10:12 PM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

Mr Kim, it’s apparent that you are passionate about this work, possibly even more so than anyone involved in actually working on the project itself, but you are getting a little carried away in what you say.

I agree with a lot of what you’re telling us, over and over, but please do not compare this work with Coca Cola and Apple as both of these brands have produced years and years of brilliant, eye-catching, clever and imaginative work all of which, pretty much in every instance, is bound by one thing: consistency. This is something that Aol., judging by what we have all seen thus far, is missing badly.

You rightly mentioned certain companies’ use of its logo at a small size; this applies to Apple or Coke. But with these companies, you need only look at their work, not their logo, and you can tell almost immediately who they are. Take the Aol off of these images here? Could you tell who they belong to?

It’s eye-catching, it’s got people talking but it’s too early to pronounce it a success just because it’s different. Part of me thinks in 10 years time we’ll be looking back at this and thinking ‘WTF?’ That is not the mark of a successful identity.

On Jun.03.2010 at 04:14 AM

MR’s comment is:

I think this great work. I love the simplicity behind the logo. It is great to see an identity that´s clean and simple in its execution. Unfortunately lot´s of the work highlighted in this webpage is very american and overdone. I guess that´s why this work gets all this bad comments. I totally disagree on this.

Also it is very seldom that people in here actually praises the work been showed.
It seems like they all can do it better!!!

On Jun.03.2010 at 08:19 AM

Gunter Soydanbay’s comment is:

Only a ballsy company would accept such an approach. So they have courage. I give them that. But what about consistence between visual identity and customer experience? I see a huge discrepancy here which is alarming for the brand. What do you think?

On Jun.03.2010 at 08:24 AM

Zanda’s comment is:

It is still a non entity in terms of branding and that is final. Period.

On Jun.03.2010 at 10:32 AM

adam’s comment is:

@Mr. Kim

i guess my sarcasm failed to come through my post huh? i would hope you dont seriously think i am concerned about the “faxability” of this logo.

On Jun.03.2010 at 11:12 AM

Gertrude’s comment is:

AYOLE. Still. Sorry, I can’t.

On Jun.03.2010 at 11:52 AM

Linette’s comment is:

Inevitably what is anti-establishment becomes the establishment. There is something really distressing to me about seeing this imagery, which at least refers to artwork that was at one point critical about our consumer culture, now being appropriated by a corporation and having a logo slapped on it. In addition to this, it is that type of artwork that somehow gives me a little shudder of revulsion. Like that green creature with the tennis racket. It reminds me of Jeff Koons’ creepy kitsch sculptures. I will grant that the artwork is unique, and the concept of the evolving logo is also interesting, but ultimately I cannot buy into it.

On Jun.03.2010 at 11:54 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

>>adam

Ha, ha… actually, I did suspect that it might be sarcasm but I was waiting for someone to make this point so I took the opportunity to jump on it. There’s one on every blog, and one in every office.

>>Martin Boath

What you consider “brilliant” and “eye catching” is really a matter of taste which changes with time. Think big belts and big hair from the ’80s. Coke and Apple have differently strategies, but do I really need to point out that Apple was nearly bankrupt just before Mr Jobs returned despite the consistent use of the Apple logo? Why, because they were out of touch with their market. And Coke does not use their logo small… just look at the Coke can… so your point is lost on me.

Lets face, at this point AOL can’t compete against Google or even Yahoo! Their competitors do it better and unlike Coke and Apple, they don’t sell a physical product. I believe that AOL is trying to sell culture and they are trying to define that culture with it’s current initiative. Although all the visuals seem different, they all carry the SAME tone and message. A logo is only as good as it’s associated values and it’s the values that people respond to, not the logo.

People used to buy Sony because the Sony logo stood for quality. Once an electronic device had the Sony logo on it, consumers trusted that product met a certain standard (although this is no longer the case). Consistency should be applied to making sure these values are true because logos have little meaning without them these days.

And just to clarify, I did not declare AOLs initiative a success and if AOL is doing the same thing 10 years from now, it will be a failure. Please have another look at me posts…

Passion is good I guess but unfortunately it doesn’t pay the bills. Thanks for your response.

^_^

On Jun.03.2010 at 12:03 PM

Lula’s comment is:

Am I the only person who feels like they’re seriously tripping? I find all the logos to be unsettling and I can’t imagine how that will translate into trust for a company that most people… don’t already trust!

Not saying they need to play it safe (though that word mark? Totally safe. And looks like Aoi) but everything about the uncanny nature of the illustrations, and particularly the slow-motion videos with the creepy music is a major turn off for me.

On Jun.03.2010 at 12:30 PM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Let me also put this question out there:

Knowing that AOL has no product or service that you can’t get else where that’s better and cheaper. Knowing that you still have this huge audience and business to run… And if you were the CEO, what would you do?

1. Would you place your faith on making a nice looking logo and making sure it’s used the same way everywhere it’s applied and hope that people will come?

or

2. Would you try and make your company more meaningful and follow through on all your promises so that people can emotionally re-connect with the organization so that they are willing to pay more for the same product that others sell?

It’s great to want nice design, but branding is not aesthetics and if you had the responsibility of a CEO, I doubt you’d really bank on logo placement for build your business.

On Jun.03.2010 at 12:30 PM

Dusty’s comment is:

Really? Seems to me they will use ANY image, and throw Helvetica or whatever over the top of it.

On Jun.03.2010 at 01:01 PM

Daniel’s comment is:

I love Wolff Olins work. All of it.

In my opinion, they build the most flexible, contemporary systems around.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I truly believe these guys are visionaries. Their work consistently raises eyebrows. It always gets people talking. How is this even possible in our world today? We’ve got information and opinions flowing out of every orifice of our lives. Why should anyone care? It’s just a another stupid brand that sells us pointless crap that will eventually kill all of us…

…but when Wolff Olins does it, it still gets me excited EVERY time and reminds me of why I love being a Designer.

I hope they are a humble team. I love their work so much that if they were pretentious asses, I would be heartbroken.

By the way, I don’t work for them or know anyone there. I just really admire and appreciate their creative contributions to the profession I love so dearly…(Graphic Design, not advertising)

On Jun.03.2010 at 03:11 PM

Michael’s comment is:

Some cool visuals for sure. But no one that reads even a sentence of their copy could say this is an “un-corporate corporate site.” I’ve never seen so many cliches cobbled together in one place.

On Jun.03.2010 at 03:24 PM

Morning Toast’s comment is:

Am I the only one that just watched some of those spots and went “what the hell?” I dunno…just don’t like it, I guess. Feels very Nickelodeon back when they were a good channel with awesome “artsy” commercials.

On Jun.03.2010 at 03:51 PM

Katie’s comment is:

I hated the “1st round” of the new Aol; the illustrations seemed unfinished and disjointed to me. These, the “2nd round,” have totally turned me. I love them. These seem complete, like actual art instead of meaningless soulless blobs and random pictures that looked like they were gathered from a google image search. And they don’t seem disjointed anymore, even though they vary greatly, because there is now some connection: the artists.

Six months ago, I thought Aol might be finished. Now I think they really could pull this off. And, you know what? I’m rooting for them. I really really like these.

On Jun.03.2010 at 08:22 PM

Katie’s comment is:

Oh, just one thing! The main image in this post, with the pink and the white? It reminds me of a butthole. Sorry, but it bears pointing out.

Who knows, though, maybe it’s just me.

On Jun.03.2010 at 08:30 PM

Arnaldo’s comment is:

Designers will hate it (for not stealing this idea first), the core audience will not understand it, and the company offering will probably stay the same, despite some hipster art behind the html tables.

The only winner is Wolff Olins…

On Jun.04.2010 at 12:26 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

Ok Mr Kim, put the pom-poms away and take off the ra-ra skirt – we get it.

If my point is lost on you it’s because you choose not to see it. Apple’s trouble in the 90s has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. Neither does the size of the Coke logo on their cans. It’s about their branding style and brand perception and how they execute it. My point, whether you choose to miss it or simply skip past it, still stands: look at their advertising and promotional work, remove their logo and you see it’s them; Coke and Apple. Because there is consistency in their message. And with what Aol have produced thus far, there is none. It really is as simple as that. Nothing to do with physical product. And if you don’t think Apple are ‘trying to sell [a] culture’ then it’s not just my point you’re missing.

Another point you missed too was my reference to 10 years time. I am not suggesting that they will still be doing this in 10 years, what I am suggesting is that perhaps we will look back at this and think ‘oh dear, were we really making such a fuss over this’? That, obviously, is purely speculation and only time will tell.

And if you think that multi-award-winning work from Apple and some of the most imaginative, forward-thinking and award-winning work from Coca-Cola is not ‘brilliant’ then we are not going to see eye-to-eye. But again, you seem to be the authority on this subject so I’ll leave it here.

One on every blog, just like to say.

On Jun.04.2010 at 04:36 AM

bottleHeD’s comment is:

Wow, still as lame as the first time around. This look like a sefl-congratulatory redesign.

“Wow, look at us, we have no idea what our business is about, but we look so hip and trendy!”

I have no idea why Brand New likes this so much. Most every other place I’ve read about this redesign has rightfully trashed it.

On Jun.04.2010 at 05:33 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Martin>

People recognize Coke and Apple sans logo because familiarity has been built over time but their success or failure has very little to do with pretty graphics, but rather the message behind them. There are hordes of companies out there who have beautiful, consistent graphics but fail or are not recognized because because they are still focused on selling a widget. AOL has just started their program… so again, what’s you’re point?

Your comment about 10 years into the future applies to pretty much everything marketing. The nature of marketing is that its ephemeral. Sure there’s a hand full of initiatives that get remembered but they are considered good only in hindsight. This is obvious which makes your observation… again, moot.

Not all things that win “awards” are good, and not all things that don’t win are bad.

If the visuals shown here were presented without any logo, are you suggesting that they could be mistaken for IBM, Google, or some other company? Since this presentation is new, it will take time for people to associated it with AOL, but, like it or hate it, I don’t see how anyone can suggest that they don’t at least appear to be coming from one company!! It’s about the cumulative effect over time. What we’re seeing here is just the platform and it’s the platform which I find appealing.

See how nice I am… free education from an authority for you without the snide personal comments. Ooops, sorry, that one got past me.

On Jun.04.2010 at 09:32 AM

david ross’s comment is:

why not use all of them. after all, AOL is one thing to all people, but rather, something different to everyone who interacts with it.

On Jun.04.2010 at 12:37 PM

david ross’s comment is:

oops, meant to write…

why not use all of them. after all, AOL isn’t one thing to all people, but rather, something different to everyone who interacts with it.

On Jun.04.2010 at 12:39 PM

Andrew’s comment is:

I’m coming late to the party, so others have probably said all that I’m about to, but here goes.

I love the images, I love the videos, I love the idea. I’m a firm believer that a brand can be bigger than one logo. I think this reflects a great deal of guts and energy on the behalf of some folks at Aol.

However this rebrand seems to reflect no change to what AOL is as a business - their website is still essentially the same as what it was 5, maybe even 10 years ago, namely a search bar with a bunch of categories and “news”. AOL’s attempt to reach a younger, hipper audience is doomed, not because it’s too edgy, but because (as others have said) their product just isn’t that good. If AOL was really serious about this rebrand and reworked their website accordingly I could really get behind it.

Ultimately though, this seems to me like if K-Mart started playing Frank Zappa on its sound system - we’d hear about it, and go “ah, that’s cool, way to go K-Mart” but none of us actually shop there (at least, not for the Zappa), and I suspect that the people who actually do shop there would be more baffled than anything else…

On Jun.04.2010 at 01:43 PM

Chuck Spidell’s comment is:

Some of the artwork is beautiful, but the whole brand redesign still feels forced. Shouldn’t they target the real core audience, which is most likely baby boomers who’ve been loyal to AOL since ‘95. The corporate site and main site need to flip-flop designs. Right now, I’m only seeing a regurgitated version of MSN.

Ditto Tim Smith’s early comment. What is AOL?

On Jun.04.2010 at 04:25 PM

Carl’s comment is:

I agree with Andrew to a certain extent. The designers and marketers seem to have outpaced the bean counters and other corporate strategests.

On the other hand, sticking a flag pole in the ground via an renergized visual identity and saying, “this is what we want to be” can change company behavior… if backed by a commitment from key executive that supports this change in attitude.

Things change. An exciting identity attracts talent that can transform corporate culture if given the chance. I’ve seen it happen.

Somebody in the upper echelons of management must have liked this direction. I’ll be curious to see where it leads.

On Jun.05.2010 at 08:53 PM

Alison’s comment is:

I liked the images before and I still like them now, but my problem with the logo still carries across - why is it Aol. ??

I really have trouble reading it as A O L. If it were all lower case or upper case then fine, but that’s sentence case and denotes it as a word. And I read it as such and so end up reading something that sounds like “owl”. It’s basic english. I know it might have something to do with the way people type online (I generally only use lowercase in IM), but the capital A is therefore incongruous with this because people generally don’t capitalise first letters when they IM.

Anyway, it doesn’t much affect me, since I don’t live in the US. I do really like the whole using illustrations thing (especially if they have a website dedicated to the artist’s whose work they are using - that’s cool).

On Jun.06.2010 at 07:17 AM

Alwyn Velasquez’s comment is:

The problem is that they are all trite and gimmicky. Nothing new and innovative is being stated—they all rely on a fragmented visual which has no bearing on what AOL did or does to date. The service has passed its prime and these examples which try so hard to rejuvenate the marginalized AOL just simply do not make the grade.

On Jun.07.2010 at 08:57 AM

Mark’s comment is:

It’s artsy it’s different but it doesn’t tell me why should switch back to dial up that’s much slower than my current ISP.

All this stick random s#!^ behind a white Aol. makes no sense to me, it’s downright stupid.

On Jun.08.2010 at 09:01 PM

oral jelly’s comment is:

I like the illustrations/imagery.
I think this is a bold move from AOL and Wolf Olins, as Frank Zappa said “Without deviation progress is not possible”

But…I feel the concept is submerging the main goal of the logo, to identify that this is AOL.

I see art, then AOL.

On Jun.09.2010 at 08:25 AM

andres’s comment is:

I fail to understand from most of the votes cast how this is in any way better than the last round? OK, so we have some very cool, kick ass art thrown in, with a crap logo on top. Someone explain how that in any way makes the identity better. Maybe we should try an exercise? Let’s look for any logo we may all agree is awful. Then drop in some amazing art near or beneath it. Does that make it a brand? Does that make it a better logo? Is it better by association?

I think my problem is the association. I love the artwork. I hate the logo. I can see the difference between the two.

On Jun.09.2010 at 09:07 AM

ZIGAVOO’s comment is:

Grade A top notch branding. Blows the lid off and raises the bar for quality marketing. LOVE IT!

On Jun.09.2010 at 10:22 PM

Paul Rand’s comment is:

AOL LOL

On Jun.09.2010 at 10:39 PM

evan’s comment is:

I think its brilliant. you people complain to much.

I see it as taking the same approach as an ipod ad, but instead of having a featured musician’s song playing in the background, Aol has a featured 2d or 3d artist in the background.

the end result provides more depth to the simple logo. it creates an experience. something that conventional logos lack.

as for the word mark, i might have gone with AOL instead of Aol. first of all, he period is definitely to generic.

the capitalization of the A demonstrates how they are trying to erase the idea of the acronym as nobody says “America Online” anymore. even as i write it it sounds very nineties. So A.O.L. is no longer america online, its just “ay-oell”

On Jun.10.2010 at 02:41 AM

A Real Black Person’s comment is:

Regarding Linette’s comment:

The only thing I like about Aol.’s “direction” is that it highlights everything that’s…”ironic’… about hipsters artists . Aol.’s brand is insincere but not because Aol.’ has “appropriated” “anti-establishment” art but because the majority of artist’s who use imgery that was at “one point critical about our consumer culture” (according to Linette ) are insincere about being critical of consumer culture and ‘the establishment’. The reason why these “quirky” artists have sold out to Aol. is because they DO want to enjoy the benefits of being a participant in the consumer culture and the esablishment they like to pretend they disapprove of. It’s only human that they want to get some money for sharing their quirky and kitchy art. Despite, the applause that they get from pillars of the establishment such as The New Yorker educated professionals who buy their overpriced creative output, and now Aol. , they still don’t think they’re part of the mainstream even as if a being a vegan and making more frippery than anyone could ever want make them immediatelya social outcasts. They still buy Apple products, go to the movies and drive cars just as much if not more than other kinds of Americans despite their social consciousness.

On Jun.12.2010 at 05:25 PM

james’s comment is:

at first i hated it, but i’ve grown to love, and this seals it for me.

so so good. and talk about making your brand work for you. the artists program is great.
its a shame to see people not like this. its great to see a brand think about itself in away that goes beyond a type set logo, letter heads, and truck decals. thats the way it should be.

On Jun.17.2010 at 11:51 AM

james’s comment is:

now they should start making products that work for them. and us.

On Jun.17.2010 at 11:52 AM

byzzew’s comment is:

That’s great~!

On Jun.22.2010 at 05:16 AM

King Meeter’s comment is:

Elden Vliem

On Jun.30.2010 at 02:01 AM

Brockmann’s comment is:

Just great. Branding unconfined.

On Jul.03.2010 at 07:13 AM

Ralf’s comment is:

I really think this is great.

Wolff Olins (again) did show me that I am not the open minded designer I thought I was.
And as I can see here, I’m not the only one. I can’t believe I used to think design is about doing the same old boring stuff over and over and calling myself creative.
And the fact that so many people do hate it makes me even more confident that this is a big achievement for the design world. It’s the wakeup-call we really needed.

On Jul.05.2010 at 02:14 PM

Jonathan Keller’s comment is:

Okay, so Wolff Olins employs some talented artists to do… what exactly for the brand? Make it seem contemporary and trendy??

I don’t think I’m along here when I say that I’m still not getting it. And still not getting exactly what product or service Aol. is trying to offer me through these desperate attempts.

~J

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:30 PM

Yaco Roca’s comment is:

I enjoy the individual execution of the graphics and specially, the animated pieces. In fact, the animations have a great eye candy, saturated factor and a good measure of hip subtlety when suddenly the AOL logo is there, as if it had been all along, white over white, and I hadn’t noticed it. That’s pretty cool.

I agree, however, on the much repeated sentiment that the pieces as a whole don’t seem to convey any message and look like a well executed, updated, series of late 90’s Mtv ads.

Having had those copied in full or in measure over the past decade or so makes the aftertaste of these as bland imitation and formulaic. The execution of pieces is again, beautiful. What I find bland is that I don’t see any content beyond the Mtv-esque model and the (correct) notion that designer-plush, vibrant colors, pixels and floating paint are cool.

So…. great artists, but lack of cohesion and an innovative, original idea, begins to take credit from AOL, and makes me wonder if there’s anything under the hood of the hip, trendy and flashy car….

It’s worth noting this thread does have 96 comments, counting this one… buzz has been created, at least here. Now we need content.

On Sep.02.2010 at 12:43 PM