Update: Thanks to our author Ryan Hembree for providing a color version.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
jak’s comment is:
I wonder if there is any product placement here? Pretty cool little exercise either way.
On Apr.30.2008 at 09:36 AM
m’s comment is:
Maybe they should have another competition for logotypes.
On Apr.30.2008 at 09:55 AM
Tomasz Ronda’s comment is:
hidden arrow in fedex? i didnt realize it until now. wow
On Apr.30.2008 at 10:11 AM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
Wasn't there a recent study about how the Apple logo is, to our brains, one of the best logos ever and how it bolsters creativity and such? And yet it's out in the first round? I call BS.
Are these selections based on anything?
On Apr.30.2008 at 10:33 AM
Haik Avanian’s comment is:
"Wasn't there a recent study about how the Apple logo is, to our brains, one of the best logos ever and how it bolsters creativity and such? "
hahaha wow, and youre the one calling BS here?
On Apr.30.2008 at 11:00 AM
dg3’s comment is:
I like how Target, simply by leaving their logo alone all these years, now looks in line with the current trend of simplicity.
On Apr.30.2008 at 12:28 PM
CJ’s comment is:
Personally I think John Deere trumps Harley....but it seems like a weird selection of logos overall....where's IBM etc?
On Apr.30.2008 at 12:35 PM
Vic’s comment is:
I call shenanigans. Maybe I'm not clear on the judges' criteria, but based on the logos selected, Nike and McDonalds should have been in the finals. These are the two of the most recognizable brands in the world. Whether you like their labor practices or not, if you show their brands to anyone, they understand the product it represents.
Nike is the winner. The swoosh is simple, implies movement and athleticism, and transmits brand identity instantly.
On Apr.30.2008 at 01:40 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
It's amazing that the final 2 logos are almost exactly the same... one looks like a wide awake peeper, the other a droopy dreamy sleepy-eye.
Second John Deere over Harley-Davidson. I also think Apple trumps CBS. I recognize Apple instantly, but it takes me a while to remember if the eye is CBS, NBC or ABC (I know NBC is the peacock and ABC is well abc, but not instantly.)
On Apr.30.2008 at 01:43 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
this is goofy
On Apr.30.2008 at 02:01 PM
Phillip’s comment is:
Well, I wouldn't sign this. The GE-Logo is weak and in my opinion, it doesn't »smoke« Altria at all.
Meh, It's all a matter of taste in the end. Besides readability and simplicity it really is.
On Apr.30.2008 at 02:14 PM
Sykil’s comment is:
Um, where's IBM? Seriously?
On Apr.30.2008 at 04:10 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
Sad day, we lost. But I guess if you're going to lose, it may as well be to the eventual champ.
Agree on the goofiness, this would be more fun if it were logos all from within the same industry.
On Apr.30.2008 at 04:17 PM
Joke Master’s comment is:
Weak weak weak. No way FedEx doesn't at least get to the finals. And Back of America? Please... i couldn't even remember what bank that logo was for -- US Bank? Wells Fargo? Bank of America? American Bank?
Absolutely lame.
On Apr.30.2008 at 05:32 PM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
hello.... logo "smackdown"?
i hope armin is seeing some residuals... thats a known SU moniker!
as per the logo i think they got it right. it doesn't hurt that target has an incredibly dense logo-inundated brand.
the best large scale mark/identity in my book is Amazon's "arrow/ smile".
Joe Szczepaniak’s comment is:
Phillip thinks it's all a matter of taste...hmmm. I suppose that this editorial is, but good design isn't. The GE logo is fantastic. There are rules in this industry, Pacho, and you'd better know them before you open your mouth.
On May.01.2008 at 12:26 AM
marko savic’s comment is:
This is terrible. I mean, its cool in concept, but the rationale for choosing the winners is terrible. And even who to put head-to-head initially? Terrible.
Winner: Apple. The only other logo that can be read the companies name from an image. Target is reasonable, but I wonder how that will translate across cultures and without the name attachment.
On May.01.2008 at 06:16 AM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
Great Fun.
Target is definitely in my top three, they are a very sophisticated and intelligent marketer, and there symbol is close to perfect. Apple is 'of course' another winner, forbidden fruit as Brett Wickens mentioned in the Sandisk interview.
I would love to see this extended to other brands, (more international) eg:
Shell, Penguin, BP, Pirelli, 3M, NBC, ABC Radio, IKEA, Universal, Sandisk, Stussy, any old Japanese brands.
On May.01.2008 at 11:32 AM
Cristiano’s comment is:
I agree with Joe S., brand design as a matter of taste? That's the typical nightmare-client speak.
GE is absolutely one of the best brands out there.
Ivan Philipov’s comment is:
I don't know guys, I sent this to Armin, because I felt annoyed by the fact that respectful publication like BusinessWeek does some sort of WWF Tournament with logos? How...retarded is that? How can you compare Intel & Nike? CBS & Apple? I always thought that one of the most important things in order to get your brand known is the EXPOSURE, not the overall look...which is sad, of course, but it's the reality.
PS. Okay, okay, I too think that the new Intel logo sucks compared to the old one :)
On May.01.2008 at 04:16 PM
mog’s comment is:
In my book, it would be Target vs. Apple for the final. Not because I necessarily love those brands (although I do) but because I think symbol-only logos are very powerful. That entire "tournament" seems to be mainly symbol logos, but I think Target and Apple are better than even mainstays like the CBS eye and the Nike swoosh because they visually represent the name of the brand. If you see an Apple logo on the back of a laptop, you can pretty much deduce that there is a computer company named something like "Apple." If you hear about an "Apple, Inc." the next day, you'd connect the two. Nike and their swoosh, not so much. The swoosh isn't a picture of a nike.
I'd probably give it to Target in the end, though, because their symbol is even simpler, and thus, even more versatile, even though they do usually tie it to a specific color.
On May.02.2008 at 03:24 PM
Gm’s comment is:
What an absolute complete waste of a magazine page?
'FedEx's hidden arrow rules'
'Witty simplicity overtakes relentlessness'
'GE Logo's subtle movement smokes Altria'
... ok, if you say so? I'm thinking this should have been given a little more real estate in the magazine or been nixed altogether.
On May.02.2008 at 09:35 PM
mog’s comment is:
Oh, and ten demerits for referring to Apple, Inc., the company, as "Mac." ("Mac's Apple vs. Nike's Swoosh.") In an article on brands, no less. And this is FORTUNE?!?
On May.04.2008 at 10:51 AM
Goffredo Puccetti’s comment is:
Is it for fun? Ok, then it is funny. I spent a nice couple of minutes reading funny explanations of the logo fights...
Is that supposed to be serious? Ok, then it is not serious at all.
It is a pointless exercise (CBS vs Apple???? What About McDonald vs Nasa??) with a bunch of pointless commentaries.
I hope it was intended just for fun.
Rgds
On May.07.2008 at 04:50 AM
Goffredo Puccetti’s comment is:
Sorry, I received an email and I need to clarify my previous message: the pointless commentaries are the notes on the tournament fights in the PDF, not the commentaries here in the Brand New forum.
Apologies,
G.
On May.07.2008 at 06:09 AM
John’s comment is:
Agreed, what a pointless, meaningless exercise that was! Logos on their own are purely subjective and completely devoid of meaning. Logos don't convey "trust, loyalty and superiority." It's the brand behind the logo that does that.
On May.11.2008 at 01:08 AM
Michael’s comment is:
Nice excercise, however out of the dozen or so logos in the "logo throw down" there is only one logo distinctive and cool enough to wear on your body and that would be NIKE.
I could not see myself wearing a "Target or CBS" logo on my: hat, shirts, underwear, pants, shoes, etc...
Cheers, M
On May.11.2008 at 02:21 AM
