Opinion BY Armin

Magenta Star

Statoil Logo, Before and After

In 2007, the 35-year-old Norwegian company Statoil merged with the oil and gas division of the 102-year-old Norsk Hydro, to form StatoilHydro, an energy and oil company with presence in 40 countries focusing on the production of oil as well as the consumer distribution of oil through various gas stations — with different brand names, some of them still named Statoil — around the world. Today, as it prepares to become a stronger global player, StatoilHydro officially went back to the Statoil name and adopted its new identity designed by Scandinavian Design Group. I emphasized “officially,” because the logo and name changed had actually been announced back in April of this year but the web site had not yet implemented the new logo.

” Our new logo, the star, is inspired by the starry skies of the north. It symbolizes our highest aspirations: continued focus on the Norwegian continental shelf, international growth, and active and targeted work to develop effective new energy solutions,” Reidar Gjœrum, Senior vice president Corporate communication in Statoil explains.

“Along the way we carried out thorough research among the world’s 100 largest energy companies. We found most to be quite conservative in their descriptive symbols and communications. We wanted to differentiate ourselves by making a courageous decision. It’s important that we stand out in an international arena and stay faithful to our desire to lead the way,” he continues.

“By choosing the magenta-coloured star as our new symbol, we make explicit our origins and our desire to cross new frontiers on our journey forward. We’re also making a clear statement that the world can still look towards the north to discover future energy solutions.”
— Press Release

Statoil

Image source.

Even though I am not 100% convinced by the final execution I do think this is a very strong identity with an even stronger rationale and story behind it. It is just not a gratuitous abstract symbol and the color is not just a random choice. The color alone is such a bold move, going where few corporations are willing to go these days and it’s surprising how well the logo looks in both white and black, although it looks best against the latter, emphasizing the star concept. The icon, of course, loses a lot of its strength when rendered flat as seen in the uniform below, becoming more of a leafy shape. The typography is nice and interesting, a kind of evolved Rotis that balances seriousness with friendliness better than any rounded sans serif can. Overall, this is a great update of a brand with plenty of history. Some application images below and more can be found here.

Statoil

Statoil

Statoil

Statoil

Statoil

Thanks to Alexander Strand Kristensen and Martin Deutsch for today’s tip.

DATE: Nov.02.2009CATEGORY: Corporate 63 COMMENTS

Comments › Jump to Most Recent

Julian Hrankov’s comment is:

I'm not sure about this one. On one hand the concept is definitely very courageous but on the other hand that might be overkill. The logo and stationery could just as well be perfect for a beauty salon, a cosmetics or pharmaceutical company.

On Nov.02.2009 at 07:53 AM

alex’s comment is:

i really enjoy this star icon. it feels fresh (partially because of the color) and well thought out. not completely sold on the type.

On Nov.02.2009 at 07:53 AM

Rodrok’s comment is:

My first reaction without reading about the logo and the company, I thought it was a logo for skin and beauty products.
I love the icon, don't get me wrong, just wished the colors reflect more energy, pink feels a little too calm. Typography is in the line of too delicate and interesting.

On Nov.02.2009 at 07:56 AM

Plamen’s comment is:

OK, I understand they want to run away from the oil and gas company image, but this is going too far... c'mon - a magenta flower!??

On Nov.02.2009 at 07:58 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

I like it, overall. Color is mediocre, but I give them credit for being unique. I like the look of the star -- looks great in signage, and even works nicely when flattened. Similar in interpretation to Shell.

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:04 AM

Benga’s comment is:

The start icon is a real eye catcher, very original and unique at the same time. However, like everyone else, i'm not really liking the colors. The color makes it look to feminism, not saying there is anything particularly wrong with an icon having feministic touch, but i think it save to say that Statoil went a bit to far with the colors. Overall, i do like the application of the icon. Although the typography likes okay, i feel has if there are still some to be a little extract kerning that is needed between the texts, specifically the last three letters "oil".

Benga creative

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:15 AM

Diane Faye Zerr’s comment is:

I think it's a brave route they have taken in a time when everyone is being safe.

Bravo for trying to stand out against the competition.

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:21 AM

soully’s comment is:

I do like it, however there's something very Strepsily about it...

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:25 AM

J. Aron’s comment is:

I like this one a lot. I think I prefer the version with the star to the left with S fitting more naturally up against the star but all in all a great rebrand. I don't mind the color at all and see it more as an opportunity to separate Statoil from competitors.

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:25 AM

Nick’s comment is:

The color is odd to me but after a few seconds of pondering, it actually makes some sense to use it... It feels like its from the north and I think most people who have or do live in a cold climate (former Montanan here) will identify will the color.

The typography is certainly a nice change from the ubiquitous sans serif. My only qualm I guess, would be that the star mark is a little awkward with some of its bigger shapes... I think the same effect could have been achieved a little more subtly.

All in all though, I think it's a pretty great update.

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:28 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

I think it's a great improvement and a step in the right direction for an oil supply company.

I've been reading a whole bunch about how electric cars in the future - if we don't plan now - will pretty much shift the environmental impact from vehicles (and their emissions) to the companies who supply the oil which in turn supplies the electric and electric charging stations (basically just shifting the responsibility for the depletion of our planet).

That said, this direction seems to be much more friendly in initial appearance which could prove to make the brand and ultimately the company more likable to yet-to-be clients and customers.

But maybe I am way off.

:-)
Hope everyone is off to a great start this week,
Dale

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:43 AM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

The mark is beautiful. It works in one color for all those who love fax machines. And while maybe magenta isn't the greatest choice, the idea of being able to essentially own a color within their industry is really smart. It will be immediately recognizable and it certainly is a color that knocks the sharp edges off of the big, bad, energy company.

On Nov.02.2009 at 09:16 AM

Carlo’s comment is:

Moments like this are when I despise how design can so easily be used for the purpose of deception and fiction

On Nov.02.2009 at 09:21 AM

Jorgen’s comment is:

It's similarity to "Norges Husflidslags" logo has been a hot topic in Norway.

Also, well worth noticing is that Statoil will continue using the old identity and logo for gas stations etc.

The new identity is only for the corporation. A bit strange really, but it definitely saves them a lot of expences on the implementation.

On Nov.02.2009 at 09:36 AM

Jonathan’s comment is:

Only after reading the press release do I understand why they chose this icon and color. Without it though, I would agree with most here that it does not really fit the "oil company" image. Is that a good or bad thing though...? I think its a good thing, especially in this industry.

Love the typography! Agree with Armin, looks like Rotis & Optima's future son. I like all the applications as well, specially the business cards with that diagonal line. I even like the flat version...it kinda softens the image even more then the full color magenta version does.

Overall very nice.

On Nov.02.2009 at 09:50 AM

nils’s comment is:

As Jorgen points out it is very similar to what Husfliden uses, which is based on a traditional pattern, Selburose.

On Nov.02.2009 at 09:55 AM

Chicago Injury lawyer’s comment is:

I like it think that it works well.

On Nov.02.2009 at 10:08 AM

Jason’s comment is:

It's worth it for the signage!

On Nov.02.2009 at 10:16 AM

BenH’s comment is:

While I'm not sold of the typography, the symbol is solid improvment. The shape and the color might seem to be a little out of place for North American design, but seem perfert for Northern Europe. As nils pointed out the icon is based on a traditional symbol and isn't totally new to the market place.

On Nov.02.2009 at 10:20 AM

Neil Martin’s comment is:

The logo certainly looks as if it could be used for either a beauty range or something quite feminine but I'm all for changing perceptions. I think this is a bold move for the company and one which may well pay off.

On Nov.02.2009 at 10:31 AM

Magnus Rakeng’s comment is:

Check here for more examples of the typeface

http://tinyurl.com/yd8gjnk

On Nov.02.2009 at 10:32 AM

Graham’s comment is:

Love the type, like the colour, but it seems I'm the only one here who's not a fan of that icon. Original - yes. Attractive? No, not really. It kind of evokes a star, but it feels awkward and unbalanced. The diamond-shapes get smaller but there's no resolution, nothing lines up neatly with anything else once the rotation is complete. And the spiralling result is almost more nautilus-shell than star-shaped, particularly in the orientation they've chosen.
I feel the 3D effect leaves something to be desired as well, lovely actual-3D sign notwithstanding. It makes the whole logo feel a little more dated, to the point where I actually prefer the single-colour variations - though I agree that it loses some of its symbolism when rendered in black.
Overall though I think it's a bold and sensible move and I'm impressed with the direction they've taken, if a little disappointed with the execution - and I agree with an earlier commenter that the idea of a big friendly pink energy company feels like something of a deception.

On Nov.02.2009 at 10:38 AM

Mari’s comment is:

Like many others here, I can't quite make up my mind on this.

I do really like the brave decision to go with magenta. Being Norwegian and from the coast, I can tell you that we/they certainly do not need another 'corporate/maritime blue' logo.

And the 'starry north' is a nice thought. But I have to say, all I see is a flower. Maybe if they sharpened it up a little and gave it a bit more of a kick. Made it a little less bubbly. Are we not starting to get over all the soft, bubbly logos yet? Are we not ready to toughen up again just a little...?

On Nov.02.2009 at 11:18 AM

Andrea’s comment is:

@Carlo ~~ Yes, you are too right.

A spiffy pink flower (sorry, it looks like a flower to me) to stand for an oil company? Reminds me of the BP logo re-do to that yellow/green flower...

On Nov.02.2009 at 11:26 AM

Bobby’s comment is:

Love the star--even like the color, though magenta doesn't incite any particularly strong emotional response. Font usage is, ah, "sturdy" and clean.

On Nov.02.2009 at 12:03 PM

Ainsley’s comment is:

I like it. The pinky color is a unique choice. But something about the spacing of the diamonds bothers me, particularly the smallest one. Anyone else feeling that?

On Nov.02.2009 at 12:32 PM

David’s comment is:

Reminds me of the Star Alliance logo

On Nov.02.2009 at 12:40 PM

ray’s comment is:

the icon is so-so to me, but i have to say i love the 3d display

On Nov.02.2009 at 01:11 PM

Kevin’s comment is:

"Star Alliance" merged with "Husfliden"... This is a sad fact.

It is very pleasant to look at, and execution is high. I do think it is far too soft for a mastodon like company. In their field I guess we can compare to BP which is far better. BP inspires while this one tries hard to befriend us!

On Nov.02.2009 at 02:40 PM

PK_Kernan’s comment is:

My main objection to the icon is the way the dimension is rendered. There is no light source. The highlights on the diamond shapes remain constant as they rotate around the center point. Since they are not believable as highlights, the magenta to white gradients just look washed out. It looks like they really wanted to do a four-color logo, but were only able to afford two-color printing. That's why the icon looks so spectacular in the photos of the actual 3D sign, the highlights are real.

On Nov.02.2009 at 02:51 PM

Maya’s comment is:

I honestly thought it was inspired by one of these

On Nov.02.2009 at 03:26 PM

Maya’s comment is:

i meant to post a picture of a pink pinwheel from:

http://z.about.com/d/frugalliving/1/0/A/-/-/-/pinwheel3.jpg

On Nov.02.2009 at 03:27 PM

Mick’s comment is:

I always find it frustrating when reading this blog, that there are always so many negative comments about every single identity reviewed on the site. Slagging off the work does not make you look smarter or better than the people who worked on the project. Imagine how all those designers feel after working ridiculous hours, sitting through unbelievably stupid client meetings and tirelessly fighting to keep the integrity of the work to finally get the identity signed off and rolled out and then have a peanut gallery claim they know better.
being constructive is great but keep the snipy comments to a minimum they only make you look dumb.

On Nov.02.2009 at 05:07 PM

John Monroe’s comment is:

Mick, I so totally agree with you. You´re so right regarding what you wrote.
It seems like the trend on this website is about ditching and bitching every
single identity that is reviewed. Everybody thinks that they are stars and
knows better. I personally don´t understand why some indviduals have the
need to slag every single work here.

On Nov.02.2009 at 05:27 PM

David Sanchez’s comment is:

What a beauty, ready to stand out.

On Nov.02.2009 at 06:05 PM

Todd Zakk’s comment is:

The old logo looks newer than the new logo. I like the symbol on the new logo better though, just the font on the other logo looks more current.

On Nov.02.2009 at 06:06 PM

Courtny Cotten’s comment is:

Courageous color, good rendering on the design firm's part, bad thought process and "forced meaning" by the corporation.

On Nov.02.2009 at 06:55 PM

Rico’s comment is:

On the whole, I like it, the mark is great, but I'm not a fan of the type. Feels like the bastard child of Optima and Peignot. And the pink? Meh.

On Nov.02.2009 at 07:19 PM

Andrew’s comment is:

I agree with Graham's assessment - the icon feels unbalanced; it doesn't sit well on its own at all. The varying shapes are only pronounced on the largest and smallest, the other intermediate shapes appear to be the same size, so the largest and smallest look out of place...

The font- yeah, feels very medicine-y...

On Nov.02.2009 at 08:23 PM

Rafal S.’s comment is:

Did anyone notice the light, sans serif version of the typeface, that graces Statoil website?
It is simply gorgeous!
(They use it in decent size in titles of articles, here's an example:
http://www.statoil.com/en/About/History/Pages/GuidingStarAcrossNewFrontiers.aspx )

I want it...

On Nov.03.2009 at 02:20 AM

Quinn Ianniciello’s comment is:

Love the icon - especially in the applications (back of the jacket, on environmental graphics, etc.) Not too sure about the font - agreed it looks to medicine-y (sudafed?)

Overall, bold move, but different typography would have been nice, and maybe something other than the boring diagonal line for the stationary package (maybe a sliver of the icon wedging in or something more unique?)

On Nov.03.2009 at 02:21 AM

Jan A’s comment is:

I not very fond of this

I think it look's like a middeleast airliner - and 3D dosen't make it a better icon.

The type is to thin and flimsy - in my mind

Overall I agree with Graham - aswell

And Mike - if it's bad - then its bad

On Nov.03.2009 at 02:26 AM

Nik Daum’s comment is:

I agree with it looking like a cosmetics logo.

On Nov.03.2009 at 03:03 AM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

Love the icon, it has a certain dynamism about it, but agree with some of the former comments that the colour wouldn't have been my first choice.
It does looks great on black though.
The icon suggests wind turbines too - is this part of their energy supply offering?

The typography I'm not convinced by, and is definitely a backward step.
It feels dated to me, and the business cards with the keyline at an angle??!

The original typestyle still feels right to me (minus the 'hydro') and would have possibly given the brand some masculinity that the delicate font and pink colour simply don't offer.

On Nov.03.2009 at 05:55 AM

Spurious Jones’s comment is:

The tone for me is all 'feminine hygiene products'. Not loving this from the shiny mystery crystals to the inexplicable and uncomfortable Fibonacci curve to the decade-too-late-feeling font choice.

And, just for the sake of educating me, how does a designer sell an angled line across a white biz card as an identity concept?

On Nov.03.2009 at 08:18 AM

Åsmund Matzow’s comment is:

The logo itself is fine - very nice typography, and a decent icon, although it looks fairly clumsy by itself and without the color and shading.

The problem with it as I see it, is that it is dishonest. State owned Statoil is the company responsible for making Norway into the world's 7th largest oil producer, and thus responsible for immense emmisions over the last 30 years. It is involved in a lot of questionable projects, like Canadian oil sand extraction, corruption in relation to its operations in Iran and Libya (although they have tried to take some responsibility here after it became public knowledge), and continued pressure on not yet developed parts of the Norwegian seaboard, including in fragile areas in the north of Norway. They are also doing their worst to continue Norway's dependence on oil and undermine research and backing of alternative energy sources, and nature presevation efforts.

In light of all this, a pink star feels a lot like putting make-up on a corpse (I'm sure there are better english expressions, but...). If your product is oil, don't try to pretend that it's roses.
Their old pre-fusion logo, that they still use on their gas stations, is a lot more honest.

On Nov.03.2009 at 08:19 AM

Lemon’s comment is:

I have mixed feelings about this one.

I don't really like the color much.
It is much to girly for the companies
subject... but I could live with it.

I don't like the typography.
Looks older than the old one and
also feels inappropriate for that
particular company and its field of business.

The combination of that particular color
and typography leads me a logo that
belongs to the medical or the beauty industry!

Now, the one thing I like is the symbol.
But not with the 3-D-ish gradients.
I like it very much in the workers vest!
There, it looks like a whole different shape.
More dynamic to my eyes, simpler, bold!

On Nov.03.2009 at 10:05 AM

Daniel P. Johnston’s comment is:

I think the logotype and the mark are both fine, but I wonder if there is a bigger issue here...

I'm curious as to whether anyone considered changing the name (not just detaching it from Hydro). If they are so interested in being a major player in developing "effective new energy solutions," why would they keep a name that is based on "oil"? Surely they aren't wanting to convey that they think oil is a new energy solution?

On Nov.03.2009 at 08:47 PM

Christine’s comment is:

You've got the letter wrong in your citation – it's Reidar Gjærum with an æ, not an œ. Nitpicky, I know, but type is important!

On Nov.04.2009 at 03:58 AM

Koodoz Design’s comment is:

Awesome in it's application!

On Nov.04.2009 at 07:03 AM

carly’s comment is:

I'm shocked at the votes. this is one of the more terrible logos I've ever seen.
both the mark and typography look better suited to some new-agey therapist.

horrible.

On Nov.04.2009 at 09:43 AM

Von K’s comment is:

To the people saying the new logo fails because it doesn't look like an oil company logo--getting away from the industry-standard look was the point! Are you reading or just posting snobby comments on gut reactions? Please try to be constructive.

As far as the mark goes, I agree that the thinking seems solid but the execution seems a bit off. The star forms seem too soft and the gradient shading was plainly drawn once and duplicated. Combine that with the awkward composition and the star mark just feels unfinished to me. I am a fan of the color choice, if for no other reason than it differentiates, which the client was clearly wanting to do.

I love the type. It's "sexy", which helps differentiate even more. I agree it has a cosmetics-y feel at first glance, which is unexpected. It's just nice to look at on it's own. I'm with some of the other commentors--I want those fonts!

As far as the question of honesty, I agree it feels wrong to "put lipstck on a corpse." But whether the public comes to regard this identity as representing a progressive company that cares about people and the planet or as a lie used to mask bad behavior depends on how the company behaves and whether people are looking behind the curtains for the truth.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:58 AM

John Leyson’s comment is:

Looks cool and "unconventional". BUT don't you all think that the "symbol" is just another modified Star Alliance logo? (http://www.staralliance.com/en/). I could be wrong.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:08 AM

heather’s comment is:

i think the problem with the color is that Statoil can't go around explaining that they were trying to be unconventional and forwardithinking to every person that thinks it's a logo for a pharma/beauty company. i think some shade of yellow would have made a better choice--less feminine, more neutral, and it would have played off the star/light idea more and still been out of the box.

On Nov.04.2009 at 12:04 PM

Daniel’s comment is:

looks not so bad...but for an oil and gas company? i think it would be great for a wellnessfarm or something like that :-P

but the typography and the icon itself looks really great.

On Nov.05.2009 at 06:54 AM

Levinson and Axelrod’s comment is:

It's a great logo in my book, I'm just not sure if it's a great logo for them.

On Nov.05.2009 at 01:58 PM

Jen’s comment is:

I get the allusion to the selbu - the star of Norway, if you talk to a Norwegian. My gran was Norwegian; I wore these stars for years on mittens and hats as a child and didn't know what they were until I started knitting. So I get that.

What I don't get is the pink. I guess colours have different connotations in other countries, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. It just seems a little too My-Little-Pony for an oil company. But in Oslo, it might represent dawn, or the northern lights, or something else that completely eludes me.

So I like, but it also makes me uncomfortable just a little bit.

On Nov.05.2009 at 03:31 PM

brandsimplicity’s comment is:

Insanely beautiful.

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:22 PM

Kiersi Burkhart’s comment is:

I disagree that a more rounded sans serif font would not have worked for this logo. I think the font they chose is terrible and 30 years out of date. The star? Fine. Color? You're right, outlandishly cool. But the font clashes with the star overall. Color of the font? Great. But their old typeface was more suited to the style upgrade that came with the graphic.