Opinion BY Armin

New Butterfly not so Fly

It’s a rhetorical question since I am assuming thousands of people do but, seriously, does someone use msn.com anymore? With so many cooler and more efficient ways to access the online world, MSN has for a long time felt caught in 1999, both aesthetically and technologically, heck even philosophically. I’ll admit that I really like the MSN butterfly from the beginning when it was introduced in 2000 and in TV ads it had a lovely animation. But in the twenty-first century I don’t recall ever visiting MSN willingly. Not that that’s about change anytime soon but at least if I do, the new scenery won’t be as dreadful as it used to be, at least in the design of the web site. The new logo, well, that’s another story….

As I mentioned, I had a soft spot for the old butterfly, it had the right balance of real proportions and colorful abstraction. The new butterfly is all abstraction, and not the good kind. The wings have stopped looking like wings and instead look like what you would see if you stared at a lava lamp really close. The old type treatment was strong and, despite its simplicity, it was oddly instantly recognizable. The new one suffers from Bing syndrome: It wants to be cool and modern but it suffers from complete lack of typographic decency. In this case, the whole is not so bad, but the parts are. Specifically the stems in the “m” and “n” which are ridiculously short. Why in the world are they so short? Because they look cool? No. Because it’s hip to be different? No. Because…? No. No and no. And the smaller you make the logo the stranger those things look. Perhaps it’s a predisposition to be mean to any visual execution coming from Microsoft but they sure make it easy to be so.

Thanks to Jenny Lam for first tip.

DATE: Nov.05.2009CATEGORY: Media 107 COMMENTS

Daniel’s comment is:

The butterfly looks really bad...thats not a good redesign for it...

but the website looks a little cleaner. the overview is much better for using this site.

On Nov.05.2009 at 06:59 AM

Justin’s comment is:

On Butterfly: Fine. Not crazy about it, but it's always been a well-designed reflection of the image of the rest of the company.

On the site: Fine. The site needed an upgrade, quite definitely. I'd rather NOT be bombarded with no less than 25 headlines, 18 categories, and ads bigger than the main article. (Wait: MSN has ads on it? Doesn't Bill Gates practically own Argentina?)

On Relevance: None. The only reason I go to MSN.com is because I've slacked off in changing my homepages for a browser I keep for testing purposes (and because Micro$oft won't let me get rid of it anyway) since my recent Vista re-install.

On Nov.05.2009 at 07:15 AM

Ilari Sani’s comment is:

That butterfly is looking dangerously thin. At small sizes, the red and orange wings practically disappear.

As for the site redesign, it has sparseness but needs rhythm and rigor. Elements seem to float about in space with no clear alignment, particularly in the upper-right area.

On Nov.05.2009 at 07:30 AM

Tedders’s comment is:

Voting widgets currently read as "On Butterfly", "On Butterfly", and "On Website" (in latest Safari and Firefox on latest Snow Leopard). Should those be "On Original Butterfly", "On New Butterfly", etc?

On Nov.05.2009 at 07:32 AM

kalleboo’s comment is:

I think the textmark and butterfly are fine. I like how the butterfly also kind of looks like spotlights.

The new website is dreadful though. My eyes go everywhere and yet none of the text jumps out enough that I read/skim it. It feels like I got into one of those domain squatter pages by mistake. Not that the old one was any good either. Yahoo has just as much crap, but somehow I actually see things there and I might want to click something.

On Nov.05.2009 at 07:37 AM

Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

*crickets* *crickets*

On Nov.05.2009 at 07:38 AM

John’s comment is:

Grammar Nazi in the house:

"It’s a rhetorical question..."

On Nov.05.2009 at 07:47 AM

gervas’s comment is:

the old logo appeared on a techno-web-phone-booth in Minority Report... ¿that means that in the FUTURE they'll change back to the old logo? o_o

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:29 AM

Petar Pavlov’s comment is:

The new butterfly looks like stretched. I would add that to the Bing syndrom as well.

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:32 AM

Brandon Oxendine’s comment is:

@Tedders, no I'm pretty sure he's making a joke. Like, "On Butterfly", "On Butterfly" ...no really, look how bad that new butterfly is!

The new butterfly is really bad. The old one was at least well-made. THe new wings are all the same shape, just squished and stretched a little bit (Microsoft's favorite design technique).

Love the correlation to bing. It's absolutely a bing thing to do. "Thin" and "Cool" typography.

Also, the website is horrid. Cleaner, yes, but as far as functionality, it's still annoying.

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:37 AM

kmakarova’s comment is:

At first I thought "ew, stretched out bing typeface." but no! It's a totally different terribly stretched out face! why?! at least keep your ugly consistent (and spare us those strange stems).

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:44 AM

James’s comment is:

Disagree! This is night and day compared to Bing. I think the butterfly is quite beautiful, only foreshortened too much. The old butterfly looked like a clip-art illustration. Alright, the stems ARE weird... but actually look nicer at smaller sizes.

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:45 AM

Sean’s comment is:

Come to think of it I am bothered by the m and n. the butterfly might as well be hovering globs of color. The new website does seem crisper but disjointed.

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:46 AM

Peter’s comment is:

I really do like the new butterfly - I'm not crazy about the typeface on the other hand.

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:49 AM

Mark’s comment is:

Yech I do not like this new logo, it looks way too robotic.

The website looks good though.

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:51 AM

Jóga’s comment is:

i think the web site are in the perfect balance, clean, usable and beautiful, but the redesign of logo i don't like especially the tipography...

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:01 AM

Nathaniel’s comment is:

I like the new butterfly. It could have been more butterfly like though.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:04 AM

Greg’s comment is:

The new butterfly looks flattened to me. Presumably by a flyswatter.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:07 AM

Kári Emil Helgason’s comment is:

It looks similar to bing and bing looks U G L Y. That's my intelligent two cents on this subject.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:09 AM

Kevin Zwirble’s comment is:

Yeah, they tried some weird proportion on the butterfly, and honestly, they didn't need to change the typeface. Now they look very stale and cold, at least the italic was somewhat friendly.

I do thin the website looks much more modern and has a nice use of color in the nav bar.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:15 AM

Armin’s comment is:

> Voting widgets currently read as "On Butterfly", "On Butterfly",

Sorry! Second one should be "On Typography". It's been changed.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:26 AM

Blake’s comment is:

It does nothing more for me than the old logo. Much like their service. I never used it, I tried to avoid it. Just rather useless. How can you re-brand a service that is simply outdated? As a whole the new identity is okay. It's just about what it should be: a just-good-enough "cool" identity for a just-good-enough site/service.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:38 AM

erik spiekermann’s comment is:

it suffers from complete lack of typographic decency

Why do designers think that they can improve an existing typeface by cutting pieces off, adding arbitrary bits to it or generally messing with details? Would you walk better if you cut your toes off? If a typeface doesn’t work for a specific word, look for another one that does, There are more than 100k fonts out there, most of them carefully made and in themselves perfect.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:43 AM

Chris’s comment is:

I really think it's a good change on both logo and especially website.

On Nov.05.2009 at 09:57 AM

Snake Pliskin’s comment is:

This really upsets me. With all of microsoft's resources, you think they would want to have the best possible design for their products.

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:03 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

The gradients on the old butterfly make it look distorted and weird. So for that reaso I like the new butterfly better, though it could use a body.

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:04 AM

ck’s comment is:

I quite like it, the new butterfly feels a bit too angled, and the four shapes could've been more angular to give it a better butterfly-like shape like the old logo, but I don't mind this at all.

As for the type treatment, I think it's a vast improvement over the dullness of the old one. More fresh, modern and less "standard typeface". The comment of this being stretched makes no sense at all either, unless it was originally even wider and was vertically stretched, given the stems.

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:17 AM

grubedoo’s comment is:

Four thumbs down. The only improvement is the gray type over blue. Not the actual type, mind you, just the color gray.

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:36 AM

Ivan’s comment is:

the butterfly on a diet is a bad idea, the typeface has some appeal, but it's weird in general. On the other hand why they applied such a big compression on the preview site logo - could be done way better in PNG8 or even GIF - instead of the blocky JPEG

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:43 AM

NatalieB’s comment is:

Not so much stretched as it is squashed and mutilated. And why are the peaks of the M rounder than the S and N? They need a whole group of new designers who respect typography, there's no excuse. GATES!!! *shakes fists*

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:52 AM

Justin’s comment is:

@Ivan: PNG8? I don't remember IE having full support for PNG. Why alienate those who don't realize they can change their home page?

(And lazy bums like me...)

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:57 AM

Rodrok’s comment is:

I think the butterfly took the right steps towards evolution. The icon itself it's a little limited on the ways for improvement, so the "after" result it's somewhat expected.

Typeface... not to crazy about it, but it's had unique feel, so now a days, that's interesting to find.

Overall: less corporate -> + user friendly

On Nov.05.2009 at 11:00 AM

JP Holecka’s comment is:

@John Being a dyslexic myself I am prone to typos myself in my blog. I encourage people to point them out but find that a back channel email is a kinder approach. Mostly because once the error is fixed the legacy of the mistake lives on in the comments and then you have to ask yourself "why bother fixing the issue".

Anyhow I agree with a few comments here about the website regarding the website. Although the pages have been opened up, it now feels incomplete and they have gone too far in the other direction in the quest to de-clutter. It now feels thin and disjoined there is no glue to bind the content together. The page sort of feels like an affiliate page now.

The logo is a bit thin as well and I am not sure that I would feel that way if this is how it had been designed out of the gate. I must admit seeing them side by side does influence my feelings on it. I like the new wings a lot but feel that the space where the body used to be a little odd and maybe a drop too wide.

All and all it feels very Microsoft and does stay within the brand I guess.

Twitter: @jaypiddy

On Nov.05.2009 at 11:03 AM

Joey V’s comment is:

At first glance, I liked it. Then I looked more closely and noticed the funky stems and Bing-like qualities. I feel like it's almost there, though. If they use a different but similar typeface and make the new butterfly a little more butterfly shaped, I think they'd have it.

On Nov.05.2009 at 11:19 AM

trenoops’s comment is:

Looking at the 2 butterfly logos I can't help but notice the new one is basically showing it's back to us. Guess it can't stand the site of the new "msn" typography either.

On Nov.05.2009 at 11:30 AM

Arnaldo Bastos’s comment is:

I like the new brand, can't say the same a bout the site.It looks somewhat underdeveloped, as if the designers had to deliver it in half an hour for the client presentation. Also, it looks a little too much like one of Brazil's biggest portals, g1.com.br. Coincidence? Or is it because both sites look like nothing?

On Nov.05.2009 at 11:33 AM

just james’s comment is:

I think "flipping" the butterfly is a bad idea. before it looked as if the butterfly was landing on the msn, now it looks as if it's flying away... maybe to get away from the horrific and amputated typeface.

On Nov.05.2009 at 11:56 AM

Levinson Axelrod’s comment is:

Like the typography gives some maturity to the logo, but the butterfly itself leaves something to be desired.

On Nov.05.2009 at 12:01 PM

Bendy’s comment is:

Site reminds me of CNN... or Car & Driver's site. Brand makes me think of a Chinese knockoff tech company. Utterly forgettable - if anything sounds the death knoll for MSN.com, it's their own update, not a lack of curious webbers or competition from other providers.

On Nov.05.2009 at 12:09 PM

Johs’s comment is:

I really think Steve Jobs have some truly mixed feelings about this...

On Nov.05.2009 at 12:09 PM

Germán’s comment is:

Looking at this, I think of the NBC logo..

On Nov.05.2009 at 12:24 PM

Paula’s comment is:

It looks like it was designed by the same guy who designed the Bing logo - and he yet again, didn't hold down the shift key in Illustrator.

On Nov.05.2009 at 12:28 PM

Nate B’s comment is:

I actually like the new butterfly a lot more than the previous one. The type is pretty fail though.

On Nov.05.2009 at 01:04 PM

Fanny’s comment is:

I think the new butterfly is actually good and interesting in its bubbly abstract way, and feels airier in a good way. But i agree with CK that it's a bit too obliquely pictured.

On Nov.05.2009 at 01:27 PM

CB240’s comment is:

I'm confused I don't think the butterfly is that off if you look at it as coming at you from high on the right and landing on the N...

On Nov.05.2009 at 01:41 PM

madrabbit’s comment is:

Butterfly: no. Website: Yes. Especially the use of hot pink.

On another note: What's with the voting not working in Firefox on the Mac? It didn't work when it first debuted, then about a month ago it started working, which lasted about two weeks, and now it doesn't work again. The Vote and See Results buttons are just missing. It seems to work in Safari, and Chrome on Windows, but not FF/OSX. What gives?

On Nov.05.2009 at 01:57 PM

Scott’s comment is:

Well, the Patron Saint of Mediocrity is at it again. Are we really surprised?

On Nov.05.2009 at 01:59 PM

Chris’s comment is:

I don't hate the butterfly and type at small sizes, but when blown up, it looks horrendous and disjointed.

And I think this is a first: A clean and open Web site with lots of whitespace that feels amateur. Like the logo, it feels disjointed and cheap. Somehow they've managed to make the lead story large while still being invisible. It was absolutely not the first thing I looked at on the page. Maybe some kind of screened background is necessary among the expanses of white. I'm not really sure.

How does microsoft still not get how important design is? Apple would have never regained traction had it not improved its design. Shouldn't that be some kind of message?

On Nov.05.2009 at 03:32 PM

Josh’s comment is:

looks a little like serif gothic light typography-wise

On Nov.05.2009 at 03:58 PM

brandsimplicity’s comment is:

The mark I actually like, its fresh and alive. The font it a different story,it needs a playful font to tie in with the nature of the marque.

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:02 PM

Paul Gardner’s comment is:

As I designed the MSN butterfly logo 10 years ago at FutureBrand, this seems as good a venue as any to say goodbye. I'm sad to see it go. No sour grapes here as everything changes, but I do wish it was a better redesign.

As little piece of brand design trivia, the new butterfly is actually closer to the original butterfly we presented - and the reason that butterfly became a more realistic butterfly, was that the MSN client at the time didn't think it looked like a butterfly. .

Ten years is several lifetimes at Microsoft, so for a logo to last that long there is a little miracle. One reason I think it lasted so long was that the next version was designed at the same time as the original. The first version was with flat colors, and the subsequent version was with gradients. In 1999 monitors couldn't handle gradients very well but we knew the advance was just around the corner. Here are the visuals

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:10 PM

kelz’s comment is:

You know that crazy uncomfortable feeling you get when type is not exactly in the right position, or a shape is two points too far to the left or a word is not kerned properly? That's how I feel about this butterfly. Adding a body and maybe flipping it horizontally would totally ease my discomfort. As for the type, I have no words.

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:32 PM

Cynthia Murnane’s comment is:

This is a mark "evolution" that did not evolve. Come to think of it, the butterfly looks like larve or some weird amoeba shape. Perhaps it is still evolving? Something about its not right. I don't think it would read as the butterfly without knowledge of the previous version.

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:49 PM

James Puckett’s comment is:

Why do designers think that they can improve an existing typeface by cutting pieces off, adding arbitrary bits to it or generally messing with details?

At my design school hacking away at up existing type was how we were taught to make wordmarks. I think it comes from some misguided belief that this is needed to establish trademarks and copyright.

On Nov.05.2009 at 05:08 PM

Lindsey Thomas Martin’s comment is:

Fascinating. They've made the letters look insects about to spring. No wonder the butterfly is trying to mimic a set of lighting gels.

On Nov.05.2009 at 05:27 PM

erik spiekermann’s comment is:

James:
was that in the 60s? ;-)
Since then, we’ve come a long way, typographically speaking. There are always some character combinations that don’t work too well; after all, one designs a typeface not just for one language, but for every possible combination of characters. Sometimes one can make a new ligature, but some pairs, like r-a, often present a problem. But these days, with Open Type, we have many typefaces that offer thousands of alternates, making type seem hand-rendered if we want it to. Chopping bits off as in this example does, indeed, taste of someone trying to “make their mark” without paying for a proper type designer.

On Nov.05.2009 at 05:32 PM

Johnny Socko’s comment is:

I like the new butterfly, but I think it's because my eyes figured out the perspective correctly the first time I looked at it.

The butterfly is alighting on the "n", and is facing the viewer. The blue and green wings are the butterfly's left wings, so if there were a body in the white space, we would be seeing its face, not the back of its head.

Normally I wouldn't bother pointing-out the obvious like this, but a couple of commenters have already stated that the butterfly is flying away from the "n". I do not think this is the case.

Oh, and I liked the old butterfly, too.

On Nov.05.2009 at 05:59 PM

Evan MacDonald’s comment is:

Okay, so bing makes me want to puke. Why in the world did they use some crappy extended type? I am sounding rather juvenile, but that is what Microsoft does to me.

The new MSN logo has the same dreadful type. Ugh.

On Nov.05.2009 at 06:25 PM

Derrick’s comment is:

The butterfly looks quite nice. It is very abstract, but is still recognizable as a butterfly and maintains the great brand equity that the old butterfly had.

The type, however, is worse than the Bing typography. It is awful and doesn't approach modern or edgy. It looks completely amateur. Wouldn't Franklin Gothic Book work better here - keeping the same font family but in a different weight and not italicized?

On Nov.05.2009 at 06:32 PM

Daniel’s comment is:

i think the typography is definitely a million times better than the Bing horror. a closer look shows it's a bit amateur. but it ain't Bing. the butterfly looked better before tho...

On Nov.05.2009 at 07:04 PM

Umar’s comment is:

Anyone else notice that the favicon for msn.com is still the same old butterfly?

On Nov.05.2009 at 08:22 PM

Crystal Walker’s comment is:

Wow. I totally agree. I stopped using msn when I stopped using msn messenger.
I did really like the butterfly, and the typography of the old logo. This new one is weird... very minimalist. A harsh contrast to the bold logo of before.

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:26 PM

Mike Metcalf’s comment is:

The new MSN logo is much more apologetic than their old one. The old logo's weight and slant made it feel corporate, forward-thinking, and with the touch of the butterfly, personable. The new logo just says "I'm sorry for not presenting any sort of tangible meaning or direction, please buy me anyway? Look, I'm trying to be cool! See? See guys?"

On Nov.05.2009 at 10:44 PM

Michael Thibodeau’s comment is:

Paul Gardner, shame on you! You worked on the refinement of the butterfly that I had designed when I was creative director of FutureBrand. Aside from the wacky sketch at the bottom of your comment, those are my renderings. And the logo was my concept, which I personally rendered and sold in to the MSN team. I brought you in as my Design Director at the time to refine the final design and work on implementation. You were not even in a client meeting with the MSN team until the third round of design review. Sheesh.

The new design, while a bit of a heartbreak, does a better job of matching the weight of the symbol with the logotype. Aside from that, I agree with folks that it has become too abstract.

On Nov.05.2009 at 11:30 PM

Lightning strikes again’s comment is:

I love the changes.

It's ingrained in designers to hate anything Microsoft and it's usually well-deserved, but the msn butterfly logo/animation is one of few things I've ever liked out of Redmond. The other being the first XBOX logo/animation. Zune logo's not bad either.

Too abstract? Is there any question what it is? Especially since we've been staring at its predecessor for the last 10 years. Great evolution: Simpler, lighter, fly-er. The prettiest logo on BRAND NEW in more than a month.

I love the new typography too. Not a fan of the abrupt nub-chop at large sizes but it looks sweet smaller.

And no, I never visit msn on purpose.

On Nov.06.2009 at 02:05 AM

Josh’s comment is:

It's getting catty in here. Nice!

I love the fact that Spiekermann comes by and drops the science as well. Microsoft doesn't get it. They need to stop trying to be cool and be who they are. Who that is is unclear, but if someone can tell me I've got a cold, hard $1 bill for you.

At this time there is no point in me chiming in on the identity. It's this, it's that, but it just speaks volumes to the amount of talent or lack thereof MS churns through. Projects like this need outside help from an @edenspiekermann. Someone that gets large, complex identity projects and at the very least will not sacrifice a typeface as appeasement to some unknown, sleazy design god.

Honestly, I think branding and identity are going through some wild times right now. It's so hit or miss that maybe we just need to restrict the use of type for awhile. Go Vignelli on this indeed.

On Nov.06.2009 at 02:37 AM

Adam Haase’s comment is:

Since when did Bill Gates have a huge love for guitar picks?

On Nov.06.2009 at 04:14 AM

Alessandro Mingione’s comment is:

Go Vignelli on this indeed.
Hahaha! Anyway, personally, I don't like the type at all, it just looks amputate. The old butterfly was much better, ditto for the website.
But I guess it is necessary to rebrand something so old and 1999-ish.

On Nov.06.2009 at 08:14 AM

Paul Gardner’s comment is:

Odd forum this for accusations, but as Michael Thibodeau is leveling some odd accusations lets clear a few things up.

You never hired me. Claude, Greg, and Thomas did.
Michael, perhaps you forgot you were asked off the MSN account.

Cristiano Andreotti and Michelle Matthews designed the original abstract butterfly.
When the butterfly was presented there were three people there - myself, Lisa Borden and Larry Drury. The client wanted it to be more realistic butterfly. It was done in a Redmond hotel that night, and presented again the following day. Approved then refined.

Identity theft is a crime.

On Nov.06.2009 at 09:58 AM

lisa borden’s comment is:

Funny - the new version does look much like the original that Cristiano and Michelle did. And yes, I was there. Paul Gardner designed the butterfly that has graced MSN for the past decade between dinner and breakfast one night in Redmond. I watched him do it, and was there for the presentation and for all the subsequent client discussions. It was a cool project!

On Nov.06.2009 at 11:30 AM

Gareth Coxon - Dot Design’s comment is:

hmmm, butterfly is fine, except that the two sets of wings needed to be closer together, but I think its a good development and simplification. Type, as some have said works well at small sizes but then not so well large the chopped tops look odd. Overall its fine but might be making the disappear into the background alittle.

On Nov.06.2009 at 11:50 AM

Bendy’s comment is:

Fighting over the original MSN mark? That's like fighting over who smells worse...

On Nov.06.2009 at 01:29 PM

David Sanchez’s comment is:

It is somewhat sad that anything done by Microsoft is deemed wrong or bad. Branding is such a subjective business that in some part it requires a sense of history.

Now on topic; the new MSN brand appears at least from my point of view as proper and obvious, a very welcome jolt of refreshing life for a brand that is highly rewarded worldwide.

On Nov.06.2009 at 01:35 PM

Randall Ringer’s comment is:

There seem to be two separate issues on the table about the original MSN butterfly.

1. Who came up with the brilliant metaphor of the butterfly in the first place: creatively brilliant, strategically brilliant?

2. Who did the final rendering and under whose direction?

On the first issue: There is no disagreement that Michael Thibodeau came up with the original concept, the very idea of using the butterfly as a metaphor for MSN.

On the second issue: There is no disagreement that under Michael's overall direction, Paul did renderings to refine the final design.

Simply put, in his posts Paul acknowledges that he did not come up with the original idea of using the butterfly metaphor. He even names two people who did renderings before he touched it.

We should also give credit to the team at Microsoft for having the courage to move in such a bold direction. They even agreed with breaking with the traditional lock-up with the Microsoft name.

There is no need for personal attacks.

In the new rendering I am delighted to see that the fundamental brilliance of the butterfly metaphor has not been abandoned. In my book, the power comes from the metaphor.

On Nov.06.2009 at 03:18 PM

Kiersi Burkhart’s comment is:

They could have nixed the drop shadow on the old butterfly, maybe updated it slightly, and all would be well.

Not that anyone would have noticed.

On Nov.06.2009 at 06:44 PM

Derrick’s comment is:

Ooh snap! Some severe drama is going down in here.

It's at ABC nighttime soap opera levels right now.

On Nov.06.2009 at 07:56 PM

Andrew Pollak’s comment is:

Huge improvement.

On Nov.07.2009 at 02:09 PM

Steve’s comment is:

I really think the type solution is much more contemporary in their new brand, but I would have preferred to keep more elements of the original butterfly. The new one, to me, feels more like deformed guitar picks than anything else. Yes, you can still identify it as a butterfly, but it feels less fitting, somehow. I think the website is horribly drab, too - certainly better than before, but nothing so drastically different that it would make me go visit more than from this article.

On Nov.07.2009 at 02:12 PM

akrok design’s comment is:

LOL! :-)

On Nov.07.2009 at 03:07 PM

Zoran Konjarski’s comment is:

I quite like the redesigned butterfly it inst as coy anymore but I cannot get passed the 'M'.

the type could have executed a little stronger.

On Nov.08.2009 at 02:00 AM

toto’s comment is:

There will allways still faults or something wrong on ID changing. There is also lot of good things. What are you seeing first ? How you balance these ?
Maybe it depends of your point of view... So, maybe yours is more from Microsoft competitors camp and you'll never be satisfied by a Microsoft design stuff.

On Nov.08.2009 at 11:02 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

What did this brand update accomplish?

1. maybe it could have a different type voice. Microsoft's thick sans serif lower cast typeface for msn in italics well it was joyful but it was uber microsoft. Maybe MSN is trying to stand away from it's parent brand. I really dislike the execution of the butterfly like many of you but maybe this positioning makes some sense?

On Nov.08.2009 at 07:43 PM

The Law Office of Levinson Axelrod’s comment is:

Another logo that I'm just not pleased to see change for the worse in my opinion.

On Nov.09.2009 at 01:26 PM

Kristin’s comment is:

I think the logo and the site are both too airy and seem to want to fall into the background. Though I'm glad that it doesn't employ a blocky, sans-serif type like many new logos have, I'm not sold on this. The website, however, I think is extremely boring. For a company like Microsoft, who can afford whatever they want, I think neither the logo nor the page are an improvement.

On Nov.09.2009 at 10:42 PM

kat’s comment is:

honestly - I'm glad to see them veer away from web 2.0 to a clean style. The new logo is fresh, I love the new font, and am glad to see them take a minimal new approach that's open to color.

On Nov.10.2009 at 09:30 AM

Todd Zakk’s comment is:

I like the font but the butterfly looks better in the previous logo.

On Nov.10.2009 at 12:38 PM

Todd Zakk’s comment is:

as far as the color scheme of the new website it looks too much like a womans website. the previous website was more unisex looking.

On Nov.10.2009 at 12:41 PM

Nik Daum’s comment is:

I don't understand why it had to change. The typeface I can understand, but the new butterfly? The original was stylized and still a butterfly, the new one less so. Now it's just a bunch of colored teardrops overlapping.

On Nov.11.2009 at 06:41 AM

Paul Rand’s comment is:

Another Microsoft failure, it will never end...

On Nov.11.2009 at 02:02 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

As much as I despise Microsoft, I actually like this new direction!

On Nov.12.2009 at 09:09 AM

DIEGO’s comment is:

horrible..ese razgo que tiene la patita de la n y la m muy feo...la mariposa esta desnutrida.
un desastre

On Nov.17.2009 at 07:23 PM

Vitezslav Valka’s comment is:

Well, nice, but why?

On Nov.22.2009 at 06:11 AM

Alexander’s comment is:

Seems that something really cool have happened with Microsoft design team. Great restyling.

On Nov.22.2009 at 11:26 AM

Jen’s comment is:

I have always been a fan of the original butterfly (though I could have done without the heavy-handed typeface, the two struck a balance for me), but I have to agree with @Greg: the first thing that came to mind when looking at this new typeface was, 'Awww, poor butterfly got smashed; how sad...'

The new, lighter, mini-me typface doesn't do much for me, but I don't find it offensive, either. But, that butterfly--I just can't get past it... It's like a firefly that's smacked into one's windshield--for the first moment or two, it's sort of pretty, but shortly thereafter a feeling of unease and discomfort sets in.

On Nov.24.2009 at 09:02 PM

sandy’s comment is:

The old butterfly looked kind a cute but the new font looks fine to me.. what if the old butterfly and the new font is used together .. I think a few of you will agree to this...

On Nov.25.2009 at 01:50 AM

Blondie’s comment is:

That logo got str8 Paulagerized!

On Dec.21.2009 at 02:49 AM

Gordon’s comment is:

The logo (and the website) was done by Digit.

http://digitlondon.com/

Info:
http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/2009/11/msn-rebranding.html
http://www.qbn.com/topics/612060/2853401/

On Dec.21.2009 at 03:40 AM

Gordon’s comment is:

…and here:
http://www.wpp.com/wpp/press/press/default.htm?guid=%7B8682188a-64dc-415a-956d-e5d2f9727566%7D

On Dec.21.2009 at 03:41 AM

Schroeder’s comment is:

Why exactly are people arguing over who designed this stuff (since they are surely the only people who care)?

However I completely believe the logo was designed in one night, it looks like everything else at MS, all of which looks like there was one night to design it. It's both comforting and appalling to know months and months were not wasted on designing such a generic mark. Comforting that money was not wasted, appalling that this is how much thought and value is put into using good (competent) designers for one of the most profitable companies in the world, on their second (or maybe third) most visible product line.

On Dec.21.2009 at 01:25 PM

cartucho r4i’s comment is:

Awesome post I must say.these days, with Open Type, we have many typefaces that offer thousands of alternates, making type seem hand-rendered if we want it.

On Dec.22.2009 at 08:01 AM

Stinky Cuntsworth’s comment is:

Paul has been called out so many times it's not even funny. If he did the rendering, you can guarantee someone else rendered it first. He's an art thief.

On Dec.23.2009 at 07:57 AM

Brandy’s comment is:

Boys, boys, boys…Michael T & Paul G…We all know who designed the MSN mark. It was a recycled sketch from Kodak Digital Science hmmmm?

On Dec.27.2009 at 09:46 PM

Brandy’s comment is:

Besides fellas, this ain't the Jerry Springer Brand Show…get a room.

On Dec.27.2009 at 10:05 PM

Crossthepondsome’s comment is:

Too bad "the Plaintiff" can't manipulate a wee lawsuit for this one because he pitched directly against (while he was still working there) the very company who could have provided that
for him. Doh!

On Dec.27.2009 at 10:19 PM

Letthemfight!!!!’s comment is:

At the moment i would say that michael is the clear winner and Paul is just backpeddling and trying to save face from an epic FAIL!

On Dec.30.2009 at 04:15 PM

r4i’s comment is:

Hello Every One,
My eyes go everywhere and yet none of the text jumps out enough that I read/skim it. It feels like I got into one of those domain squatter pages by mistake. Not that the old one was any good either. Yahoo has just as much crap, but somehow I actually see things there and I might want to click something.

On Jan.01.2010 at 11:40 PM

Chowchillah’s comment is:

Horrid.

Gates won't be happy...

On Jan.21.2010 at 04:29 PM