(Est. 1929) “Fortune is a multinational business magazine, published and owned by Time Inc. and headquartered in New York City. The publication was founded by Henry Luce in 1929. The magazine competes with Forbes and Bloomberg Businessweek in the national business magazine category and distinguishes itself with long, in-depth feature articles. The magazine is best known for the Fortune 500, a ranking of companies by revenue that it has published annually since 1955.” (Wikipedia)
Why would we change the look of such an iconic brand? To reflect our working thesis, which we outlined in November, that every aspect of business is about to change, creating what we call the “21st Century Corporation.” Months in the making, the goal of our redesign is to create a visual representation of this new entity. […] We reached back into Fortune’s extensive archives to recreate a modern sanserif [sic] design that further emphasizes a clean, bold and contemporary design.
Images (opinion after)
Looking at the logo evolution image directly below it's surprising to see how much and how drastically the logo has fluctuated over the years. The glass-half-full people would say that it's a logo that swiftly adapts to the times, the glass-half-empty people would say that Fortune has no clue what it wants to be. I would fall into the latter group, which is not easy to admit as the early- and mid-twentieth-century Fortune covers were amazing. Anyway… the previous logo felt "rich" as in money-rich. It had a crisp confidence that paired very well with the name and left less doubt about what the logo represented or who the audience was. The new logo is like a 50-year-old dad slamming shots and raise venture capital with Ivy League graduate students. It may sound overly harsh — and maybe it is — but there is a weird disconnect between the name, the legacy of the magazine, the association to the "Fortune 500" and this logo. It's like it would be better suited for a sports or motorcycle magazine. Preconceptions aside, it's an okay-ish logo although, personally, I really dislike the "R", which is the only signature graphic move in the wordmark. Rather than adding a distinctive touch it creates a weird visual blip. It looks okay on the cover but I still also like the old one better and it's not like I'm a regular reader or subscriber that resents change but if I had to choose a business magazine off the rack I would choose the old one as that feels like a business magazine straight up. Overall, nothing to latch on to too firmly as it will probably change again in 5 years because change.
Thanks to Craig Wallace for the tip.