Summary of 2009 BY Armin
The Best and Worst Identities of 2009
2009 has been a great year for Brand New, with a bottomless source of new and redesigned identities from around the world, and we’ve all had good fun critiquing them in sickness and in health. But it all comes down to this: The Best and Worst. I have gone through all the archives and selected the top 12 in each category. There were some dead-ringers for each category and some that required a little more self-deliberation acknowledging that some identities were left off the list. And just as well, I know my selections may incite some disagreements, which are more than welcome as we bring this year to a close. Each identity comes with some basic details like release date and design credits, highlights from our polls for those identities that came after July when we introduced the feature, and I have selected one or two reader comments to accompany a brief summary from me. Enjoy! Brand New will take a break for the rest of the year, we may post one or two things, but set your expectations low for this Holiday season.
Yale University Press
Designed by: Matthew Carter (Yale Typeface)
Release Date: September, 2009
Voting Highlight: 12% (152 of 1,194) Hate Paul Rand’s logo
To be perfectly fair, there is nothing formally wrong with the new logo, as it’s simply the word Yale typeset in the masterful work of Matthew Carter. But it is definitely sad to see one of Paul Rand’s most recognizable logos go away.
While it’s sad to see Rand’s logo go, I’m glad they ditched it entirely rather than try to update his logo.
— G*
Branding the Press with the same identity as the university pushes the notion that all of these titles are in some way tied to the academic institution. It blurs the line and creates an assumption for customers that isn’t necessarily true.
— Jeff Stevens
LendingTree
Designed by: Mullen
Release Date: July 2009
Voting Highlight: 87% (605 of 694) Voted it a Futuristic and Trendy logo
The old logo wasn’t much to get excited about but if fit the service and the audience, while the new one is awfully misguided to Terminators. Nice TV ads though.
If you hadn’t told me this was a 2009 redesign, I’d have pegged this for an 1998 “cutting edge” logo designed by a firm that was doing a lot of tech work at the time.
— Rachel Cary
Hilton Worldwide
Designed by: Landor
Release Date: September, 2009
Voting Highlight: 62% (795 of 1,274) Thought the Icon was Better without Bevels
This could have been a solid corporate redesign, but then they had to go mess it up by adding unnecessary bevels, and all the elements are a little too disparately placed, sized and aligned.
There is no logic to the light source “shining” on the bevels. Upper right? Upper left? The reflections on the bevels seem arbitrary. With a consistent light source, the left edges of the top and bottom elements would appear to line up properly.
— Griche
Why do so many wannabe upscale brands have such bad taste?
— couchidea
Art Directors Club
Designed by: Trollbäck + Company
Release Date: November, 2009
Voting Highlight: 73% (895 of 1,226) Voted it A Step Backward
Everyone pretty much agreed: Been there, done that. For an organization catering to the creative industry this was neither creative nor, um, industrious. And the follow-up showing the logo in action didn’t help much.
Yes, the previous logo spoke to the history of ADC, rather than it’s future, but I don’t think this is all that progressive either. It smacks of 2002.
— Denny
I’m normally willing to have an open mind about the new logos presented here on Brand New, and if I can’t say something nice, I don’t say anything at all. But this logo makes me wonder why the rest of us are busting our asses trying to craft logos with meaning and depth while this kind of thing is being perpetrated.
— Drew Davies
Burnley
Designed by: N/A
Release Date: October, 2009
Voting Highlight: 70% (835 of 1,178) said Wow… with Sarcasm
I was actually surprised at some of the positive comments for this one, which I still think is a sorry excuse of a logo. My cat has turned out hairballs with better execution and strategy than that. Also noteworthy: some clients competed for the privilege of using this logo.
At first glance, I thought it was really cool. On second glance, it’s REALLY cool. Burnley +1, cognoscenti fail!
— Marcello
I know this isn’t a popular opinion, but I absolutely love it. Why not try something different? Why not try to use this object and animation to represent the interconnectedness of the community? This Burnley object as logo is different from the boring shit and aesthetic nightmares we’ve been seeing lately. In my opinion, this is a win.
— Matt
Wisconsin Department of Tourism
Designed by: Red Brown Klé
Release Date: March, 2009
Poor choices in color and typography and even poorer decisions in configuration and scale make this one of the strangest logos of the year. Live like you mean it, but design like you mean it too.
I don’t like the type, the slogan, or the dude doing the handstand. It’s all just so corny… and it actually makes me never, ever, ever want to go to Wisconsin.
— TheMaster
Kraft Foods
Designed by: N/A
Release Date: February, 2009
While the well-known “race track” Kraft logo will remain on consumer product packaging, the parent company decided that it was too cool for them and instead opted for a crappy carnival of typefaces and random shapes.
1 swoosh, 1 capitalized word, 2 fonts, 3 weights, 4 lower-case words, and 9 colors for 1 LOGO.
— Sean
Smiles are an apparently irresistible contemporary “me too” brand identity trend. Although there is an attempt at a flower, the combination is poorly executed and just looks naive. The missed opportunity for some tasty type is further confirmation that the identity was in the hands of novices.
— Andrew Sabatier
Kraft Foods, Redux
Designed by: N/A
Release Date: July, 2009
Only five months later Kraft Foods unveiled a revised logo that was supposed to be an improvement. You know the expression “Putting lipstick on a pig”? This is like switching the lipstick from the pig’s mouth to the pig’s you-know-what.
I disagree, I think when comparing the two logos side by side, there is a difference for the better with the new icon. There is an improvement. And this new and fairly recent logo will NOT change a consumer’s opinion of the brand. Taste and price will.
— Peter O’Connell
City of Philadelphia
Designed by: The Star Group
Release Date: December, 2009
Voting Highlight: 60% (942 of 1,547) deemed it cliché
One thing you don’t want to do is upset Philadelphians — and judging by the amount of traffic we got to this story, there were many — by branding them with a web font (Trebuchet) and a terribly rendered Liberty Bell
As a Philadelphian it is surprising that most people even in the city gravitate towards the bell when approaching a branding project. Rarely in my life when mentioning that I am from Philadelphia has anyone said “oooh, have you seen the Liberty Bell?!” The question is usually “what’s your favorite cheese steak place?”
— Chad Kaufman
Xe
Designed by: N/A
Release Date: May, 2009
Step 1 in the Bad Corporation Protection Program: Rename the corporation. Step 2: Redesign the logo. Step 3: Hope that people forget about your old brand in a couple of years. Oh, and regarding the logo, I have no idea what is going on.
Here’s another company that I wouldn’t design for, and I won’t critique the logo or marketing strategy on the off-chance such comments might be even a little helpful to them.
— BJN
MSN
Designed by: N/A
Release Date: November, 2009
Voting Highlight: 15% (165 of 1,073) thought the butterfly was great
The butterfly icon might get a passing grade, if I were extra generous, but the typography is simply ridiculous. I stand by my original quote, that I will also use as a segue to the very worst of 2009, “[The typography] suffers from Bing syndrome: It wants to be cool and modern but it suffers from complete lack of typographic decency. (This post is also worth revisiting if you want to read a pissing match between Futurebrand designers claiming credit for the original butterfly in the comments).
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.
— Erik Spiekermann
Bing
Designed by: Razorfish
Release Date: June, 2009
When I first posted the new logo for Microsoft’s search engine I blasted it for using scaled typography then “Bob,” who designed the logo at Razorfish, informed us that “All the letter forms were made from scratch.” I think I preferred to think this nastiness was done unknowingly than fully premeditated. Congratulations, Bing!
If that is true, it is sad. Couldn’t you hire someone who can actually design type? It wouldn’t take more than an hour to do. It would still be a boring logo, but at least it wouldn’t look like a free font drawn by a 15-year old in Corel Draw, in 1987. It was made from scratch and it still looks like scratch.
— Erik Spiekermann
Seriously, you people need to chill. While this logo is definitely not excellent, it’s also nowhere near as bad as some of you are suggesting. Get off your high horses and quit being such snobs. And you wonder why designers are perceived as such pompous a**holes.
— Anonymous
My Little Pony
Designed by: N/A
Release Date: Summer, 2009
Voting Highlight: 4% (43 of 921) thought this was bad
I am sure many of you will think I am crazy for including My Little Pony here and, in all honesty, there were more technically impressive and stylistically appealing logos in 2009. Yet context plays a large role in identity design and within the market and audience that My Little Pony resides in, this was a superb update that could have turned out real ugly, real fast.
Seriously?
—JonSel
Meredith Corporation
Designed by: Lippincott
Release Date: August, 2009
Voting Highlight: 2% (12 of 1,105) Voted on the new icon being Boring
A lively, colorful and bold update for a women-focused media enterprise, devoid of female clichés like the color pink or script typography. Thank you Lippincott!
Absolutely beautiful. I wish I had done this.
— Bill Dawson (XK9)
I hate to be the bitch here, but I think the symbol is predictable. Take the first letter of company name, rotate and repeat multiple times, until you make a floret. Then add rationale expounding said companies multidisciplinary nature. I agree it is pretty, but its looks are only skin-deep.
— Aditya
Commerzbank
Designed by: Meta Design
Release Date: November, 2009
Voting Highlight: 71% (602 of 840) Agreed this took the best from both worlds
The fact that the angle of the “K” matches the angle of the icon is reason enough to land this logo in the Best category, but everything about it is so carefully thought out and executed that there was no way I was leaving this out, even if it had its detractors.
The logo gives me feelings of danger, hazard, a warning sign, discomfort… Using yellow as your main color only makes things worse.
— Erwin
I am not a fan of the sharp edges with such a free-flowing “ribbon” type shape. Not only is it not accurate as to how the shape would actually flow in 3-D, but the mixture of curves inside the shape and sharp edges outside is totally un-harmonious!
— Danae
El Banco Deuno
Designed by: Saffron
Release Date: January, 2009
I was one of the lone champions of this identity and I may have doubted myself at the time, but going back through the archives, this Mexican’s bank identity stood out from most of the entries.
I don’t get it. It’s just poofy letters.
— David H
Something else I’d like to add is the fact that I wouldn’t trust my money with a bank that looks like that. I like banks to look, well, bank-like. Professional. A sense of class. I don’t believe this communicates that.
— Neil
Guitar Hero
Designed by: Pentagram
Release Date: September, 2009
Voting Highlight: 55% (519 of 930) Voted this as Rockin’
While some mourned the loss of the unrefined (hence more genuine) look of the original logo, the new identity is more fitting of the billion-dollar enterprise it represents. And, a spike more or a spike less, it still rocks.
This update retains the old-school rock flavour, but just cleans it up a little bit, giving it a more professional feel and reflects its now mainstream status.
— Chris Thorpe
Yes the old logo was a bit off kilter, but that lent an air of hand rendered tattoo look to the logo that I thought was very appropriate. I’m not usually a fan of outlined text in logos either, but in this case, the non outlined redesign looks flat and boring. It’s computer rendered perfection actually makes some details annoying to me…
— Nathan McKinney
Syfy
Designed by: Proud Creative
Release Date: March, 2009
The name change got everyone in a tizzy but by now and even more so moving forward, it’s not even an issue. And it sadly obscured what turned out to be a solid redesign.
I dig the new mark — liked it from the start. I’m glad they lost the clumsy icon and type and went with a concept that was more “out there.”
— grubeedo
No matter how interesting and slick the type treatments are, the actual word “Syfy” is so awkward I don’t think I’ll ever be fully on board. Love the new visuals, though.
— Enna
MyFonts
Designed by: UnderWare
Release Date: January, 2009
Their previous logo didn’t set the bar too high, but the new custom lettering did, not just for them, but for the whole retail type industry. Some people hated that the “My” made a hand… Well, you can talk to it because the face ain’t listenin’.
The MyFonts redesign was long overdue and a definite improvement.
— Darrel
Not sure if the cryptic hand was necessary, but we could all use more surprises in life I guess.
— Nate
Pfizer
Designed by: Siegel+Gale
Release Date: November, 2009
Voting Highlight: 62% (910 of 1,457) Considered the Logo Evolution an Improvement
The changes to the logo were small but they helped soften up the biggest of Big Pharma. The surrounding identity however was what made Pfizer really stand out from the rest this year.
This is one of the nicest refinements I’ve seen in some time.
— David Airey
New York Public Library
Designed by: NYPL In-house Staff
Release Date: November, 2009
Voting Highlight: 70% (728 of 1,040) Thought the New Lion was Roaringly Great
A great visual exploration of possible lion heads led to a great new icon for New York’s beloved institution. Works great at large and small sizes, something the old lion couldn’t brag about.
It’s a nice rendition, maybe a bit too “Rasta” for my taste, but competently executed.
— Dennis Van Staalduinen
I’m impressed that this was done by their in-house team — not that in-house designers are inferior to agencies or anything like that. I just know it can be difficult to imagine all the possibilities when you work so closely with a brand. I used to work in-house for a public library in need of re-branding, but I don’t think I would’ve been the right person for the job. Hats off to the NYPL team.
— Matt Barnes
Nickelodeon
Designed by: Eric Zim (wordmark)
Release Date: September, 2009
Voting Highlight: 53% (853 of 1,609) Preferred the New vs. the Old logo
A complete overhaul of not just the Nickelodeon channel we all grew up with but of the whole enterprise that has grown into multiple channels airing in 175 countries, as well as a motion picture production company, and hundreds of Nick-branded toys and games. It’s not the nostalgic splat anymore but it’s not your attention they are after, so better deal with it. Like Syfy — perhaps even in a stylistic trend — this is a bold, simple wordmark that can carry Nickelodeon for another quarter of a century.
It is really hard to say that without being influenced by my own childhood memories, but I think the old one looks awfully dated. It reminds me of late 80s and early 90s stuff, a world and a visual language that obviously doesn’t say much to the kids today.
— Pedro
I will definitely miss the splat logo, but this new one makes sense because Nick has had about a decade of slow reinvention. It’s definitely not what it was before, with bizarre shows like Ren & Stimpy and Ahh! Real Monsters. It’s “trendy” now and has to appeal to several different audiences. I think this new wordmark achieves that without offending too many people.
— Ainsley
City of Melbourne
Designed by: Landor (Sydney)
Release Date: July, 2009
Voting Highlight: 67% (1,020 of 1,520) Thought this was Way Cool
This new identity gained early praise when we first announced it, and then we got a chance to see all the different “M”s and it became even cooler. In terms of visual execution and diversity, this was one of the strongest of the year.
I haven’t seen an identity that I found so inspiring in a very long time. I love everything about it. The color scheme, the triangles, the implementation.
— Swifty
Even the parking tickets are exciting.
— Scott
AOL
Designed by: Wolff Olins
Release Date: November, 2009
Voting Highlight: 51% (1,232 of 2,374) are Willing to Give it a Chance
Amazingly, only 28% (673) Hated It, and 19% (469) Loved It
Hold the rotten tomatoes. I agree, AOL is neither technically nor aesthetically the best logo or identity of the year. But no identity will have a bigger impact in the evolution of a brand as AOL’s. Most companies brand to match their audience, AOL is branding to create a new audience. The name may conjure the 1990s but the identity is twenty-first century all the way. Wolff Olins may be the punchline for many designers but, even if you don’t know it or care to admit it, they are having the last laugh.
Geez, does Wolff Olins have some sort of magic pixie dust that they sprinkle in their client’s lattes to get them to buy off on their concepts? Most of them seem very disjointed and lazy in my opinion.
— Rico
Seems like another entry in the recent spat of brands whose logos rely on some bizarrely assorted array of images to convey and carry their brand instead of the actual logo itself. It’s shit. And I don’t get why it’s now a word, like many others here. How could that possibly strengthen anything? There’s no combination of sounds you can make from reading those three letters with the punctuation that is even remotely attractive, memorable, positive, or, at the very least, has anything to do with the online world.
— Cory
To be sure, mutable wordmarks (visual play, around consistent letterforms) can be fun. Certainly, MTV and Nickelodeon showed you can get away with it on television, and Google has shown it can work on the Web. But are these particular “Aol.” letterforms a strong-enough visual anchor? Not clearly. Verbally, they are still a hole in the hull. And are we now expected to write not AOL but Aol? (I refuse to add the period, in text.) And thus to speak it as a-awl, or a-owl? The punctuation of the logo introduces uncertainty of the name in text applications… which is not a good a way to build a stronger brand.
— Tony Spaeth
DATE: Dec.20.2009
POSTED BY: ArminCATEGORY: Announcement COMMENTS: 321
TAGS:
David Brier’s comment is:
Understand some of your conclusions but AOL as the number one best? Sorry, that blew the street cred here, as great logos used to be based on an aesthetic, a craftsmanship brought on by the likes of Herb Lubalin and others. The fact of it being seen everyone means nothing. The smell of fertilizer is also “everywhere” when it’s been exposed to the environment but that doesn’t make it any more palatable. Sorry folks, that deflated much of the credibility on the criteria for your choices.
On Dec.20.2009 at 07:54 PM
online branding blog’s comment is:
I would have voted aol for worst new identity…
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:02 PM
Chris Young’s comment is:
New York Library or MyFonts would have been my pick for the no.1 slot, but AOL!?! No.1? I agree with David that just because this re-design is seen everywhere, doesn’t make it the no.1 re-design of 2009. This is down there with Telecom New Zealand’s new ‘snowflake’ logo.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:07 PM
Anyone’s comment is:
LAME!
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:10 PM
Jeff’s comment is:
Just because Nickelodeon has a ‘hidden’ kid doesn’t give me enough reasons to put it in the Best of 2009 Category.
I thought Syfy was a lil too bold, definitely not the worth to be in Best
Art Directors Club is certainly not the best one around, but it is without doubt one of the nicely executed brand makeover. Heck, its much more modern now. Nope, it shouldnt be in Worst of 2009 Category
This might draw a little bit of criticism, but here it is. I like Yale’s makeover. For an average person, just because a logo has Paul Rand branding doesn’t help. The new one certainly talks to the ‘rest-of-us’ and it works, IMHO.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:11 PM
Mexicant’s comment is:
AOL = WOW
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:14 PM
theo’s comment is:
it just occurred to me that the new NYPL logo looks a lot like Chicago’s Harris Bank:
did anybody point that out when that item originally ran?
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:19 PM
Andrew Kopietz’s comment is:
I was a little miffed by the inclusion of Aol. and My Little Pony but on the whole, i think this is a nice round up of some of this year’s best and worst design work.
And alright, Aol. was radical even by my standards but maybe it ain’t all bad. There’s some kind of unique signature there. The critical debate about Wolff Olins credibility remains a mystery to me though. I’ve always admired their work.
Nice job Brand New! See you in the new year!
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:21 PM
nickd’s comment is:
I thought AOL was #2 or #1 worst of the year. Pick one background treatment and stick with it; otherwise your “brand” comes off as a brainstorming session.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:21 PM
Dustin Senos’s comment is:
I’m sorry, AOL does not resinate with me as an identity what so ever.
What are they trying to get across? What is the new audience they are trying to create? When you look at it, what do you feel?
I see a hell of a lot of unplugged ethernet cables puking across my monitor.
I believe you meant to use the same description for both the eight worst and the number one new identity for 2009:
AOL
I was actually surprised at some of the positive comments for this one, which I still think is a sorry excuse of a logo. My cat has turned out hairballs with better execution and strategy than that. Also noteworthy: some clients competed for the privilege of using this logo.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:22 PM
Joshua’s comment is:
Nice summary of the year- poor choice for number 1. It’s a mess. Let’s hope for a better 2010.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:35 PM
Tez’s comment is:
How disappointing! With only a few exceptions I feel really let down by what you call the best and worst of 2009. With the exception of Melbourne’s logo almost all of the remaining I would be ashamed to put in my portfolio had I designed them. There again I didn’t so I can breathe a sigh of relief.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:43 PM
Colin’s comment is:
This whole thing is a joke. Regardless of how the design community feels about these redesigns, their impact is measured by results, not opinions. Can’t we talk about this shit responsibly?
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:44 PM
Eduardo’s comment is:
Aol. definitely 1º. Sometimes i love wolff lins and sometimes i hate them, but Im in love ridht now
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:57 PM
Michael Bojkowski [Linefeed]’s comment is:
It’s nice to see Melbourne’s identity so highly praised on an international level (even if the work was undertaken ‘externally’). The shame of it is that barely any of the recommended applications have been implemented. In fact, the City of Melbourne have chosen to ignore much of what we saw from Landor shortly after the identity was launched. Overall implementation has so far been really poor and doesn’t look like getting better anytime soon.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:57 PM
Brandon’s comment is:
I have to say that I agree with the sentiments about having AOL as number one. The comments posted along side it sum it up nicely, that it does nothing to strengthen the brand, but only adds confusion.
Out of the best rebrands in the list, I would put SyFy at the top. At first I hated the name, because I thought they did it ‘just because,’ when in fact they had to change their name due to being unable to legally use “Sci-fi.” Now rather than coming up with a whole new name that no one would know- and possibly lose a lot of the already built in “SciFi” brand- they stuck with the old name with a bit of word play. I can still call SyFy Sci-fi when it comes up, and that makes me happy.
On Dec.20.2009 at 08:57 PM
Michael Johnson’s comment is:
Like other commenters, I just can’t get on board with your argument for Aol. Sorry. Maybe there’s a vision there, but compared the rest of this year’s crop, it completely fails to capture a cohesive brand essence.
That aside, I agree with most of the rest of the list. And think that 2009 really did feature some top-notch work. (meredith tops my personal list.)
I love work that makes me jealous as a designer!
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:00 PM
kyle’s comment is:
is this a joke? link bait to get the design community to link to your controversial choice? aol? seriously?
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:19 PM
Alex’s comment is:
There is clearly a mistake. AOL rebrand is on the wrong list.
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:35 PM
Mary Shu’s comment is:
Thanks to the Brand New Team for a great year of reviews.
I always love the Best and Worst list, though I think this year you have missed some monumental f*ckups for the ‘Worst’ list. Logos like ANZ, Frigidaire, Packard Bell and Tropicana all of which got a unanimous bollocking from the Brand Newbians.
On the ‘Best’, I would have included:
Apollo
Meiji
Woolworths
FICO
Jack in the box
or AVID.
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:38 PM
Daniel’s comment is:
First, you post an absurd contest for a logo.
Now, Aol. on first place.
I said this before, and I say it again. This blog is going down…
Sad man.
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:47 PM
Ben’s comment is:
Great to see the Melbourne identity in the “Best of” considering the shit-storm of controversy it caused in Australian design circles!
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:49 PM
LA-Jimm’s comment is:
AOL - worst. Syfy - second worst -always reminds me of syphilis.
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:52 PM
Shep Hayes’s comment is:
I think Aol. Should be both the best and the worst of the year. It’s the best, because yes, it will be seen the most. It also does set a future for the brand, very different from their past as Internet, Inc. It’s also pretty creative; it’s very different. It should be the worst though because the execution is terrible. The concept, however is creative, just sucks. There’s very little consistency, and the wordmark bores me.
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:52 PM
Manny’s comment is:
No. 4 Best: “New York Public Library” ?????
Come on! This has to be a sympathy vote for beleaguered in-house design teams out there.
Sorry, it just ain’t that great.
The curves are very sloppy and imprecise, the type, symbol lock up is awkward, etc.
On Dec.20.2009 at 09:55 PM
Smatula’s comment is:
Well, you’ve convinced me… that graphic design is pseudo-science rulled by whims. The Best selections are almost indistinguishable fromthe Worst, and the rationales are pathetic, and punctured just as easily by other snide, arbitrary criteria.
On Dec.20.2009 at 10:10 PM
David Brier’s comment is:
I want to interject one further comment:
When I got into this industry, I got into because what I saw LIT ME UP, inspired me, and ignited something within me. So much so that I instantly moved from being an illustrator to becoming a designer. None of these logos—not a single one of these on the Best list or Worst list—does any of that for me. None excude anything special that makes me fell “”damn, I wish I’d done that.” While that’s not the ONLY criteria, it’s one I go by that has worked out to help our clients win, which is the ultimate achievement for any brand identity.
On Dec.20.2009 at 10:11 PM
Igor’s comment is:
Loved the article!
And eps. liked the new Nickelodeon logo!
On Dec.20.2009 at 10:13 PM
Alex’s comment is:
Well, not to repeat the hating on aol, but this is probably the most disappointing list to date. On both sides. How can El Banco Deuno and aol be on the best list, and then bash art directors club? I really didn’t have a problem with that redesign, and the collateral was looking pretty good.
You know what should have been on the list for worst logos? New York Philharmonic logo. My hatred of that logo burns in my chest to this day. The name of the designer behind that logo is the only reason for any of its success. The best list the year is pretty mediocre for me.I like Mary Shu’s comment about her choices for the best list a little better.
On Dec.20.2009 at 10:32 PM
Eddie Jacobs’s comment is:
Nice list. Is there any plans for the best and worst identities of the past decade? I think it would be good to do, since we could have comments on designs that came out before this site existed.
On Dec.20.2009 at 10:57 PM
Adam Haase’s comment is:
That’s actually a grand idea Eddie Jacobs.
On Dec.20.2009 at 11:02 PM
tattoo_rocker’s comment is:
The Kraft redesign kinda looks like it’s from the 70’s with the flower thing.
On Dec.20.2009 at 11:22 PM
Seriously?’s comment is:
You took an “L” for Aol. Who paid you?
On Dec.20.2009 at 11:27 PM
Lee Selsick’s comment is:
interesting overview of logos, but, more interesting comments. identities are not made by logos alone, but by their place within a larger set of collateral. no logo is an island and none should be entirely judged in isolation of the way they are used.
On Dec.20.2009 at 11:35 PM
Daniel’s comment is:
some surprises but a nice summary of the year that was.
On Dec.20.2009 at 11:38 PM
Fishoutoforder’s comment is:
I’m pleased the My Little Pony logo made it here. You’re correct in that it could have been an absolute disaster if handled poorly, but the elongation of the ‘y’ into the tail shape works wonderfully. Not to mention the oddly huggable serif. Removing the tilt on the two background hearts also really enhanced its impact.
A very solid update.
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:12 AM
Ivy’s comment is:
Don’t forget Union Bank as one of the worst redesigns.
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:15 AM
agnes’s comment is:
whoah! i disagree with your no.1 best identity :D sorry… I think AOL don’t deserve it.. :)
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:24 AM
Pat Broderick’s comment is:
Sorry to change the subject, but what’s the name of the bold sans used for THE BEST AND WORST OF 2009 header?
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:37 AM
Juan Gómez’s comment is:
I like melbourne for the first place! :)
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:48 AM
heinz waibl’s comment is:
May I be so bold?
Best:
1. Nickledeon
2. Apollo
3. Meiji
4. AOL
5. Pfizer
6. Woolworths
7. FICO
8. Jack in the box
9. AVID
10. El Banco Deuno
11. Commerzbank
Honorable mentions:
City of Melbourne, Very, COP15, Tata DOCOMO, MAD
Worst:
1. Hilton
2. Packard Bell
3. Frigidaire
4. Bing
5. Tropicana
6. LendingTree
7. ANZ
8. Kraft Foods
9. Wisconsin
10. New York Public Library
11. TriNet
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:51 AM
A Real Black Person’s comment is:
This was a weak year for good graphic design. I get the feeling that alot of branding is done by techies nowadays. By techies I mean, Web Developers, general Information Technology workers.
This makes logical sense, I suppose since the new medium for human communication is electronics, not print.
In the digital world, gradients are important to convey a general sense of slickness that has its counterpart in expensive papers in the print world…except gradients aren’t expensive. They’re postmodern. In the digital world…a continuous stream of information takes precedence over a symbolic logo. Can anyone articulate Google’s brand? I can’t. Brands are important but their strength depends on a tightly micromanaged image. The free flow of information threatens a tightly controlled image. Disney isn’t so innocent when one considers that it owns Miramax. AOL is avoiding a pr problem by avoiding a narrowly defined identity (facebook=preppies and yuppies. this is not a association that Facebook created or marketed but a reputation its users created.). “um. We’re the web. We’re everything.So..um…please check us out. ” It’s going to be interesting to see how long large brands will continue to exist as they consolidate into larger and larger monoliths.
Also, the corporate world,which pays lip service to education, is making the average person stupider.
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:58 AM
cravr’s comment is:
AOL at #1? Seriously?
On Dec.21.2009 at 01:48 AM
tezro’s comment is:
Worst review ever. Nickelodeon, AOL, Pfiser, Myfonts, Elbanco Decrap, Syfy. Man, are you blind or incredibly high?
On Dec.21.2009 at 02:13 AM
Dave Friedel’s comment is:
Bing is an awful logo and AOL is the best new one?
I think you’re way off here. Sorry, I did not like this review.
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:18 AM
Jay Rutherford’s comment is:
I agree with bing as the #1 worst of the year. Surely there are worse logos around (you should see some from here in Weimar), but for sheer wannabe importance, Microsoft should have managed better. Spiekermann’s comments are on the nose, “Anonymous” remains chicken-shit anonymous.
signed: a pompous a**hole.
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:20 AM
Kári Emil’s comment is:
Hmm… this is indeed a somewhat odd list. Maybe you should have chosen quotes that actually support your view, unless what you’re trying to acheive is to emphasise that “everything is subjective” and “nothing is perfect”. I don’t agree with everything, but some choeices are good. But your best list is perplexing, 60% of the time.
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:31 AM
Ben’s comment is:
Aol!? Echhh. Does good brand application override the need for a decently designed logo. Can’t they just get along? it worked for Melbourne.
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:40 AM
bastie’s comment is:
i don’t agree fully
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:43 AM
T’s comment is:
“Aol. Amazingly, only 28% (673) Hated It, and 19% (469) Loved It”
Therefore more people hate it than love it, therefore it should be in the worst list, let alone No.1 best???!!!
Seriously, I don’t get this, do the staistics not matter then?
Whats the point of voting?
—
Also, the thing that really annoys me about the Yale one, no matter how nicely the typeface is designed (as opposed to bing), is that IT ISNT A LOGO!
—
Also please can you let us know before submitting the comment, which fields are required?
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:49 AM
Dru’s comment is:
Definitely a questionable list.
Both Aol and Nickelodeon don’t deserve to be in the best redesigns,in my opinion.
Number 1 redesign would have to be the City of Melbourne logo.
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:04 AM
Suffian’s comment is:
City of Melbourne is number one. The depth of their redesign was amazing, and its applications across all media is both fresh and functional. I’m not sure if AOL meets the same level of usefulness. Sure, it’s a step over the previous design, but how much more so? And to what end? Well, that’s my two cents. Peace.
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:04 AM
Sebastian’s comment is:
Giving thumbs up for Aol. (it’s not AOL anymore, right?) and The London Olympics, is that just for securing that you are on the right side of the wave?
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:10 AM
Chris’s comment is:
I can’t say I’d move the Aol logo to the worst, but I’d definitely put it out of the top 12. It’s pretty, but can you really see that logo going anywhere beyond a few years? The pretty effect will wear off quickly and the brand will be left with nothing more than a terrible non-acronym.
I agree with most of your picks otherwise. I would have put Commerzbank higher, though — it’s just so damn perfect.
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:16 AM
Geo’s comment is:
Hmmm. I would have thought that pepsi would make it to the worst of 2009 too.
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:20 AM
Clyde’s comment is:
Brilliant! However, I do think NYPL and COMMERZBANK should be nearer the top of the “Best” list. Especially NYPL. Value, versatility and recognition are 100%.
As ar as Aol goes - I do agree with the branding initiative they’ve taken. I think we’ll be seeing Aol do a lot of “out of the box” things that could pave the way for others to follow. Wolff Olins are just too good to be frivolous.
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:32 AM
Jovan Petrovic’s comment is:
I for one like the new Hilton logo. Just if it wasn’t beveled and all a solid colour, it’s really a strong identifiable logo.
I also think that the Bing or the MSN logo aren’t that bad, besides the MSN butterfly that kinda sucks :\
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:49 AM
Mega Rick’s comment is:
My favourite is definitely the new Commerzbank and the Meredith logo…from a non-graphicdesigner point of view.
However, don’t like the nickelodeon since I’m grown up with the splash.
Blackwater/Xe entertained me the most.
By the way, though I like it, I wonder how the Melbourne logo works monochromatic?
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:02 AM
Suhail’s comment is:
I too think AOL should be on the worst section. uuuhhhhh !!
I mean that too from someone like Wolly Ollins’ stature. I personally follow and (mostly) loved his work.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:18 AM
CrocodileJock’s comment is:
Good collation. I’m not sure i agree with all of it… for example, I think the msm id is a step forward.
I think the AOL id is abysmal, but maybe it’s a grower.
Love the subte improvements on the Pzifer logo… truly considered evolutionary design. Lovely. MyFonts is good, as is New York Public Library… a new timeless classic.
My favourite though… El Banco Deuno. Google it, and see how the identity is rolled out… Excellent work.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:22 AM
mareksy at creamteam’s comment is:
SYFY - in my native language that means a few of really fuckin’ trash - point for stupid history round logo for SYFY… sorry :(
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:34 AM
INTERNET NET’s comment is:
The shitstorm about who designed the MSN logo made my day, why would anyone even want to own up to that horrible turd.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:54 AM
Team Napoleon’s comment is:
How come Sochi.ru and London 2012 are not in the worst of 2009 ?!
It must have been really hard to pich the worst as this has just been a bad bad year for good graphic design… Melbourne is my n°1 this year though in terms of idea, composition, execution and integration (I’d love to get on of those parking pickets haha)
On Dec.21.2009 at 06:38 AM
Jaan Kanellis’s comment is:
Why don’t you guys just come out and say “we love simple logos!”
On Dec.21.2009 at 08:10 AM
logotivo’s comment is:
AOL no.1? this is joke…
On Dec.21.2009 at 08:31 AM
Luke Tonge’s comment is:
Nod…Nod…Nod… Siiiiigh.
On Dec.21.2009 at 08:54 AM
Swifty’s comment is:
And the whole Tropicana debacle was left off why? Speaking of Tropicana, does the new Aol logo remind anyone of the rejected Troipcana logo?
Personally, I’m not a fan of the Aol rebrand. While the execution and implementation are superb, the actual wordmark is boring, uninspired, and just kind of blah.
That being said, I agree with most of the other rankings. I’m still in love with the city of Melbourne’s new identity.
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:03 AM
Nate’s comment is:
Unconscionable. How does Aol. get the #1 good spot on the good list? You would’ve had no arguments if it took the #1 spot on the bad list. I’m disappointed that you’re rewarding Syfy with a spot on the good list as well. While the type is nice, the renaming of the brand is abhorrent. If you release a new list in a few days I promise to pretend like this list never came out.
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:09 AM
Nate H.’s comment is:
Mary Shu has it right. AOL’s redesign is absolutely on the wrong list.
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:14 AM
paul’s comment is:
RE: AOL.
This isn’t April first, is it?
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:24 AM
Dennis Van Staalduinen’s comment is:
Very clever putting your most controversial “best” as your #1 identity. That’ll get a bit of heat going in the slowest week of the year for blog comments. And of course, I strongly disagree and think you’ve been drinking the Wolff Olins eggnog…
But I’ll set that aside (for now). Congratulations to you on a fantastic and entertaining year. I’m now a certified Brand-New-aholic and look forward to watching how the additional voices you’re adding to the mix spice up the conversation.
Feel free to contact me any time if you need Canadian-market perspective or a critique of a rebranding exercise that includes a new name.
Fa la la la la.
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:26 AM
jonathan’s comment is:
You’ve made good arguments for the aol rebrand, and the logic behind it was good forward thinking. It was the execution that sucked, and for that reason alone you can’t make it best of the year.
Besides that, thanks for another great year. Rolling down the best list, you see how this blog is beneficial to young designers, how things can be improved. Thanks Armin!
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:43 AM
ehausen’s comment is:
I would love to find out how many thousands of dollars Trollback + Company were handed over for their incredibly lame logo. I think I did something like that in college 13 years ago.
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:53 AM
Stephen’s comment is:
Interesting. No Pepsi or Wal-Mart? Remember the uproar of those two re-brands? Surprised to see they didn’t make the ‘Worst’ list, glad to see that Kraft made it tho.
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:56 AM
Dale Campbell’s comment is:
Armin,
In all seriousness - you didn’t expect this posting to go without backlash, did you?
With something as subjective as logos and identities, I think whenever you decide to list a best or worst list, you’re going to be met with some level of hostility.
I decided that I wouldn’t agree or disagree with any of Brand New’s decisions, but merely “watch” what you guys thought was great and not-so-great.
This blog rocks - and any personal attacks on it are unnecessary.
On Dec.21.2009 at 09:57 AM
Creative ideas’s comment is:
Great examples and tips
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:17 AM
aaron’s comment is:
Hey, graphic design student here, love the best and worst articles. This years list was definitely a more difficult one.
My only gripe with the worst list is the inclusion of the Yale redesign. I agree with the comments highlighted, but I’m still disappointed to see Yale in the worst list. Was there honestly nothing worse? I thought it should have been the 2014 Olympic logo instead. It had too many elements and while the ideas behind the logo were great, it was just pulled off miserably.
As well, I am really disappointing with the best list. I found the logos lower on the best list were better then at the top of the list. I’m glad you included my little pony. No, it isn’t revolutionary and award winning, but it is without a doubt a serious improvement in uniting all the elements into a tighter logo. Melbourne was a great addition to the list. I’m surprised the MyFonts logo was lower then nickelodeon. And like a lot of people here, I am not enthusiastic naming Aol. best logo of the year.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:17 AM
Morning Toast’s comment is:
How can the Nickelodeon logo be on the Best list but Bing be on the worst list? It’s like looking at the same thing, one is skinny and the other is fat. And I know this is nostalgia talking, but the new Nick logo is just poor.
Out of the Best list, I would have put the NY Library closer to the top. It’s a stand out mark that is just sharp.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:25 AM
Lifter Baron’s comment is:
I can’t believe how much bitching goes on here now. This comment section has become worse than QBN threads.
I think, like any good brand, it takes time and a full view of the identity system in use to start to appreciate the thinking behind it. A perfect example is the SyFy logo.. people hated it and now that they see it in action its no deal at all.. I think someone said above, that personal opinion does not determine the success of an identity…
Actually, how many of you people are even designers? Hahahaha
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:26 AM
Darren Alawi’s comment is:
Are these purely based on how users voted?
It never gets old how the comments on this site and so far apart, it always reminds me how subjective design is.
Great count down, I think we can all learn a lot from annual rebrand / redesign lists.
Personally, the worst has to be Kraft, creating a second redesign so soon after the first, proving they known nothing about branding and logo design.
My favourite in this list has to be My Little Pony. It’s a great evolution, good colour and use of typography. (I can’t really believe I just said that.)
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:27 AM
Chris M’s comment is:
I dont know whats going on here, but I agree with everyone. Aol should have been the worst definitely. When I see it I think of Lol. Anyway… I am starting to feel that Brand New might be making a shift in a strange direction.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:27 AM
Steve’s comment is:
Take a look at netshops re-branding to hayneedle.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:33 AM
Ricardo Martins’s comment is:
I guess you inverted the best with the worst. ;)
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:52 AM
laura marie’s comment is:
Oddly personal reasoning aside (El Banco Deuno) I was with you until AOL. The loudness of their identity change should not be rewarded unless it has other legs to fall back on, which it really, wholly does not.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:53 AM
Kosal Sen’s comment is:
Armin, I think you forgot an “is” in the image headers, where it says “This the NO. # worst identity of 2009.”
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:54 AM
Randy Hill’s comment is:
I remember when logo design was a highly developed combination of skill and study. What happened?
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:55 AM
Mr. Kim’s comment is:
Randy Hill >> Computers
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:59 AM
Traci Rochester’s comment is:
I disagree with 75% of your opinions. And who appointed you judges?
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:00 AM
Brad Neal’s comment is:
I can’t help agreeing with the majority of feelings voiced here. AOL as #1 best? Surely you jest. Particularly after the Brand New staff itself flamed the logo as it was being unveiled to the public. And then you call it best in class? Getting mixed signals here. Slight infuriation.
It does some good, new things for the company. Cool. I can appreciate the argument you’ve made for why its #1 best, but all that aside. The logo itself is not much of a logo at all. The actual mark is uninspired, and is 100% dependent on some random background to be viewable and have context. Logo fail. Plain and simple. It’s losing based on basic principles of logo design which were missed and/or ignored. But yet, this is the best re-design of 09?
These are nice as explorations, as studies, as maybe some sort of viral campaign. I think if the work were used in a different context it wouldn’t be getting trashed so much, because the work itself isn’t bad. It just doesn’t function well as a logo.
Other than that I think the lists are great :)
Funny how Microsoft takes #’1 and 2 of the worst category.
Laffs.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:12 AM
Ty Halasz’s comment is:
@ Traci: Armin is the judge because it is HIS BLOG.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:22 AM
Juan Barrera’s comment is:
Agreed AOL is definitely in the wrong column.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:22 AM
Scott Lederer’s comment is:
Pepsi and Tropicana were ‘08 redesigns. Stop suggesting them for this list.
I also can’t say I agree with Aol. as a #1 overall. Though the conversation seems to be flowing about that pick. Melbourne should have been at the top of the list.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:26 AM
Jonathan’s comment is:
AOL’s screams “MESS”
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:31 AM
David’s comment is:
Hate to break it to a lot of you. Aol is a signal for many of the rebrands to come. I think it is probably the most innovative solution on this blog in some time. The brand can’t exist without content…the content is the brand!!! Just plain smart! Definitely #1 in my book.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:34 AM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
love the best/ worst idea. but is it Armin’s or the voter’s? Oh, on a better read, its Armin’s AND the voters. Armin, I love y’man but the fact that you flagged Aol in there as numero uno makes me think you know absolutely nothing about what we do. seriously. that or you just want some work outta them. pfizer is too insignificant a change to mention and my little pony is a shined turd.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:45 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
“Brand New” has jumped the shark.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:50 AM
johnGEE’s comment is:
I agree that Aol. rebranding is ridiculous but they needed to start some buzz and just changing it up to something plain or ‘new’ looking was not gonna help them. They switched it up and made people curious to see why the change and what its more about.
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:02 PM
Kenny’s comment is:
Just a note about the Aol. comments to those who aren’t aware. The basis for it’s success is not in it’s static representation as most logos are (when will you ever see the Aol. logo on a book spine?), but it’s effort for the brand context to be ever-changing (the “mess” behind the logo is not THE logo). In that effort, in many regards it’s pioneering a new idea. I was a little skeptical myself at first to he honest, but we’ll see where this takes us to.
Fast Company ran a great article on it a couple weeks ago:
http://bit.ly/7zF5HQ
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:05 PM
Deepu Balan’s comment is:
Really interesting post… very well written… thanks for sharing.
-Deepu
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:06 PM
Paulomi’s comment is:
…You lot do realize, that:
-Design is subjective.
-No one notices, or cares about corporate branding (well, with the exception of those who’s job it is to convince others that indeed they do care- and then charge large sums of money for their services)
-Simply changing colors or fonts is not “re-branding”
-No one cares about corporate branding
Okay, good. Just checking. You can continue your serif vs non-serif debate now.
*Bonus points for hailing “SyFy” as a good move. I mean, just look at how their target audience (you know, SCIence FIction fans) LOVE the new name! Sci-Fi nerds- erm, excuse me SyFy nerds- aren’t really known for their attention to little details like that anyway.
It’s a slam dunk with the AOL #1 spot too. Awesome. People will totally go back to dial up now, with a paradigm-shifting, outside the box thinking logo like that!
[A+++ article. Would berate sarcastically again!]
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:16 PM
Larry ’s comment is:
Armaniny Har Har!
SOL (sorry, couldn’t resist) and Syfy among best logos of the year? That is just fall down funny! You really had me going there… I mean my jaw was on the ground when I saw this list…
Seriously, now show us your real choices for best logos of the year.
Those were the best logos?
Uh, umm, Oh i get it, office party blowout and the interns yanking our chains right? AOL number one? A train wreck of a company finds the train wreck of a logo to match. Only slightly worse than the 08 Pepsi plumbers crack logo. No?
Wow! Well appreciate the blog, all your hard work in making it and can’t wait till next year. Keep up the good work and we will never speak of this entry again.
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:21 PM
Greg Ruffa’s comment is:
One would think that a company selling typographic styles would use typography in a design much more indicative of their business. As a logo, it may lean toward “clever” but not truly a worthy logo. Designers are not creating lasting images that build a memorable concept. Most logos tend to miss the mark, most among these are NOT candidates as Great Logos. Ask what would Paul Rand do or Saul Bass? Guranteed, very few would pass muster! Rank the logo for “my fonts” among the worst in my opinion.
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:25 PM
Mr Miyagi’s comment is:
Not only is the MyFonts logo deserving, but if you haven’t subscribed to their email newsletters, they are beautifully designed.
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:29 PM
Javafarms’s comment is:
Where is original version of El Banco Deuno? It makes me cringe to think this redesign is better!!
It looks like Dunkin Donuts meets David Carson with a latino touch. …With worldwide economic meltdown going on, certainly doesn’t give one confidence of a serious financial institution. Also, worst design bonus points for adding confusion to your brand name!
Is it El Banco Deuno, El Ban Code Uno, El Banco de Uno (the Bank of One in english) or did they mean El Banco Dueno (the landlord/proprietors bank)
On Dec.21.2009 at 12:58 PM
Toby’s comment is:
ELBANCODEUNO, brilliant pick - could have been #1! And their supporting materials are beautiful.
However, you dropped the ball with City of Melbourne. Go back and take it out, please! Ugh.
On Dec.21.2009 at 01:16 PM
Jon’s comment is:
i think the NYPL’s original mark was beautiful and don’t understand the need to change it. Besides, the new one reminds me more of the MGM Grand lion ( http://www.casino-tokens.com/images/MGMGrand93LooeyJrBrass.jpg ). Maybe a change in the typeface was all that was needed (if anything)…the new mark doesn’t add much to the identity.
On Dec.21.2009 at 01:31 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
Armin, how DARE you have opinions that differ from mine!? I come to this blog to have my opinions reinforced and coddled, not blatantly contradicted!
:)
Seriously though Armin, this is my favorite design blog. I don’t always agree with your opinions/analysis, but I appreciate the tone and time you put into it. Happy Holidays!
On Dec.21.2009 at 01:32 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Why hasn’t anyone mentioned the COP15 Copenhagen identity yet? Am I alone in thinking it was easily one of, if not THE year’s most thoughtful and significant?
Was My Little Pony really that much of an “improvement” to have bumped COP15 off the best list?
WOW
On Dec.21.2009 at 01:53 PM
C Jones’s comment is:
The Aol redesign deserves to be somewhere in the top ten do to its radical reinvention. Literally 2 days before Armin posted it I was making fun of my friend for still having an Aol email address. As a young professional I would not want to be associated with all 2 billion cds they sent to every ones house that almost every kid I knew used as ninja stars. Plus AOL = old persons internet.
Not anymore, after this new design came out I immediately changed my opinion of the company. I am willing ot give them a second chance. Because most of their interaction with the consumer will appear online I think what they are doing is amazing.
Works for me, and I am part of the generation that will be using their services soon.
But alas, my comment is so burried in this pos it will proabbaly be lost.
On Dec.21.2009 at 02:02 PM
San Antonio Employment Lawyers’s comment is:
Loved and hated in all the right places. Great list, and can’t wait for another year.
On Dec.21.2009 at 02:18 PM
Saylor’s comment is:
Aol. has been mentioned about 65 times in the comments.
I hadn’t given a thought to the impact the Aol. rebranding may actually have. We never know exactly what will changes things in [graphic design] history. This could very well shift what the world views as a solid and effective branding.
Then again, it could very well just suck. Time will tell.
On Dec.21.2009 at 02:33 PM
DK’s comment is:
Most of these are mediocre at best. Is this really all you could find? For many I had to question why they were even redone. Many of the old versions were better than the new (on both lists). Your best of list, truly pathetic. Give me 5 minutes on the web and I can come up with a list that speaks to the company, is executed well and has meaning. Pfizer, MyFonts, My Little Pony? Why bother, these aren’t worth talking about, let alone putting on a list good or bad.
For me, a good/bad list is all about extremes. These logos exemplify the middle of the road, not exactly list worth. Only a few exceptions broke from the middle, unsuccessfully.
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:24 PM
christina’s comment is:
“*Bonus points for hailing “SyFy” as a good move. I mean, just look at how their target audience (you know, SCIence FIction fans) LOVE the new name! Sci-Fi nerds- erm, excuse me SyFy nerds- aren’t really known for their attention to little details like that anyway.”
no, they didn’t. there were lots of complaints about the complete removal of science.
also, what is that font in the header? does anyone else find the S to be disturbing?
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:28 PM
Vivian Ronay’s comment is:
Gosh, re: AOL/ Aol. Seems to me the designer got away with the last laugh. For me this new logo looks like the ultimate comment on the mess over the years of AOL. And Aol was too dumb to see, through their own mess, the visualization of it! (sure hope this was the designer’s intention) Delicious!!
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:52 PM
jason Parry’s comment is:
I think the red means worst rather than best….
On Dec.21.2009 at 03:56 PM
Daniel Kent’s comment is:
Viewing “best of” lists every year is always entertaining. I have a hard time choosing songs for a mix tape let alone a list of best/worst brands. Good job, tough choices. Some of the commenters do not seem to realize that the lists are from the archives of this site and that the brand, not the mark or logo, is what is considered. The new Aol brand is pretty impressive relative to the old. Great move by them. It takes guts to do what they did and I am sure they new that there would be tons of criticism. It is hard to make something that looks “simple.” Sometimes that is what is needed. In my opinion, the more crap (colors/filters/bevels/shadows), the less effective it is. Any tutorial can teach you how to do tricks. Real forward thinking makes a good brand.
On Dec.21.2009 at 04:00 PM
MSGDS’s comment is:
To point the obvious, Aol is on the wrong list. My Fonts should be #1. Where’s COP15? Surely your best list is out of whack.
I can agree with most of your choices that show up on the worst list with the exception of the Kraft Foods. It’s not the best redesign, but I don’t think it deserves to be in the worst category.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:03 PM
Graham’s comment is:
Thanks for an enjoyable read. Melbourne was by far and away my favourite of the year, but there’s so much to love about it I won’t elaborate. I’m split on the AOL issue - I think it’s a strong brand and a much-needed update, and I think it’s likely to be highly successful for them. But at the same time I feel that achieving commercial success and being “good” are two separate things and I can’t bring myself to assert the latter about this identity. Although the new brand, in my opinion, is well-exectuted and versatile and will quickly become instantly recognisable, I just can’t help but cringe when I see that mixed-case acronym. It’s an assault on logic and coherency. An abomination. Maybe a deliberate break from convention was Wolff Olins’s intention, and that’s something I’d usually commend, but… ugh.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:14 PM
elmaha’s comment is:
City of Melbourne 67% (1,020 of 1,520) Thought this was Way Cool .. yep,
Thanks alot for this wonderful article.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:45 PM
Justin Hill’s comment is:
I like that you included Nickelodeon. The splat was dated. They needed something to update not one, but all of their sister networks, something that would be hard to do with the splat identity. Rugrats and Double Dare, and Hey Dude may have since been replaced by the likes SpongeBob SquarePants, BrainSurge, and Big Time Rush, but their slime-drenched legacy still lives on.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:47 PM
Lisa’s comment is:
You gots to be strong to write this blog and clearly you are. Bravo. I really enjoyed your point of view.
As well, I get the Aol. thing—Wolff Olins knows the corporation represented by the letters A, O, L transcend “acronymness” and will be said as intended even when presented as a word, which is what the rest of us are doing anyway. WAMW [which could easily be: Wamw.] admit it.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:48 PM
John Hockaday’s comment is:
Well, I will have to disagree with Lending Tree, Art Directors Club, and MSN. The new logos were a definite improvement, and not the worst by any means. I can’t stand the new syfi and nick logos. I loved them as they were—i must be sentimental about television. I do like the Aol logo, but it doesn’t seem number one worthy. But we are all entitled to our own takes on things. This is my favorite design blog and will always be.
On Dec.21.2009 at 05:58 PM
Katie’s comment is:
I’m shocked. I would have switched AOL and Art Directors Club as a worst and a best, respectively. The rest of the logos, I’m pretty much with you as to what should be on the best list and what on the worst. Although I would have put Melbourne as #1.
On Dec.21.2009 at 06:32 PM
Matt’s comment is:
Sorry, but Syfy was and is stupid. The name, the logo, just dumb. The old planet logo with Sci-Fi works much better. I don’t watch the SciFi channel(or as I like to call it the Syphilis channel) much any more since this name change.
On Dec.21.2009 at 06:49 PM
Edu’s comment is:
The Melbourne city branding is amazing. I think it takes the dare from logos such as AOL (sorry Aol.’s) and Burnley’s from above, but makes it work. It’s varied, creative, lively and crazy, but I buy it. It’s consistent in it’s creativity, it even makes me want a parking ticket.
On Dec.21.2009 at 07:02 PM
Rui’s comment is:
This is interesting. Seems like some ripped graphics in the Wisconsin logo.
http://logopond.com/gallery/detail/8133
On Dec.21.2009 at 08:48 PM
David’s comment is:
Rui,
If you look closer they aren’t the same. Who knows maybe they are both using Royalty free art. Its a relatively common silo that appears everywhere in photos and vector databases. What is your point anyway, do you think someone really cares about the authenticity of this silo…Please Bro/Bro-ette, Is Wisconsin made entirely of overly scrutinizing design professionals? There is way for important fish to fry at the moment. Just ask someone on unemployment living in wisconsin struggling to feed his family on welfare during this holiday season. Tis a lovely mark though, even if the generic man doing a headstand is from Wisconsin or not! Time is money my friend, spend it wisely.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:01 PM
JohnD’s comment is:
Would probably agree with most of Armin’s choices. I dont think the msn logo was that offensive, but Bing certainly was.
As for the ‘best’ - I thought Nick was strong, Meredith is a dark horse here (gorgeous) and Pfizer really comes to life once you get into the branding. And I like Aol. So sue me. On second thought, don’t.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:32 PM
Joseph Maguire’s comment is:
Syfy hate it or not it is a a quality typeface treatment.. the NYPL logo is nice, and I dig the the new pfizer mark. AOL is left to be seen as to if it is the best mark. I think one or two of the worst marks of the year weren’t nearly that bad. I disagree with Kraft I kinda dig that and msn.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:37 PM
bcbailey’s comment is:
Interesting list. I agree with most (City of Melbourne is excellent), disagree with some (Nickelodeon, though that’s my inner child talk’n) and missing a few (No Cop15?)
Re: Aol. It’s a fascinating logo, and it deserves the top spot for cultural impact alone. Wolff Olins have their finger on the pulse here, they know that even the haters feed the hype. The spots by Universal Everything bring the identity to life in that nexus where art and design meet.
Speaking of design/art, I also liked the Burnley logo that made the worst list, though one has to see this strange bird in motion to see it’s beauty.
What we see with Aol./Burnley is that the idea of what constitutes an identity & design is evolving, leaving the old schoolers a bit miffed. Don’t get me wrong, I love the old school. Lubalin, Glaser, Rand, Bass, etc.’s work stil represent an unmatched ideal. Yet web/motion calls for new ideas, some more conceptual than aesthetic. I’m guessing interesting times are ahead.
On Dec.21.2009 at 10:48 PM
JM’s comment is:
Nickelodeon is my no. 1, it is really coming to life beautifully on screen too.
Thanks Armin and co. for years worth of fun reading.
On Dec.21.2009 at 11:48 PM
daniel’s comment is:
i love El Banco Deundo. i want to bank with them….
On Dec.22.2009 at 01:29 AM
Raja Boglie’s comment is:
MyFonts for the best #2
and City of Melbourne for the best of all…
Brilliant idea.
On Dec.22.2009 at 02:58 AM
Alexander Greyling’s comment is:
Amin, your list is a reflection of how little today’s designers know about the language of visual branding. Most of the comments are based on emotion and some opinions from designers that lacks the one thing you cannot aquire in a couple of years, experience. This is paid for in decades of diverse design work that eventually result in specialist knowledge.
How many of the designers on this forum have known the world before Apple Mac, Internet, email, the dot-com bust and Web 2.0? Very few I think. It is only recently that designers realised the word brand is not just another word for logo.
Like most designers and creative agencies you and most of your audience confuse brandmark creation with brandmark promotion. The stupid Aol. excuse as an identity is a perfect example of this. Quick, what symbol do you associate with Aol.? Your mind has gone blank right? Now what symbol do you associate with Apple or Nike or Shell? Sure they have evolved their logos over the years but their basic brandmark symbol stayed the same.
This brings me to No 4 best on your list; The new-look abortion for the New York Public Library – the devolution of a once proud lion maimed in the name of the Web! Visit http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/a-new-look-for-the-public-librarys-lion-logo/ and you will see the logo progression. These sketches are below the standard of the worst high school art student, let alone a qualified graphic designer. And if this was the best of “hundreds of drawings’ that reportedly took a year, I do not want to see the rest because I will vomit blood!
As a designer in South Africa, I have always had great respect for the iconic American designers such as Paul Rand, Paula Scher from Pentagram, and the benevolent Milton Glaser. For the ignorant designer’s benefit, Glaser is famous for his design of the “I Love NY” brandmark that was done pro bono in 1976 (today this brandmark helps attract 140-million tourists to the “Empire” state each year).
It was a shock for me to see that the classic New York Public Library (NYPL) logo, such a noble and proud symbol, had been degraded and devolved into an cartoon by an amateur amidst an abundance of design talent in one of the world’s leading design centers. And the fact that “it reduces well” is a reflection of today’s designers that grew up with the Web and worship SEO and the like at the expense of design.
I would love to re-visit you “best” list (and their creators) in 5 years and see who is still around. The same laws of branding apply, no matter what media, era or country – that is why Apple, Nike and Shell are in the top 100 best global brands.
I rest my case.
Alexander Greyling
Author of
Face your brand! The language of visual branding explained
PS You have made one mistake with your list; you have split the worst into two lists and left out the best. Re-combine your best with your worst and keep that as your worst list and then ask a true professional like Paula Scher to compile the best list. And for my money, the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games Brandmark should be in the top ten.
On Dec.22.2009 at 04:43 AM
Kelvin Farrell’s comment is:
I can understand what you’re saying about AOL. It will probably be the most publicised but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best identity. To me it doesn’t get close to giving me a sense of AOL themselves. From looking at it I would see them as music or art orientated.
Really don’t agree with the decision. I think Nickelodeon’s is a great redesign.
On Dec.22.2009 at 07:00 AM
Susan’s comment is:
Most don’t do anything for me either way. Guitar Hero is an improvement only because it is more readable. And I hate the new AOL logo.
On Dec.22.2009 at 07:57 AM
cj’s comment is:
I would suggest really letting these marinate before commenting about how pissed you are about the choices. some of you clearly have, but the knee-jerk reactions aren’t constructive. though kudos to Armin that people care so much. clearly your work and expertise are extremely important to the design community. I know this blog is very valuable to me.
On Dec.22.2009 at 08:03 AM
Howard Belk’s comment is:
Armin — Thanks much for including our new Pfizer system in your list. This debate is great to see. I think it’s helpful to have a framework for evaluating logos. Here’s three simple and smart questions we ask at Siegel+Gale when evaluating dramatic logo changes. 1) Does the new design support the brand strategy? 2) Can a viewer find a story there? 3) Does it have humanity? Once these conceptual and narrative requirements are fulfilled, we begin evaluating it in the context of formal qualities and brand voice.
On Dec.22.2009 at 08:37 AM
Kevin Monko’s comment is:
El Banco Deuno. I wonder how many Americans wander in here for a chocolate donut?
On Dec.22.2009 at 09:38 AM
D. Goldstein’s comment is:
Susan,
How can you “hate” something that doesn’t give you anything to hate? The new Aol brand mark is intentionally designed to be indifferent to the content being delivering. General hatred for this mark probably stems from finding comfort in form making. A self indulgent pursuit that when looked at in a much broader perspective has made its definite contributions to our current economic blip simply by visually representing the greedy corporations at fault. Branding firms have been forced by market research to make “A” visually different from “B”, when in essence consumers need much more than formal differentiation to feel secure as we move forward in this new and uncharted waters of our economy. Formal decisions take time and money. Money that could be put to use in much more valuable ways. Things like providing platforms for sustainable growth that can handle market variability and the consumer discomfort currently prevalent in our global economy. Logos have historically connected people to brands when they really should be connecting people to people.
On Dec.22.2009 at 09:39 AM
Ashleigh’s comment is:
Kevin Monko– you made me laugh so hard because i totally see dunkn doughnuts out of El Banko Deuno. Conceptually, I agree that a bank needs to look like a bank (although the type is nice).
On Dec.22.2009 at 09:45 AM
Rx’s comment is:
facepalm
On Dec.22.2009 at 09:48 AM
Martin Boath’s comment is:
I think a special category should be created for the Best Non-Identity, with this year’s hands-down winner: London. Well done Boris and the rest of your stooges. Create a brief for a brand that is unnecessary, insult the reputation, experience and knowledge of several of the world’s best agencies by binning them off-hand, then fail to deliver anywhere near the deadline. Still hasn’t shown up. And when it does, will be be looking at an early contender for Worst Identity 2010?
On Dec.22.2009 at 10:16 AM
Hal’s comment is:
Did you get a kick-back from AOL or something?
On Dec.22.2009 at 10:17 AM
D. Goldstein’s comment is:
Is that c_HAL_ifornia talking??
On Dec.22.2009 at 10:29 AM
Woody B.’s comment is:
I went back and reread the text for the Aol entry, and it makes sense now. Wolff Olins. Armin must be one of those people that thinks that expensive crap must be somehow better than plebeian crap. That price equals quality. I bet he loved the London Olympics logo.
It’s the notion that the right signature at the bottom of a piece of art should make you aesthetically re-evaluate that piece in some way. This was supposed to be an article about the work, and how it stands up on its own merits. Just because it’s a Wolff Olins doesn’t mean it can’t suck. And the Aol logo does. Hard.
On Dec.22.2009 at 10:55 AM
San Antonio Employment Lawyers’s comment is:
Love the list, think that you were spot on with this one. Great job and can’t wait for another year of Brand New.
On Dec.22.2009 at 11:03 AM
Jonathan Patterson’s comment is:
My fonts logo catches my attention every time I see it. That one is superb. Very great post!
On Dec.22.2009 at 11:04 AM
No praise for lameness.’s comment is:
I agree with Alexander Greylings comment, the “New York Public Library” logo is a total amateur hack job.
Look past that it is NY, look past all the sketches (so what, it is the norm), look past the noble lion, and you will see that it is.
Not good logo!
The fact that BN think it is praise worthy is a tad concerning.
On Dec.22.2009 at 11:13 AM
Kira’s comment is:
A much more accurate rendition of the Wisconsin logo: http://changeyearzero.com/random/dlymi.png
On Dec.22.2009 at 11:23 AM
anony’s comment is:
what a waste of money for all of these!
On Dec.22.2009 at 11:58 AM
Wren’s comment is:
When the new Wisconsin logo was released most everyone here was in a state of shock.
Ugh. Hopefully it will disappear as quickly as it arrived.
On Dec.22.2009 at 12:05 PM
Spike’s comment is:
Totally agree with Aol as first choice. It’s brilliant. Glad to be in the minority there. “My Little Pony”? No, just no. It’s awful no matter how you shade it. El Banco, Melbourne, and Guitar Hero all mediocre at best. Melbourne is just a hot mess of overwrought, overlaps. It says nothing about the city.
For worst, mostly agree, but don’t get the hate for MSN. I think the low-key type lets the butterfly grab some shine. Bing, on the other hand is yes, hot garbage.
Thanks for the post. Great work!
On Dec.22.2009 at 12:12 PM
Ryan Adair’s comment is:
The comments here are far more interesting than the work.
A very shallow and narrow re-cap of the year, indeed. Many things came and went that were far better than your ‘best’ and far worse than your ‘worst’. What about that dumb blue horse for example?
I think that we are dealing with a case of Design Politics here.
Brand New Rule 1: Don’t Piss Off Past Employers (Especially Pentagram)
Brand New Rule 2: Don’t Piss Off Potential Clients
Brand New Rule 3: Blog Post Must Benefit Said Blog
I wish I could write more, but I’m too busy designing the new identity system for Space 150.
On Dec.22.2009 at 12:15 PM
Kathleen’s comment is:
AOL? You gotta be kidding. Now I realize that re-branding such a crappy brand was a bit of a bridge too far, but I assume the Top 10 list is supposed to represent design quality not size of challenge.
AOL has simply gone from lame loserdom to dark, chaotic and menacing. In what universe is that an achievement?
Rest of the article is good.
On Dec.22.2009 at 12:29 PM
Ksenia Coffman’s comment is:
AOL? Really?? Have you seen the other incarnations of the logo? They are even more of a mess.
On Dec.22.2009 at 12:38 PM
Kanye West’s comment is:
I think someone needs to be visited in his sleep by the ghost of Paul Rand so he can see the error of his ways.
On Dec.22.2009 at 01:31 PM
A Real Black Person’s comment is:
I posted a “big picture ” commentary earlier. I misunderstood the atmosphere of Brand New. Here’s something more inflammatory.
I disagree with people who think they have a specialist’s knowledge about design here in the case of the NY library’s logo. The imagery is fine. I really don’t understand the ” it’s worse than a high school student’s ” comments which sound extremely ignorant even after considering the person who said it is a “published” author (as if I gave a damn). It looks like a lion using the least amount of lines. If that person werre contesting that it doesn’t look like a lion, they’d have a valid point but it does. Last time I checked, logos weren’t places for designers to show off their rendering and draftsmanship skills. ‘It looks like a cartoon is not a valid’ criticism, because ,A. it’s not a cartoon as in ccartooning in the historical sense. B. It shows no comprehension of mimimalism.
Where I feel the logo has failed, is with the typography. The extra and meaningless emphasis on “Library” is awkward. Overall, it’s better than the old lion which was barely recognizable as a lion.It doesn’t scale well.Some of the sketches leading up to the new one were bad, it looks like it was done by multiple people, but the ones leading to the present solution seem up to snuff.
You dummies just don’t get it yet, do you? AOL. is not a logo. It’s the ultimate anti-logo. It’s not trying to be a logo or brand but it’s executing that idea of “a brand that isn’t a brand “really poorly.
Commerzbank’s logo has nothing to do with capital, monetary security or banking. It’s just a product of computer software.
The City of Melbourne’s logo IS JUST a “M” with little triangles in it . That’s IT. Is Melbourne know for 3d modeling or architeture? I don’t get the vector gradients. It’s a product of computer software.
MSN.COM’s logo is not a typographic disaster. The typeface’s context is the problem. It’s just an inappropriate font for a logo because it has no presense.
Bing’s logo is at least distinctive. At the very least. It’s not like Google has a better wordmark. Bing seems more typographically fresh in the catagory of search engine logos.
Nickelodeon i has the only good revision on this list.
On Dec.22.2009 at 02:12 PM
Matheus Stortz’s comment is:
AOL?
God damn it, Brabdnew, I’m considering to stop reading your blog due to that decision, you guys are WAY, I MEAN WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off sense here.
Sad to see a blog that once was so good, turned into a crap fan of Wolff Ollins.
DIE!
On Dec.22.2009 at 02:39 PM
Randy Andy’s comment is:
A Real Black Person’s said:
“The extra and meaningless emphasis on “Library”
Well…last time I checked the logo is for a “LIBRARY”,
get the connection?
That aside, the lion symbol seems a little under cooked to my expert eye. Not good, not horrible, just beige.
On Dec.22.2009 at 02:59 PM
D. Goldstein’s comment is:
Maybe some of the commentors general distaste for Aol is stemming from an overlooking of the brands relationship to the web. A synergetic and harmonious 1st in my opinion.
On Dec.22.2009 at 03:01 PM
Jeff’s comment is:
I think everyone is being a bit too quick to judge on the Aol. (is this really how we have to type it now?) logo. Helps to see it in context: http://www.wolffolins.com/aol.php
On Dec.22.2009 at 03:15 PM
Stef’s comment is:
more AOL at GHAVA’s site
http://www.ghava.com/Projects/AOL2009BrandIdentityArtAndVideoDirection
On Dec.22.2009 at 03:50 PM
Norm Goldberg’s comment is:
Special kudos to Meredith, and to Melbourne. (Love those Melbourne variations.)
Burnley…strange, but in a good way.
Kraft…how many people got fired before THAT was all over?
Bing…the most money ever spent for a logo designed on a vinyl cutter. How convenient to be able to stretch it to fit the available space.
msn…Why bother?
Syfy…I’m sorry, it’s simply misspelled.
Yale…You hired a typographer* to design a logo, you just got type, and you’re surprised?
Philadelphia…The good people of Philly deserved better. A nice rendering of a cheesesteak would have been more dignified.
Aol.
It’s not just a word—it’s a sentence.™
_______
*a really, really good one
On Dec.22.2009 at 03:58 PM
Brian Spence’s comment is:
Props to you guys for putting contrary opinions about each choice. I have to join in with many others here to think that you’re crazy for saying Aol is the best redesign of the year. Yech.
On Dec.22.2009 at 04:14 PM
Brendan’s comment is:
@A Real Black Person - Look up Federation Square in Melbourne…I think that the logo would fit in well with the center of town there.
The more I look at AOL, I like the idea, I just don’t like some of the images that are paired with it, and I don’t like the type in front of it. Only time will tell if it holds up.
On Dec.22.2009 at 04:32 PM
Mike’s comment is:
Thanks for the post.
Yes, I agree with a number of the comments..It is good to see you varying opinions…as for AOL being the best? I can see that for the reasons you state.
When it comes to changing logos one of the most important documents to present is your business card. Making sure they are sharp is key.
On Dec.22.2009 at 04:35 PM
Martin Boath’s comment is:
@A Real Black Person & @Brendan
It’s actually Aol. not AOL. I think the fact you guys, apparently fans of this ‘identity’, haven’t actually cottoned on to the main aspect of the rebrand shows how poor it is.
“Most companies brand to match their audience, AOL is branding to create a new audience.” Seeing as Aol. has no audience, it’s hardly an epic, forward-thinking approach to try to create a new one. I think it will be staggering if this identity does, however.
It is far, far away from being the identity of 2009 and gets the top spot here because its was immensely unpopular, and therefore a talking point, but also, crucially for blogs all over the world, a major source of page hits and a generator of hundreds of comments (see above).
On Dec.22.2009 at 05:09 PM
Brian Baker’s comment is:
The Melbourne identity is my favorite redesign of the year. Maybe I am biased after calling it home for a short time but it does seem to fit the city.
I simply do not understand AOL at number one. I would have to include the Tropicana disaster on the worst list.
The new AVID logo should be included.
On Dec.22.2009 at 05:45 PM
Tez’s comment is:
Armin, are you unwell and had to ask your girlfriend to post what she thought would make a good blog for best and worst list for 2009 whilst you lie on your death bed? (sorry no sexism intended here ladies).
This list is so warped I’m sure you’re on some kind of mind altering chemicals.
On Dec.22.2009 at 07:30 PM
Linette’s comment is:
I love this blog- it’s the only one I visit on a regular basis. Your efforts and opinions (popular or otherwise) are all appreciated. Thanks.
On Dec.22.2009 at 07:35 PM
Jeff Barlow’s comment is:
No one is talking about Merideth? I think it’s the sleeper hit of the “Best of” list. And I’d have to agree that Melbourne is worthy of #1.
But what’s with all the Aol. anger? When you look at what a logo is — a reminder of “the big idea” that makes up the company — I think it does a great job. I feel like it’s the only logo I’ve ever seen that successfully says, “We do everything for everybody.” (We’ve all had clients say that, right? But in this case, I think Aol. really does do everything for everybody — or at least they’re trying to.)
We all salute the original MTV logo for it’s solid graphic foundation and infinitely flexible elements. I think, like MTV, Aol. shows balls.
As does this list.
I salute Brand New.
On Dec.22.2009 at 07:50 PM
DG’s comment is:
Aol. is so relevant its almost painful.
On Dec.22.2009 at 08:27 PM
hc’s comment is:
this HAS to be a joke.
On Dec.22.2009 at 09:10 PM
nikki’s comment is:
“Aol.” contradicts everything I love about really great design. ;(
On Dec.22.2009 at 09:59 PM
DG’s comment is:
Nikki,
would you mind articulating a handful of those things you love?
On Dec.22.2009 at 10:32 PM
Joe Ray’s comment is:
This was fun to explore. The Wisconsin one…I’ve always admired that state because of the sick and psychotic (but creative) psychotic mass murderers. They get creative and strange by spending way too much time indoors during those long winters. Obviously, designing is up there with the mass murdering novelty too. I’m glad to hear the comments on Kraft- that’s what I had been saying but I felt like it was the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Nickelodeon- I would’ve liked to see some of the playfullness retained for the 21st century.
bing- mailed in, direct deposit. Next client, please!
I’m still scratching my head on the AOL logo. WTF? I want the person who did the convincing on my team. I can sense where they were going but I don’t think they took it as far as they could have.
On Dec.22.2009 at 10:39 PM
Ron’s comment is:
Apollo and Nickelodeon are my no.1.
I am Ron.
On Dec.23.2009 at 12:56 AM
m a r c o’s comment is:
Seriusly? AOL?.. Not to mention you are way off base with some of the other ones, like the Mexican bank and even the Yale logo… So what if Paul Rand designed it… It SUCKED! When I was in college I came up with better stuff than that… Sorry…
On Dec.23.2009 at 01:08 AM
Martin Boath’s comment is:
Sorry Jeff, I’m not knocking your love for the Aol. logo but a comparison with the iconic MTV logo is way out here. The MTV logo is successful because when all is said and done, when you remove all the treatments and renderings and suchlike, there is still a logo there – an iconic marque of sturdy M with handwritten TV. What I’m saying is that all the flexibility is a product of marketing and advertising, seasonal changes that reflect trends and time, but MTV still has a logo and an identity.
Aol. I’m afraid bases it’s whole identity on these treatments and renderings which I think is a cop out, a way to fuss around the fact that there is no logo, no real identity. Look up the word identity. “We do everything for everybody.” is the absolute antithesis of identity. In trying to be everything to everyone, their identity is being nothing to anyone – a fatal error for a company trying to get a foothold back in a marketplace where they have been left trailing badly.
The only successful thing about this identity is the coverage and outrage it has generated. But let’s not be fooled that outrage in the design community equals success. Remember IKEA moving to Verdana from Futura as their corporate typeface? Howls of indignation, rage and anger from all concerned with design. But in the general populous? Barely a ripple. The same will apply for Aol. If they, as a company, succeed in their goals, it will not be down to the identity.
On Dec.23.2009 at 04:01 AM
Alexander Greyling’s comment is:
@A Real Black Person
Your sloppy post really does show your ignorance not just about the English language but also about design. So where do designers show off their rendering and draftsmanship skills? When visiting the toilet? Good design is based on the solid foundation that is formed by the designer’s ability to draw and render from detailed to stylised visual presentations.
The fact that “It looks like a lion using the least amount of lines” is just not good enough. It still needs crafting, refining and polishing that ultimately result in a brand symbol that reflects the professional designer’s skills. Your inability to recognise this, is proof of your poor design skills (that is if you are indeed a designer).
You should do some more designing and definitely some more reading (preferably about design). Have you heard of spell check or are you going to tell me that it is also not part of a designer’s skills?
Look up the root word for authority and you will discover the word author. That is right, an author is an authority in the field that he/she published in. And what is your fame to claim; the odd sloppy post full of bad grammar, spelling mistakes and senseless comments on design that demonstrates your expertise?
What happened to your URL? When I click on “A Real Black Person” I get http://ftp//www.arealblackperson.com with the message “Server not found”. Perhaps you should fix your URL so we all may view your claim to fame.
Alexander Greyling
Author of
Face your brand! The language of visual branding explained
On Dec.23.2009 at 05:04 AM
Brendan’s comment is:
@Martin Boath -
Go to AOL.com and look at the title bar. Or, look it up on Wikipedia. Or, look at the AOL.com that’s right underneath the logo. As far as I can tell, it’s still AOL…at least for now.
Of course, though that makes me appear hopefully a little less ignorant in your eyes, it opens up the question as to why they would have their formal name as one thing and their logo as another. But that’s not without precedent; eBay doesn’t capitalize the ‘b’ in its logo.
As I said, I don’t like the type in front of it. It is very plain and doesn’t stand alone well. But perhaps that’s the point. We saw some identities in 2009 that are different, like Namics and the Award identities. Both are constantly shifting. The Namics identity is just Arial, but the colors and the stream of text before it creates a solid identity that says something about the company. Perhaps AOL is trying to say that they’re merely a portal for the vast information that underlies it. That it’s not about the name, but the content. I hated it when I first saw it, but it’s visually radical and it’s rational in its thinking. Maybe it takes off, maybe it doesn’t - time will tell. Would I have liked have seen “Aol.” executed better? Yeah. But that might have been missing the point of what Wolff Olins was trying to do.
@Alexander Greyling -
Dude, chill. Likening a logo to an abortion irked me a bit earlier, but then to merely attack grammar as a way of undermining an opinion you don’t like is just mean. I’m a young designer who has a lot to learn so I will make no attempt to pull rank or anything like that. I don’t doubt that you’re a smart guy, and I’m sure that you’ve done some good work (I’d like to see some of it…do you have a portfolio site?). But to use your experience and your eBook author credentials to browbeat someone who has a different opinion is uncalled for. Tell us why you disagree, but do you have to be so elitist about it?
I like the NYPL identity.
@Armin -
Upon further review, why wasn’t ALN on this list? That was a terrible redesign. I don’t know what you’d kick out of the bottom ten to put that in there, but still!
On Dec.23.2009 at 08:31 AM
DGoldstein’s comment is:
One more point to all the passionate Aol “Haters”
I am starting to feel Aol could give two cents about the visible form their logo. There isn’t a need to. It is constantly be reaffirmed when you make the conscious decision to type it in Aol.com.
Aol as a business is obviously trying is hardest to respect your space as an individual interacting with a computer on a increasingly regular basis. It might be worth addressing the concept of hating something that is extending this level of mutual respect while simultaneously trying to meet its requirements and desire to be a successful business. A business that will hopefully provide more necessary jobs in our struggling economy. I thank Aol for their acknowledgement of my space which creates an desire in me to become friendly with theirs.
ps-Armin-I accidentally posted this under the UEFA last night.
On Dec.23.2009 at 08:43 AM
DGoldstein’s comment is:
Martin,
Don’t you feel that Aol will eventually allow any individual to visually contribute to their own experience online, pics, art, etc. Like Facebook. I suspect that the point of the initial renderings is only to get the ball rolling on the concept so too speak, as they continue to develop ways as a brand and through technology that will allow individuals to craft their own personal space and experience online.
In a sense they could possibly do what MTV could never do.
On Dec.23.2009 at 09:11 AM
Philadelphia workers compensation lawyer’s comment is:
Love the list, can’t wait for next year.
On Dec.23.2009 at 10:39 AM
Andy D.’s comment is:
It’s quite amusing to see designers get (or feign being) red in the face due Bing’s launch logo. The design world is an insular place.
Bing’s name + tag + logo are all solid to great. At least as good as Google’s (to say nothing about the quality of search results).
Bing. The Sound of Found.
How pleasant. As for the logo, it is weak from a formal design standpoint. From the perspective of the darting eyes of a consumer, however, I’d praise it for being easily distinguished. Slightly squat, slightly stretched. An ovular arch suggested four-times: in the b, the n, twice in the g. Large amounts of negative space. Slightly stronger foundation than the feathery web 2.0 logos. The orange dot. Strong and simple.
Typographers are justified in some of their squabbling. And perhaps if MS hadn’t invested 100mil into the ad campaign the logo wouldn’t seem so “recognizable.” But, I maintain, in its own stubborn way, bing works.
Also, Aol’s logo is pathetic. “Aol.” -> this is fine. Preferable even. But the scratchy, kinetic, generic, overused lines scribbled around it, often in various colors. You guys. C’mon.
On Dec.23.2009 at 11:34 AM
mlw’s comment is:
i may not agree with everything that is listed as the best and worst logos…but i sure enjoyed reading about them and i really love the back and forth discussions about the lists. it’s nice to see some passion in the design community!
On Dec.23.2009 at 12:14 PM
Kareem’s comment is:
I agree that Meridith and the New York Public Library are the best of 2009. My Little Pony, not so much.
However, this was a solid roundup of best and worst, though.
On Dec.23.2009 at 02:39 PM
Arta’s comment is:
AOL? You have got to be kidding me!
I do like the scifi though guys.
AND the MyFonts ;D
On Dec.23.2009 at 06:10 PM
Pichu’s comment is:
I don’t agree with this years compilation, last year’s was so much better with categories like best and wors icons or best and worst uses of simbols, i think you miss some good logos this like the ones of universities like Linnaeus University or Aalto University or the new brand of Frigidaire or the one from Videocon or RKO Pictures or the new Quicktime icon and if we talk about kids logos the Latinamerica Discovery Kids it’s so much better than my little pony logo, i can fill thes page talking about better logos than the ones up here, except for NYPL and myfonts, but you must have your reasons and i just give my opinion, by the way i will check this blog everyweek as i always do because i love it
On Dec.23.2009 at 06:28 PM
Michael Benin’s comment is:
Even though I like the AOL design I can’t help but criticize the lack of readability. As an unrecognizable new look that is a huge deviation from the original, I would have made the AOL letters against a different background or somehow emphasize the A a little more.
On Dec.23.2009 at 06:55 PM
haha’s comment is:
Is Bing’s design really that bad?
———-
http://tech.geekpolice.net
http://www.geekpolice.net
On Dec.23.2009 at 11:40 PM
izzy’s comment is:
i’m in agreement with whoever comment was that this blog has jumped the shark… very true — and just like this blog, which is nothing more than someone’s ego trip, the so called “branding” industry is jumping right along with it. branding has nothing to do with “great design” — at all. just thought i’d let y’all know, so that you’re not surprised if you start hearing this more and more (trust me, you will).
On Dec.24.2009 at 12:17 AM
winter olympics’s comment is:
Paul Rand designed the Yale logo and it is disappointing to see another paul rand logo get replaced. Although it did do its job for like 20 years. I do not think any logos designed today will ever have that kind of lifespan. Brandnew is an awesome site.
On Dec.24.2009 at 03:20 AM
jackie stewart’s comment is:
AOL No.1 best logo??? I agree is the worst one. Shouldn’t even be there
On Dec.24.2009 at 06:11 AM
Alexander’s comment is:
I wonder how did new msn logo get into the worst list?
On Dec.24.2009 at 07:30 AM
mattro’s comment is:
With the exception of Melbourne and My little Pony, this whole post is a list of the worst from 2009. As others have said, there is not one thing up there that makes me say “I wish I did that”.
On Dec.24.2009 at 08:52 AM
DGoldstein’s comment is:
Armin,
Considering the polarity of this discussion, I am curious as to what country everyone is residing in. Maybe by adding that as an extra option following the url option, could prove to add more understanding when reading a dialogue such as this. Its tough to understand various perspectives when you don’t know where those perspectives are coming from.
Just a thought. Happy Holidays.
David, USA
On Dec.24.2009 at 10:31 AM
Joseph Sims’s comment is:
@Alexander Greyling
I might be confused… but I’m pretty sure the point of a logo is not “reflect the professional designer’s skills”…
In fact, if you are just wanking you talent at drawing stuff, it will likely fail as a a logo, because the only people who will appreciate it are insiders who know the process.
“Good design is based on the solid foundation that is formed by the designer’s ability to draw and render from detailed to stylised visual presentations.”
Is it? I would rebut that it is a lot more based on a designer’s ability to solve problems. You don’t have to draw great to design great. It’s not a talent show, or an art competition, it’s visual problem solving and complex system production.
On Dec.24.2009 at 02:21 PM
DGoldstein’s comment is:
On the money Joseph Sims.
On Dec.24.2009 at 02:25 PM
Marcus vss’s comment is:
This year’s list was weak because there were few good rebrandings. Maybe because of the crisis…
Melbourne is the best, though
On Dec.24.2009 at 07:35 PM
mertz’s comment is:
the yale redesign was horrible, almost as bad as that paint strings rubbish burnley one. i just took at look at the aol redesign while i was catching up on the posts, went to the ollins website and i have to say that it’s sad nick and melbourne redesigns couldn’t have come in 1 or 2. i agree with the list, maybe not the numerical positions but i think there are some in the best that should be in the worst and others that should be on the best, like the ones weinz above listed.
On Dec.24.2009 at 09:51 PM
Clam’s comment is:
Nickelodeon bug was much better…
http://www.logonica.com/index.php?srch_text=Nickelodeon
.. and AOL is it a logo or a flyer?
Only cool rebranding is New York Public Library, but it certanly does look like Chicago’s Harris Bank.
On Dec.25.2009 at 01:09 PM
andrei’s comment is:
Surely the Aol logo is the one in discussion over here. I dare say I cannot tell if it’s good or bad, it’s just the way things are going today. This happens with architecture too. It’s all about being bold, it’s all a bit superficial.
I myself am not happy with the direction things are going. I’m more about balance (pretty much because classic stuff lasts longer)
And the aol design will not live much
On Dec.25.2009 at 03:21 PM
taradara’s comment is:
AOL is awfull
Guitar Hero was better then it is now
On Dec.25.2009 at 03:38 PM
Luc(as)’s comment is:
Commerzbank: The angle of the “K” does NOT match the angle of the icon. That’s the way I got it and it looked really cramped. But I’m glad it looks like the angles match ;-)
On Dec.25.2009 at 04:30 PM
kaos murah halal’s comment is:
woooooooow
On Dec.25.2009 at 05:21 PM
diarreachachacha’s comment is:
a couple days ago, a friend sent me an institutional video of “nick”.
what do you think about the “c”? it looks a little out of system…
On Dec.25.2009 at 05:43 PM
A Real Black Person’s comment is:
The whole point of [logo] design is not to “show off” what you can do. It’s not about bells and whistles. It’s that kind of thinking that has a lot of current designers applying gradients on every design element as if they had something to do with visual communication. The lion drawing doesn’t need anymore polishing. From where I stand, It’s at a point where it CAN ONLY be used or discarded. If you think it needs more polishing ,that it’s “too cartoony”, or that you have stylistic objections with the solution, then maybe you’re in the wrong profession. You’re complaining about something very fundamental to modern graphic design.
I’ve read from some of the greats on the subject of design and I do believe I have a handle on the subject. It’s not your handle, I understand that. What I don’t understand is your design philosophy. It’s well known that you think Nike and Shell are great brands. Maybe you’re an International Style zealot who thinks a grid is the answer to every design problem. Maybe that’s what you meant by polished? Or maybe you’re into lots of pointless detail on a logo that will become noise as it’s shrunken down? I don’t know.
My grammar is usually fine, thank you for asking. It’s my spelling that was off in several areas and for that, I apologize, but, you know, if my grammar was anywhere near as horrible as you claim then you’d have had a hard time comprehending what I wrote. There would be nothing for you to react to. I don’t know about you, but it’s hard for me to get angry at gibberish especially when I have no idea what it means.
On Dec.25.2009 at 06:20 PM
Dirk’s comment is:
Armin’s had too much egg nog.
On Dec.25.2009 at 06:34 PM
Fabio Seva’s comment is:
Great list! Although I would not consider Nickelodeon a good identity update.
The old version is so more flexible and contemporary. It’s original designer George Lois anticipated in 1984 what would be the concept of 2009 best id, Wolf Olins’ AOL.
Check this out: http://www.georgelois.com/pages/Logos/logos3.html
On Dec.25.2009 at 09:43 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Roger van den Bergh has initiated a thoughtful discussion on Aol. and dynamic branding on Tony Spaeth’s Identity Forum.
http://www.identityworks.com/forum/
On Dec.26.2009 at 10:37 AM
G lois’s comment is:
Yes Fabio, excellent point.
The old Nickoledeon logo (which you all loved) is essentially the same concept as the new AOL logo (which you all hate).
What a bunch of dummies…sigh.
On Dec.26.2009 at 04:07 PM
Bucky’s comment is:
Memo to the group:
EVERYONE in Wisconsin hates that f*cking logo.
That is all.
On Dec.26.2009 at 09:30 PM
Monique’s comment is:
What about Holiday Inn? I am surprised they did not make “The Best” list.
On Dec.27.2009 at 10:59 AM
Rx’s comment is:
G lois’s
concept is one thing, execution another.
On Dec.27.2009 at 11:02 AM
Ivan Tolmachev’s comment is:
I think the best one is the meredith
On Dec.27.2009 at 11:56 AM
Camilah’s comment is:
Lots of comments, but yes. AOL as number 1? My fonts was probably the best one.
On Dec.27.2009 at 02:37 PM
Wally Torta’s comment is:
If I were to form my opinion of graphic designers from this blog’s comments section, I would conclude that designers are narrow-minded, nitpicking, semi-literate, and very, very, angry. It’s the narrow-minded part that’s most discouraging. It’s a great big world out there: why limit your creativity with rigid notions of what a logo should or shouldn’t be?
On Dec.27.2009 at 06:34 PM
J.D. Heilprin’s comment is:
To say that AOL’s new identity is the #1 Best Designed Logo/Identity of the year is to destroy any credibility which your list might otherwise have … — which is too bad for organizations like the New York Public Library or Meredith who deserve kudos, or Wisconsin, Kraft Foods and Bing that deserve a swift kick in the font.
I nominate “underconsideration” for publishing one of the most boneheaded lists of 2009.
Better luck next year.
On Dec.27.2009 at 11:09 PM
ivv’s comment is:
The NY Public Library’s new logo looks a lot like MGM Mirage’s: http://bit.ly/5SRA54
On Dec.27.2009 at 11:15 PM
Kendell Warner’s comment is:
I have to say that I, personally, love the way the Commerzbank brand turned out. To take two brands and mold them into one is always difficult, but this solution looks so easy. That’s kinda the point though isn’t it? :O)
Have a great New Year all!
On Dec.28.2009 at 08:39 AM
Pennsylvania wrongful death lawyer’s comment is:
Love the breakdowns, and soon it will be a new year for new brands.
On Dec.28.2009 at 11:29 AM
Luís Pereira’s comment is:
I think number 7 of the worst don’t diserve it :S It is nice, clean and the typo isn’t that wrong, don’t you think?
On Dec.28.2009 at 12:06 PM
Melissa Diane’s comment is:
“Wally Torta’s comment is:
If I were to form my opinion of graphic designers from this blog’s comments section, I would conclude that designers are narrow-minded, nitpicking, semi-literate, and very, very, angry. It’s the narrow-minded part that’s most discouraging. It’s a great big world out there: why limit your creativity with rigid notions of what a logo should or shouldn’t be?”
Ahhh… we are just passionate people.
Thanks for the article Brand New.
On Dec.28.2009 at 12:20 PM
johnny griswold’s comment is:
I’ll continue to visit BrandNew even though I completely disagree with a lot of the choices here, especially AOL. at #1 Best. Weird.
On Dec.28.2009 at 02:10 PM
Jeff Barlow’s comment is:
Martin, I think you make an excellent point about the MTV standing on its own even after the treatments are removed. Good call.
As for the everything-to-everyone. Yes, you and I both know that when clients saying this is a recipe for failure, but I may have misused this phrase in my post. It looks to me like Aol. is tryin to say “we touch lots of parts of lots of people’s lives.” In that I think the identity is very successful.
HOWEVER, the part I didn’t mention, since this is an identity blog, not a business-plan blog, is the idea that Aol. is trying to touch lots of parts of lots of people’s lives… Sounds to me like they can’t decide what to do so they’re trying to do it all. I’m guessing that they’re too big to go away, but to me this whole identity thing — as on target with their goals as it seems to be — is just a cry of desperation. Kind of like the Titanic advertising “we hold lots of people!” It’s an accurate statement, but after the iceberg incident it’s accuracy is a bit tragic.
Still, the new ID is a gutsy move. And I still believe it does it’s job well.
On Dec.28.2009 at 02:37 PM
Trent Blizzard’s comment is:
I agree that AOL’s new logo isn’t that great, especially when you think of their demographic - they aren’t targeting the tween’s and preschoolers who might appreciate the art.
But I do know how hard it is to find the right logo and to get a group to agree, it took our company several months and this is what we finally came up with http://newsletter.blizzardinternet.com/blizzard-internet-marketing-announces-new-logo/2009/08/17/
On Dec.28.2009 at 05:48 PM
elisa’s comment is:
Great post, I do agree with most in saying Aol. does not belong on the best list.
On Dec.28.2009 at 05:53 PM
Tom - Airopia’s comment is:
I didn’t known that Microsoft had a butterfly, lol. But, I haven’t used PC for years, windows sucks!
On Dec.28.2009 at 09:42 PM
dannyk’s comment is:
IMO, the M for melbourne make it looks like they’re a design company instead of a city. They look like wallpaper for your desktop, not a logo, and I imagine in small scale and in monochrome they just stay flat.
Also, Aol. tries to reaffirms everyone’s hope that soon Aol. will be just “.”
I prefer the old Yale just for the fact that they look very classically inspired. The new Yale looks exactly like the lock brand, Yale.
As for NYPL, what can I say, genius steals. Bravo.
Are there any other examples of old and new logo redesign on the web?
Great list!
On Dec.29.2009 at 03:17 AM
Steve R.’s comment is:
How bizarre that the new AOL logo even made it out of the original brainstorming session!
On Dec.29.2009 at 07:20 AM
John H’s comment is:
Pathetic.
I’m done with this site.
On Dec.29.2009 at 08:16 AM
Sawyer M.’s comment is:
I’m 10 years old and when they changed the Nickelodeon font they really screwed up because everyone knows that the splat is the symbol for Nickelodeon. Now it’s just like any other boring adult font that no one cares about.
On Dec.29.2009 at 08:56 AM
Santa Clara domestic violence lawyer’s comment is:
Wasn’t a huge fan of Banco or Fonts but I can see why they get the nod. The rest of the list is perfect. Great year, great list.
On Dec.29.2009 at 09:51 AM
TV Dinner’s comment is:
I think that AOL is a very cheap logo, sorry. meredith or new york public library should have been number ones.
also, killington, Linnéuniversitete and AGA are missing from the best :)
On Dec.29.2009 at 11:57 AM
Steven’s comment is:
AOL, sorry– Aol– is number 1 best redesign of ‘09? This has to be “tongue in cheek.” It is more of an illustration than a logo or symbol. And there is some relationship between the Aol and the Burnley design. And I agree with the writer who thought it funny and appropriate that Microsoft has the worst and second worst logo redesigns.
On Dec.29.2009 at 12:26 PM
mark w’s comment is:
This Best list is a pretty sad commentary either on the contemporary design business, or on the judges. Without getting all teary-eyed about some Lubalin-Bass-Rand golden era, I have been doing identity work for more than 30 years, and I (and my fellow local/regional trench designers) have produced dozens of designs that were better strategized, better imagined and better executed than virtually any of these. And done them for a few measly bucks. This list is a shockingly amateurish collection of laziness, sloppiness, waste and cowardice. Any professional designer of experience and competence reading this list has seen (and probably done) every one of these concepts better and cheaper. None of them would have made it off my sketchpad.
On Dec.29.2009 at 01:54 PM
Andriy Moraru’s comment is:
Disagree an almost all of them. Especially:
1. Old Yale’s was horrible.
2. New Melbourne’s and new AOL’s are horrible.
On Dec.29.2009 at 04:09 PM
JTR’s comment is:
I have a new one for the worst:
http://www.underconsideration.com/images/header_left.gif
On Dec.29.2009 at 08:05 PM
Alexander Greyling’s comment is:
@mark w’s
Ditto! I have identified this disease: Promiscuous Brand Creativity.
On Dec.30.2009 at 01:02 AM
Cezary’s comment is:
The Sci-fi new logo is very awkard, especially for an international brand. In Polish SyFy means simply “crap” and may influence the reception of the channel. (“Honey, what we get in the premium tv package? I don’t know… the leaflet says “crap”)
On Dec.30.2009 at 02:16 AM
Kamila - Darc Vanilla Design’s comment is:
I don’t find new Nickelodeon and Syfy logo well done. Nickelodeon just doesn’t feel ‘childish’ any more, and this ‘Syfy’ looks simply to plain. I don’t buy it.
On Dec.30.2009 at 03:39 AM
Peter’s comment is:
Hello. The new Melbourne design concept looks awesome!
On Dec.30.2009 at 04:06 AM
Mike’s comment is:
On the whole, this thing tends to underline something I’ve thought for a long time now.
People in this industry rarely seem to design purely for their clients. They seem to be always hoping for the next, or more likely first, industry award.
Most, of course, never get beyond explaining their ‘concept’ down at Starbucks.
On Dec.30.2009 at 06:02 AM
Realist’s comment is:
The Melbourne logo is rubbish for the very simple reason that out there in the real world of cheap printing, photocopying etc it will just blur out into an lumpy angular turd. No wonder they aren’t implementing it fully, they are no doubt already planing how to bury it. It’s a classic example of “so ugly only a graphic designer could like it”.
On Dec.30.2009 at 06:02 AM
Rabe’s comment is:
I love the clean style of the majority of the “best” ones. The Melbourne-logo is greaaaaaat. :)
On Dec.30.2009 at 06:36 AM
Autonomy’s comment is:
I don’t know about these conclusions but I was glad to see Xe/Blackwater included on the Worst of 2009!
On Dec.30.2009 at 08:35 AM
r’s comment is:
worthless dribble and criticisms - who cares what you think as most the sites and biz you rap on make billions in the real world market place - do you?
On Dec.30.2009 at 09:15 AM
Henric’s comment is:
Time to pick up the big saw…. well here are some thoughts.
Yale
Overlapping letters (well almost) have never been my cup of tea.., and the new one, I haven’t decided yet. but one thing is for sure, its easier to see/read it.
LendingTree
I have problem to see what it says at first. With the old logo to the left that is more readable. To long name for that font. Perhaps the old font and green…
Hilton Worldwide
I thought Paris destroyed that brand. But guest what?! They killed it once more with there new logo.
Art Directors Club
Lets go fashion 2000! and SUPERPINK!
Burnley
What is this? Did someone play with there new graphic suite?
Wisconsin
I agree with you TheMaster, perhaps they don’t want people to go there?
I really hope that the guy doing the handstand is living like he mean it! And don’t just do basic handstand… They have guards all around Wisconsin, they are watching over the tourists, to see if they are really living like they mean it! So no one decides to just take a ordinary walk.
BTW. I really hope that no one will ever believe that they can do a handstand, just if they go there… Perhaps you can sue them and gain a lot of money for it? Remember, this was my idea….
Kraft Foods.
The old one looks like a company that makes big ugly muscle machines.
And the new, well the red line is unbalanced and weird. Needs more space below and to the right of the S. And the crazy color fireworks just make me sick. Is that all the dye, and unnatural substances you but it the candy? Ok don’t know if you do… But if. The logo speaks for it self.
City of Philadelphia
Ring in the new year! Ring in Philadelphia! And ring out that butt ugly yellow color! I like the font, but the bell is just big and miss placed (and butt ugly yellow). It feels like it could fall some where. The logo is like a truck with no trailer, and feels that it will tip over…
Xe
eh… if you say so…. and what did you do?, again?
MSN
Remove that butterfly!!! It has never been good! And it will never be. And the new tiny font. Just makes it less interesting. The old MSN where more like Microsofts logo, not that I’m saying it’s good, but it’s recognizable.
Bing
I don’t like the “Intel orange blue thing”. And it feels a bit compressed.. But it grows better somehow…
My Little Pony
Where did that ”crazy happy child horse” feeling go?
Meredith Corporation
Nice with colors! And it speaks creativity.. The old one look like a industries with chimneys… And no media company should be a industry. Good work to go from that logo stamp. I feel happier with the new one.
Commerzbank
Just plane boring. BTW. Do a need a hazard-suite do open my safe?
El Banco Dueno.
What? Can someone please tell me why the HELL its so popular with splitting up words.
”We cant use a keyboard, and we always miss use the enter key. And we don’t know what to do with your money… How about to start with a new logo!?
To me it looks like a bunch of beans, just make a border around the letters, and TADA! We have a bean can!
Whats the name of the font. ElBeansType. Thats would be the last font you will ever use and think of when you make a bank logo!
If you go to the bank, please can you be my all time hero!.. Just go in there and order:
I would like some baked beans to go, please.
Guitar Hero
I like the old one, is more rock… The new one is more softer…, Hey look I have a ugly Guitar Hero leather jacket! and a none-rock plastic luckelele! and I can NOT! play guitar! Well I never like the game, Give me a real guitar and we can make some sweet rock!
SciFi
Hmm SyFy. Cool. I like them both. But I would stick to purple.
MyFonts
Great! The old one looks like a font program form 87.
Pfizer.
Pfizer would like more blue magic pills to the people!! Well, how about no! I don’t like pills. And I don’t like them better now. Take a walk (if your able to) and breath some fresh air instead… Pfizer, PPPFIIZZTEHERER, that’s when my brain malfunction and stops working and I can’t pronounce my own name right any more, Hmm perhaps the name came up when some old relative was asking for his Pills. Pil… Piff… Pzzzz. Pfizzzchcer!
New York Public Library
I like the old one, but I like the new one to. The old one feel more “Library of old books”…. and it would look great on a cuff button to. The new one has more identity and perhaps it will attract a bigger audience.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/11/09/nyregion/09nypllogos-cityroom/blogSpan.jpg
Nickelodeon
The Old one is way better. Perhaps the new font in the old splash.
City of Melbourne
Like the M but not the font. Feels more welcome with the old font. But as a City logo. Hmm not sure. Welcome to City 3000…
AOL
AOL is as dead as that ”black swirling ghost” behind the letters…
On Dec.30.2009 at 12:24 PM
Angie’s comment is:
I’m really not trying to hurt Wisconsin’s feelings, but I honestly think that it is hilariously executed. I can’t believe I missed it before. It looks to me like Bing tried harder than they did.
On Dec.30.2009 at 01:20 PM
Lingerie Corsets’s comment is:
Bing’s logo probably cost them a handsome amount of cash but after the many thousands that they possibly spent maybe this could have been created by a college kid in his breaktime on Microsoft’s very own word.
On Dec.30.2009 at 01:49 PM
John’s comment is:
It really is sad that Yale ditched a piece of history by changing their logo. But I do see the draw of the new logo as well. As for Nickelodean, I grew up on that channel and love the redesign.
Anyways, there are some great logos in here. But many of them are cliché. For example:
Pfizer? They just tilted the oval and added a gradient, making it more faddish and trendy than timeless. Just say no to web 2.0.
El Banco De Uno If you ask me, I would say that typeface is very stereotypical of Latin culture. Looks like it came from a Chevy’s menu.
myfonts Handwritten typeface may capture the appeal of “my” but it hardly representational of the large body of type available to designers.
Burnley This logo is only half finished. They need to scale it down another 300% and make it black and white, so it looks like a squiggle. Ditch the concentric angle. It doesn’t work.
Funny to finally see someone call out designers for scaling letter forms. Everyone who loves type should pick up “Stop Stealing Sheep & Find Out How Type Works.”
On Dec.30.2009 at 03:31 PM
Baxter Orr’s comment is:
I agree with most of these people about Aol. being #1. The City of Melbourne is outright progressive and innovative, clean but also inspiring, it should have definitely been #1. The My Fonts logo is one of the better “creative” logos I have seen in quite a while, I would have put it at #2.
On Dec.30.2009 at 04:27 PM
Shawn’s comment is:
Count me as another person surprised that you didn’t include pepsi on the ‘worst’ list or even acknowledge their redesign.
Other specific comments. The new Pfizer logo looks sloppy and careless to me. The blue clearspace around the wordmark is uneven. I like the concept, but the execution is bad. The old one is tighter.
I don’t understand what you like better about the new Guitar Hero logo. The negative space between the letters makes it nearly impossible to read for me.
As for El Banco Deuno, I don’t get it at all. The line breaks seem totally jarring to me and remind me of a logo I did for my sister’s line of crafts when I was about 15 (it was the word “pollywogs” on two lines, with a hyphen… ugh).
Finally, I would love to see your list of Identities that are in desperate need of a redesign. My #1 pick would be Verizon.
On Dec.30.2009 at 06:06 PM
Shawn’s comment is:
OK, one commenter pointed out that the pepsi and tropicana overhauls were done in ‘08. Is that right? I’m too lazy to check. What about Gatorade —> ‘G’ ? I hate that one.
On Dec.30.2009 at 06:17 PM
Nikhil Kuruganti’s comment is:
The list is really good apart from these i suggest that the following should have been added
1. Satyam- Mahendra Satyam: The story of the biggest corporate scandal in South Asia
2. DSP Meryll Lynch
3. Many of the European banks trying for the pan global identity
On Dec.31.2009 at 12:13 AM
Justin’s comment is:
Yale’s old logo flat out sucked. My cat could have done that.
On Dec.31.2009 at 09:38 AM
Dusty’s comment is:
I would have thought Tropicana’s new/old shitstain of a logo would have gotten worst identity… If your entire brand is forced to go back to the previous feel, the people who created it must really suck.
On Dec.31.2009 at 12:56 PM
christina’s comment is:
yeah, what about killington?
On Dec.31.2009 at 07:51 PM
Goran Ani?i?’s comment is:
Absolutely brilliant review of brand and logos, thanks.
On Jan.01.2010 at 08:06 AM
r4i’s comment is:
Hi Guy’s,
Surely there are worse logos around (you should see some from here in Weimar), but for sheer wannabe importance, Microsoft should have managed better. Spiekermann’s comments are on the nose, “Anonymous” remains chicken-shit anonymous.
On Jan.01.2010 at 11:57 PM
Adam’s comment is:
I’m pretty sure that we’d all come up with different answers if we sorted those brands into best/worst countdowns before we saw the Brand New results. Some of my answers would be in entirely different columns. Myfonts? Really?
On Jan.02.2010 at 11:28 AM
valentines day’s comment is:
Wisconsin … We’re more than cheese and beer … we’ve got fake woodgrain paneling, fiberglass drop ceilings, and bowling too!
On Jan.03.2010 at 02:45 AM
JR Salazar’s comment is:
These types of ratings are overrated anyway.
On Jan.03.2010 at 01:31 PM
Rob’s comment is:
I have to disagree with you about the AOL logo being good. Their last few customers will probably leave when they see it.If chaos is what they want their brand to communicate then I can see why it may be effective.AOL paid big bucks to get something that my four year old could produce. He is available if they want more logos.
On Jan.03.2010 at 06:14 PM
shiftklick’s comment is:
You have iconoclasts and classicist everywere. Be it art, music, politics, etc. Even the modernists were the iconoclasts in their day. Given the choice between traditional agencies doing the same old, same old and agencies willing to push the edge of what is possible, I’m with the iconoclasts any day. Good designers make trouble. Who said that?
On Jan.03.2010 at 09:10 PM
Alexander Greyling’s comment is:
@Trent Blizzard
It looks like you do not display posts that criticise your “Designed by Committee” logo. Why then bother inviting us to look and comment?
On Jan.03.2010 at 11:11 PM
jj’s comment is:
I just realized that Blimpie wasn’t on the worst list. It really could be the absolute worst of 2009. Such a missed opportunity. And sometimes non-designers say they could do what we do - in this case, however, they would be right.
On Jan.04.2010 at 01:45 AM
J’s comment is:
Adding “My Little Pony” to the best list, is the equivalent of giving the design community the middle finger.
At the end of the day there is time for everybody….The one thing that unifies the good guys is their sense of responsibility.
On Jan.05.2010 at 05:44 PM
Andy Malhan’s comment is:
While I too am surprised and a little disappointed by AOL being chosen as the best rebrand of 2009, i’m more surprised and very disappointed by the tone that the bulk of comments above seem to share.
This is Armin’s blog people, and therefore will naturally be representative of his opinion. I’d have expected a healthy debate to follow the choice of AOL, not the whiney and unprofessional drivel that has.
You don’t like a logo? Point out what’s wrong with it. But accusing Armin of ‘selling out’ because he chose it, is unfair and misguided at best.
I know we’re all better than this.
On Jan.05.2010 at 09:33 PM
Andy Malhan’s comment is:
Please replace the phrase ‘the bulk of’ with the phrase ‘many of’ in my post above.
On Jan.05.2010 at 09:36 PM
amr’s comment is:
AOL is trying to break boundaries. Which is good and refreshing.
On Jan.06.2010 at 01:02 PM
Roby Fitzhenry’s comment is:
I would prefer to judge a rebrand on a performance scale. To hell with our aesthetic opinions. Let’s base quality on results.
Don’t agree with the entire list but that won’t stop me from reading. Thanks for a wonderful 2009!
On Jan.06.2010 at 11:30 PM
Renata Gibson’s comment is:
i wasn’t really sure about the new melbourne logo. the “m” seemed a bit unconsistent for me, maybe a bit arbitrarious. but that only lasted until i saw the identity’s construction and applications. now i’m completely blown away.
loved the article - it’s really nice to see people feeling free to disagree with the author’s opinions and, even better, to see the author being honest enough to post different opinions from his own.
reminds us that nothing about design is absolut, definitive. there will always be the ones who like and dislike everything (what, regardless we like it or not, has a huge influence in the final results). after all, the spanish government has elected comic sans as an official font, right?…
thumbs up!
On Jan.07.2010 at 08:10 AM
dawn ’s comment is:
Just found your list and site. I appreciate your effort in putting this together. I don’t completely agree with the list (AOL, My Little Pony), but it was great to read everyone’s comments and your analysis. What about Jack in the Box?
I can’t wait for 2010 list.
On Jan.07.2010 at 10:04 AM
Hearing Aids’s comment is:
Think it’s spot on, and now that we’ve started the launch I’m wondering what sits ahead of.
On Jan.07.2010 at 01:59 PM
Tamiris Gomes’s comment is:
I totally agree with kraft foods logo. It´s really bad. But totally desagree with nickelodeon logo. The first one was much better.
On Jan.07.2010 at 02:42 PM
Nexus One acquista’s comment is:
Interesting, very interesting, I just hope I knew english better to understand 100%, Grazie Mille Ciao
On Jan.09.2010 at 04:23 PM
Cody Whitby’s comment is:
Avid reader, first comment. I just had to say this is the most disappointing post ever to grace this usually fantastic site. Good god.
On Jan.11.2010 at 09:30 AM
cchana’s comment is:
i agree with most, but not a big fan of AOL’s new look. i get the idea behind it, but it’s a bit like Channel 4 in the UK, but they’re execution in idents is amazing and AOL’s less so!
On Jan.12.2010 at 05:44 AM
Tyler Freeman’s comment is:
After recently acquiring a degree in graphic design, I have come to the conclusion that people that call them selves “designers” like to think of themselves as something other than a kid with a coloring book. Anyone with computer skills and an enthusiasm for art could do this job. It really takes no training. You guys attacked some of these logos for no reason other than to sound like you are “with it” or “in the know”. As if there is an exact science to this field. What is wrong the the Philadelphia logo? Maybe instead of the iconic liberty bell you would like a picture of rocky eating a cheese steak? give me break. And the bing logo? The only person that can actually tell something is fishy about the font, are the 1% of people that think that sort of thing actually matters. The same group of people that secretly wish they could have handled an engineering class in college. The city of Melbourne? All of those colors clash and the triangles are randomly placed. The bottom line is, Graphic design = A matter of opinion. Get over yourselves please.
On Jan.12.2010 at 11:26 AM
tomasz.’s comment is:
what a big old load o’crap. half the “Worst” ones are easily better than half the “Best” ones. that Melbourne one is a horrendous eyesore.
On Jan.12.2010 at 04:29 PM
seo houston tx’s comment is:
Great stuff as usual…
On Jan.13.2010 at 11:10 AM
Cait Mac’s comment is:
Great summary but seriously… Aol? Piece of crap, not even top 300. Yes to My Little Pony, Commerzbank, Guitar Hero and Melbourne. What were you on when you selected the rest of them. And you forgot the Tropicana FAIL? And praise for the Holiday Inn rebrand- http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/funky_script_takes_eternal_hol.php
Better luck in 2010. You lost some street cred with me but you get another 12 months to redeem yourself!
On Jan.13.2010 at 12:24 PM
Steve Collier’s comment is:
AOL Logo-All Outa Luck!
On Jan.13.2010 at 04:12 PM
meshfields blog’s comment is:
1.[…] MSN’s new logo is also up for discussion on the Blog. A recommended read for every Marketer or Visual Designer. […]
Pingback from http://www.meshfields.com/blog « on January 14, 2010
On Jan.13.2010 at 09:54 PM
Birgit’s comment is:
Always love your insightful considerations and your style of writing is really fun! Nice roundup.
On Jan.14.2010 at 04:11 PM
Handy’s comment is:
Nickelodeon is good choice but why kraft is one of the worst???
On Jan.17.2010 at 08:29 AM
Donesome’s comment is:
Just Awful, this Wisconsin tourism joke-of-a logo makes me not want to admit to be from there. On the bright side maybe no one will visit and Wisconsinites will have it all to themselves.
On Jan.18.2010 at 08:20 AM
Fully’s comment is:
The City of Melbourne identity is definitely the best. Understated, modern and extremely fluid in terms of adaptability.
On Jan.19.2010 at 02:31 AM
Robby!’s comment is:
Great selection! But i do not agree with you on the AOL work, neither the Bing! I really like Bing’s simplicity vs Google and Yahoo circus colors.
On Jan.19.2010 at 09:03 PM
Caleb’s comment is:
Syfy is an abomination, and the fact that it’s listed as a good change on this list voids any opinion you may have.
On Jan.20.2010 at 03:36 PM
Lychee’s comment is:
A 12 year old with GIMP could fart out AOL’s new logo in 10 minutes.
The Bing logo looks fine. I don’t see what’s so bad about it. Not the most exciting or expressive, but absolutely not deserving of Worst of 09 title.
El Banco Deuno logo is unfitting for a bank. Cute fat letters don’t reflect the properties you’d want to see in a bank. You want your banks to be professional and secure, not “fun”.
On Jan.21.2010 at 05:15 PM
ko’s comment is:
The bing logo: my initial reaktion was “Hate the typography love the orange dot” but it kind of grew on me and now I like it because it’s quite suitable for purpose, simple and unobtrusive, fits with bing’s page design and identifies the search box when embedded in other sites without distracting too much.
I think part of people’s initial reaction (including mine) is it’s like a foreign object since we are so conditioned to Google and Yahoo … at first I kept calling it “Bling”, which might have been a better name “Bling-Bling, baby”.
Let’s see how it evolves
On Jan.22.2010 at 12:38 PM
ko’s comment is:
Make-overs: the only one with merit is Guitar Hero, excellent respin that simlifies and strengthens the design. The rest are very boring and predictable; worst is City of Melbourne which went from boring and forgettable to annoying, reminds me of the CCTV building in Beijing, a blight on the landscape.
On Jan.22.2010 at 12:58 PM
A.Shedd’s comment is:
Didn’t think these examples were especially noteworthy; I disagree with many choices. True, many of the corporate identities chosen will be high impact creative, but the curation seems to be too heavily weighted in that regard. In short, few of these were really terrific…
On Jan.22.2010 at 11:25 PM
Luke’s comment is:
The refusal to comment on Blackwater’s logo was a meaningless exercise in self-aggrandizement and moral relativism.
On Jan.23.2010 at 10:25 PM
RM’s comment is:
Well, ‘A Real Black Person’ calls everyone dummies, and that ‘Alexander’ dude calls that guy sloppy and ignorant. Nothing quite like discussing logos and design to cause people to insult posters for no really good reason at all. Gotta love the internetz.
But back to these identities…
Wow, really? Bing?
Really not getting how Bing took first place of the absolute worst. Considering that Blackwater/Xe, El Banco Dueno and that Lending Tree work.
Especially the El Banco Dueno. I mean, the logo itself is not completely awful, but this is BANK? Can I walk in and get a taco at this bank? Some nachos perhaps?? Cause honestly, before I ever read the reviewer’s comments about the logo, when I first laid eyes on it I was thinking that I could go for Mexican. Seriously, it makes me think immediately of El Pollo Loco, or some such place. I don’t know why, my brain just automatically assumed that logo had something to do with Mexican food.
Nothing about that logo inspires confidence in regards to my money.
On Jan.24.2010 at 07:31 PM
Elizabeth ’s comment is:
Woah. Totally agree on your takes for the worst … but mostly NOT on the best. Just a general comment, I think a lot of the “modern” logos are losing detail, distinction and class. Quite frankly, I’m a bit tired of this overly simplistic look that - it seems to me - appear in virtually every logo makeover. Looking for more personality!
On Jan.26.2010 at 06:41 PM
John Morgan’s comment is:
awesome post
On Jan.27.2010 at 10:59 AM
Darby Vanwingerden’s comment is:
Awesome blog post, thanks for keeping me busy!
On Jan.29.2010 at 09:40 PM
Chicago Web Designer’s comment is:
I’m surprised by how bad Hilton’s new logo looked.
What were they thinking????
On Feb.05.2010 at 10:49 PM
backlink strategies’s comment is:
great ideas. I always follow your ideas and apply them.
On Feb.23.2010 at 08:25 AM
Playgadgets’s comment is:
Oh yeah. Great article guy’s
On Feb.23.2010 at 01:11 PM
ezflash’s comment is:
I can say it was one of my favourite posts.I enjoyed it a lot.I also shared it with my friends.They appreciated it a lot.
On Mar.04.2010 at 07:39 AM
Dan’s comment is:
Aol? Are you crazy, man?
On Mar.11.2010 at 03:35 PM
Matt’s comment is:
Looks like AOL is taking a beating…and rightfully so. That logo is just scary.
On Mar.16.2010 at 11:57 AM
Chicago Internet Marketing’s comment is:
Like many other comments already mentioned, I simply don’t understand AOL’s design concept, re-design or re-branding can be a good thing to keep the business updated to the current trend. However, it must be be done properly, AOL now just give us a really bad example.
On Mar.17.2010 at 09:24 PM
Ade’s comment is:
Not quite sure how you can fully critique an identity by a logo. For me though, the Wolff Olins logo concept is simply a regurgitation of the same predictable ideas from years gone by. Look a bit deeper and visit the AOL website and you’ll soon discover that the implementation of the logo takes a back seat on a very uninspiring website design. Not a worthy winner in my view.
On Mar.18.2010 at 12:22 PM
Chicago Massage Spa’s comment is:
As a business owner, I think branding should be the most important issue beside operation and profit. A successful Branding management helps the clients to identify a business from the crowd of all the competitors. I really don’t understand some of the above identities changes, waste of marketing budget.
On Mar.27.2010 at 10:52 AM
Edzel’s comment is:
This is just lame…AOL’s logo is such a waste of money…well it’s because I think the designer or design agency who did this focus much on the marketing strategy on how they can please AOL to buy the logo and not on the part where they need to help AOL, sell the logo to the consumer…Just try printing this logo in a bag or maybe something smaller like a fabric wallet and see the result for yourself. :) I hope it will not bite you…It’s more of a SAW logo rather than a brand identity for a corporation.
On Apr.01.2010 at 11:44 PM
marcie’s comment is:
Although I don’t think the Aol. logo deserved the top spot of best identity of ‘09, I still think it works in the modern world of its new more youthful target audience. Plus, it’s definitely an in-your-face attention getter. It was a bold move away from the staid and predictable, and I think it works.
What I DON’T like is its ever shape-shifting background on the website. They should just have stuck with the logo as it was presented here!
On May.03.2010 at 11:19 AM
Jonny’s comment is:
Agree with most, Pfizer is an interesting one, the slight turn of the arc is great, but the little highlight isn’t for me.
Changes like myFonts are going to of obvious benefit in years to come, but I wonder what the gross outlay is for all of these changes.
In a world that isn’t in great shape financially, some of them seem quite brave (or stupid)!
Bing is just horrid, but not as horrid as Google, and I guess a terrible logotype never did them any harm.
On May.04.2010 at 06:17 AM
Dwayne’s comment is:
The Hilton logo really could have been better by just using a solid color. I do like the shape and use of the icon though.
On May.14.2010 at 03:21 AM
myspace glitter graphics’s comment is:
Nice posting from the author! The information are well said. After reading this, you would ask yourself if you write personal statement effectively. Next time simply follow what the author suggests and add your personal touch on it.
On Jun.09.2010 at 03:20 AM
ipad killer’s comment is:
I disagree with the Yale logo being the worst. I think it’s so much better!
On Jun.11.2010 at 12:56 PM
Hal Elvis’s comment is:
exiting, watching first match, so excited
On Jun.12.2010 at 06:02 AM
Ste’s comment is:
I always seem to struggle with fonts when it comes to logos, i can never get them quite a sharp as it looks on here.
Nice post anyway.
Ste
On Jun.14.2010 at 07:23 AM
Rob’s comment is:
Worth checking out…Results just in
The Best Brands in Sheffield, 2010
Over the last six months Web Branding has been exploring the various branding methods utilised in Sheffield in order to find Sheffield’s best brands.
The competition was open to Businesses, Local Authorities and any organisation with a significant branding presence in the city. Over 100 local brands have been judged.
All Organisations have been scored on a number of areas including Web Presence, Brand Recognition and Branding Design.
Link to the Site:
http://www.webbranding.co.uk/bestBrands/2010/sheffieldsBestBrands2010.asp
Or check out the Video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5fztGbtiVo
video resolution goes up to 1080p HD
Enjoy..
On Jul.02.2010 at 06:51 AM
Mike ’s comment is:
Honoring “Syfy”, by underconsideration.com is nothing more than riddiculus lapsus. Check out what this means in polish language http://sjp.pwn.pl/szukaj/syf. Syfy is just plural form.
What a shame. Reminds me of Ford Caliente & Mitsubishi Pajero.
On Jul.23.2010 at 07:27 AM
Discussing, and looking for, what is relevant in, and the relevance of, graphic design. [Archives Only]
Corraling the most relevant and creative on- and off-line bits that pertain to the design community — and said community is openly invited and encouraged to add their hard-earned links.
Encouraging creative diversity in the community through monthly, one-word challenges.
Celebrating the reality that print is not dead by showcasing the most compelling printed projects.
Describing, tracking and explaining culture, commerce, politics, media, sports, brands — everything possible, really — through design.
Designing corporate and brand identities and full development of printed and digital matter for clients and us.