BY David Weinberger

What’s Old is New

I’m not sure exactly when this happened, but Old Navy has a new mark. No press releases, no launch events, no announcements. I actually couldn’t find anything anywhere, although I didn’t try calling anyone. Old Navy simply updated their mark. They have refined the oval and changed the typography. Nice.

I imagine they’ll still just use the type on signs and other applications.

The logo currently up on their site uses an animated metallic sheen.

DATE: Nov.27.2006CATEGORY: Retailers 42 COMMENTS

HDSGNWRKS’s comment is:

I dont understand the V & Y connecting. The previous logo looks much better and doesnt have that bloated oval feel.

On Nov.27.2006 at 08:53 AM

Paul D’s comment is:

A funny thing about the new logo is that the top and bottom of the outer shape anti-alias really poorly on websites. :)

On Nov.27.2006 at 08:54 AM

Tyler’s comment is:

The new font looks much better, and the kerning is excellent. I'm not sure I like the new oval as much, as it doesn't seem to do well in low resolution situations like the sample above. I'm sure it looks great in print though.

All in all its a nice little refresh to their logo that maintains the existing brand.

On Nov.27.2006 at 08:54 AM

Josh Pigford’s comment is:

Well if that animated metallic "shine" isn't the cheesiest, most annoying thing I've seen in a while...

On Nov.27.2006 at 09:21 AM

DC1974’s comment is:

I think the kerning is horrible. It looks more modern (the old logo wasn't great). But that V-Y and the space between the O-L is driving me crazy. Even the A-V seems a little wide to me. I actually have to stop looking at it.

On Nov.27.2006 at 10:15 AM

Josh B’s comment is:

Yeah, I noticed this too, in the most recent TV spots. Thought I was just imagining things. That might be because the oval was treated with a sort of stampy, distressed texture, and I thought it might be that texture throwing me off.

It could be that they plan to always (or often) treat the oval somehow, which might account for the current "metallic" look on the website now.

This new mark does feel better to me though. The old one always had a made-in-Powerpoint quality that irked me.

On Nov.27.2006 at 10:19 AM

Kosal Sen’s comment is:

I prefer the old logo. The kerning within the new NAV is distracting. Maybe it's just poor choice of the letterforms. At least in the old one it looked like it was supposed to be slightly unpolished, as an old navy should be.

On Nov.27.2006 at 10:19 AM

agrayspace’s comment is:

As others have said, the new bloated oval renders terribly. The type is good enough as the condensed version previously was not great.

The metal treatment is the worst. Right outta MS WordArt.

I love how everyone just resigns the fact that things don't always render well from vector to low res bitmap. Like thats just the way things are. These things can and should be fixed. We are not supposed to just exept them.

On Nov.27.2006 at 10:32 AM

Paul Riehle’s comment is:

Yeah I noticed the change about 3 or so months ago on a commercial. I do agree the VY is a odd choice considering the rest of the type.

On Nov.27.2006 at 11:36 AM

maria’s comment is:

Besides kerning, the logo is a bit more contemporary, but is the brand about contemporary aesthetics or timeless ideas? The name OLD NAVY would point to a vintage charged identity... I have always found a disconnection here.

On Nov.27.2006 at 02:20 PM

Von K’s comment is:

Maria,

I agree the logo doesn't conjure an "old" feeling, but my interpretation was the brand is about the mixture of contemporary and timeless ideals.

IE: relatively nice clothes at a relatively nice price.

Who knows who's right, though. No press release...

I like the new font better—it's got a hardier, more balanced feel, but that kerning is pretty wack. I can't be sure, but the type in the oval seems to be differently kerned than the type-on-white version.

The "VY" is odd, especially since joining forms would normally be in an effort to even out the spacing, which doesn't seem to have gotten much attention anywhere else.

The oval is shaped wrong. It doesn't work on-screen. No two ways about it.

On Nov.27.2006 at 03:22 PM

fatknuckle’s comment is:

Wow. That thing is a wreck.

The typography is a case study in improper kerning of letters. Ligature the vy? why?

And that oval is so ill proportioned its tough to look at.

The lock up is all wrong as well, the typeface (futura ex bold I presume) drags that oval and visually twists it into a shapeless blob.

The old one had the sense of fairly good proportions at the very least.

On Nov.27.2006 at 04:12 PM

Loren’s comment is:

I think it's a good improvement. the kerning is fine to me except I think the AV are too close together.

The old oval was better.

On Nov.27.2006 at 05:08 PM

Mr One-Hundred’s comment is:

The kerning is fine to me except I think the AV are too close together.

hmmmm...

Wouldn’t that mean that you don’t like the kerning?

I think this update is one after another pointless solutions looking for problems.

On Nov.27.2006 at 05:47 PM

Mr One-Hundred’s comment is:

...perhaps I will retract that personal comment and focus on critisising the new mark – Lord knows it needs it.

Apologies, Loren.

(My new personal credo, regarding blogs, is to stick to the subject and avoid commenting on the comments)

On Nov.27.2006 at 07:40 PM

Jeff Miller’s comment is:

The old oval needed to go, I'm OK w/ the new one.

As someone who takes vector art logos and rasterizes them all day long, I feel the poor anti-aliasing in this example isn't an inherent problem in the oval but instead an image that has been upsized or downsized once too many times.

Somebody kill that metallic version, though. Ugh, terribly.

I think the kerning is spot on and I would do exactly the same.

On Nov.27.2006 at 09:37 PM

Von Glitschka’s comment is:

The old mark I just read the type. Never thought about the oval. The new mark I now try to read the oval shape and all I can see is a 'Pickle'.

On Nov.27.2006 at 11:58 PM

AL’s comment is:

I agree that kerning is horrible with AV too tight and that the new oval shape is confusing.

On Nov.28.2006 at 08:25 AM

Michael J. Young’s comment is:

I personally really like the new shape, it gives it more character. It's not as streamlined as the old oval, but I think that may be the point.

David, where did you get the image of the new logo? Could it be that this version is intended for smaller sizes and TV spots, and they have another version with different kerning for larger applications? Because it looks to me like the kerning is designed for small logo applications.

On Nov.28.2006 at 02:32 PM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

No one has mentioned the face -Gotham Black which has only one slight modification; the D has been thinned.

While I do like Gotham Black better than Futura Condensed Bold I prefer the old mark to the new. Could be a historical thing.

On Nov.28.2006 at 02:41 PM

stock_illustration’s comment is:

AV are too close. I don't mind the new font choice, but the kerning is awful. I'm not fond of either oval...this still needs work, IMO. Would love to know what this cost.

On Nov.28.2006 at 02:52 PM

Mary’s comment is:

I'm not sure about this new shape. I agree w/Von about not being able to get past the shape to see the words. The old logo was more about the words.
And the VY connection? I am not liking that one bit. I know they were trying to get rid of the strange negative space that the VY makes when next to one another, but I don't think that was the solution. I also agree that the AV is too tightly kerned. The mark is so unbalanced that OLD looks fairly spacey and then NAVY (especially the AVY) is a big blob.

It is almost as if they were just itching for change but not able to commit to something more drastic.

On Nov.28.2006 at 02:56 PM

yi’s comment is:

The new oval looks broken. To me, it keeps appearing like a weird optical illusuion... is it an oval or a pregnant rectangle? But it doesn't matter, I don't care how many times they revise it. I think this brand has successfully captured and owned the type-in-oval treatment anyway. We don't need big press releases for this. Subtlety is key. Although, I would love to see it contained in a pickle like Von G said.

On Nov.28.2006 at 03:20 PM

David Weinberger’s comment is:

I had an EPS and made a GIF. The raster version is my fault as I am not the sharpest Photoshop user out there.

On Nov.28.2006 at 04:46 PM

Jeff Andrews’s comment is:

I noticed the change a while back standing in an Old Navy store waiting for my wife. The only thing more distracting than that odd shaped oval is that tension filled "AV". What a mess!

Old Navy designers had fun with that shape in the new holiday ephemera however. Looks like a submarine to me.

On Nov.29.2006 at 01:22 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

Kerning on the AV is really freaking tight. Ouch. It's just a matter of personal space, and that V is totally cramped. A is inching up on him to steal his wallet, while Y is holding his arm up for some reason.

The font choice is good, though, and I like the new oval shape; it's more unique than the old one.

On Nov.29.2006 at 01:26 PM

Ben’s comment is:

The kerning is so bizarre. It's like they were hand-lettering it and started to run out of room in the (ugly-shaped) logo.

On Nov.29.2006 at 07:14 PM

Marcel’s comment is:

Very scary kerning

On Nov.30.2006 at 02:04 PM

Blake’s comment is:

While I actually like the new logo, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to change. Never had a problem with the old one...

On Dec.02.2006 at 08:10 PM

Eddie G’s comment is:

I like the font, but the problems with "NAVY" may necessitate a different type face (except that the connection of the V-Y looks like the designer was trying to do something funky). But the font, IMHO, conveys a message of connection between the old and the modern.

Sadly, the only image of the logo I found on the website was that flash image. The flash also distorts the image if they did not take into account a lot of factors when they published it.

On Dec.04.2006 at 05:03 PM

Jules’s comment is:

The old logo looked dated, hence the name OLD Navy? It was fine the way it was. Wonder how many hours were spent on the unnecessary tweeking.

On Dec.05.2006 at 11:08 AM

Atomic Beaver’s comment is:

What do I care about OLD NAVY's logo? Yay, it's metallic.

On Dec.06.2006 at 01:35 PM

dubelclique’s comment is:

i agree, the kerning is weird. the only thing i can guess is that they're trying to imply a ship's sail with that negative space between the v and the y (a la the fed ex arrow).

not that an actual sail has anything to do with old navy, but it sure beats "well, we kerned it weird." it's a stretch, though...

On Dec.14.2006 at 02:36 PM

Mark’s comment is:

The new type is okay I guess but the unnecessary connection between the "V" and the "Y" is bugging me.

The oval looks like a mess completely uneven.]

looks completely hand drawn.

On Dec.17.2006 at 01:16 AM

amy’s comment is:

I luv old navy but ur sit is not working

On Dec.21.2006 at 08:02 PM

Jess’s comment is:

Boy...such a huge change. Should have stayed where they were. I also agree with some of the comments directed at the horrific kerning of the typography. I would find it hard to believe that someone was actually paid to do this.

On Jan.12.2007 at 06:42 PM

AndyB’s comment is:

The only reason to cheer for the new shape is that the O feels more comfortable in it's space. The old oval pinched the O a bit. Still, it is a graphic atrocity.

On Jan.19.2007 at 01:24 AM

Mark’s comment is:

Um,yeah what happened to the expression, "old school"?

Wasn't that the whole point of Old Navy

On Jan.19.2007 at 09:26 AM

mariana’s comment is:

hey dude you are cool i like your clothe

On Jul.28.2008 at 08:56 PM

nick’s comment is:

yo41BS hi! hice site!

On Jul.28.2008 at 09:37 PM

pu’s comment is:

new oval is nice. new typography is gross. AVY looks so squashed. eww

On Feb.13.2009 at 01:25 AM

Chicago auto insurance’s comment is:

I'll agree with a few of the posts above that it was a solution looking for a problem and not much more. No one cared before they changed it and now people don't like it.

On Oct.08.2009 at 02:24 PM