4 Famous Re-branding Logo Problems and how to fix them.
Disclaimer: This Post is Pretentious. Its goal is to promote design thoughts.
Following the latest changes in the Uber logo, I decided to go over some famous cases and find the key design problems. I also suggest four possible solutions to each problem. I realize this is pretentious but I found that some of my thoughts were shared with the online community. So I can assume that they have some truth behind them.
The branding process is a long complex one. Branding doesn’t mean only redesigning the logo color and shapes, but rethinking the brand values and goals as well. The goal isn't always to preserve the current look and feel of the product, and most of the times that’s enough to irritate users. However my goal is to look at these cases objectively and see if design wise there is anything wrong. A good index for this can be Paul rand’s rules for a good logo.
Since I’m a designer, I like to solve problems. I suggest solutions to these design issues. Its clear that no big process such as this could be “solved” in a matter of hours. I am also aware these cases are not accidents and have a lot of wisdom and talent behind them. I think that’s clear enough.
1. Airbnb
is it just me?
Airbnb made a radical re-branding in 2014, and the twitter trembled…
The problem people had was with the company’s new logo. The flat ambiguous form was a puzzle. It triggered, together with the skin-toned color, a variety of sexual connotations. The main problem was the icon, which wasn’t iconic at all, at least not in the way it was intended. Because it wasn’t identified with anything. The logo was supposed to be a combination of the letter A, the location symbol a heart etc. Instead, acting as a Rorschach ink test, it demanded peoples imagination, and they tend to have a dirty mind. Actually the mind is not dirty, It is the key to the problem. Gestalt is what we have to consider when designing anything. Allways ask what do your users see when seeing the logo. Even if its obivous to you.
I used the negative space and silhouette to form a flat A containing the location, and person in it. Sure, Its not as nice as the current icon. However, now that the icon resembles something, it has less potential to be misunderstood (At least in my mind).
So how did Airbnb deal with the backlash(design wise)?
An answer to that can be found in the app icons for android and ios.
Notice the shading giving your mind a clue to seeing a line or a link and not genitalia.
2. Google
Playing it safe.
You can read more on google’s design process here.
It seems the main goal of Google’s re-branding was designing a new modular brand that would fit the large corporation body it became.
It basically worked. What I found wrong is that it seemed like it sacrificed too much character of the old logo in the process.
Some of the comments said something about the seriousness of the brand and the childishness feel. which I found odd since the brand had a similar logo since the company’s establishment. So you could say it did manage to keep some of the brands character(look at the “e” for example).
I found the efforts made a large sacrifice and the danger of that is making a generic logo. It is a very common mistake within big brands to try to make the brand appealing to wider extent and while doing so — end up looking more of the same. The comparison to the Futura font means it looks alot like any other sanserif logotypes. Take Gal Shir’s comparison of the logo to Microsoft one’s, and ask if its distinctive? (Paul Rand’s #1 rule).
Looking at pictures like this made me even more confused. Since the design team obviously created lots of versions using the (unique) lowercase letter g instead of the (dull)capital G. it would have been great if they chose a simple approach like Logitech’s new lowercase g, but thats just water under the bridge.
So my final proposition is insisting on shortening the G, at least that would give it some distntiction. I realize that the long handle on the G might have to to with the adaptive qualities of the logotype. smaller size G like Google ventures awsome logo, or G+ icon demanded a visible G. Which is harder to read with a shorter crossbar. I still think this would have worked best, mainly because of its main uses — as an icon or the new Search icon and so on.
3. Medium
Its a bird? It’s a plane?
On the other side of the spectrum, Medium.com seemed to put its main goal into being a distinctive one-of-a-kind logo.
Nothing resembles it, but the downside is: it does not resemble anything either. The geometric shapes and neon colors are unique(at least when it came out).
The biggest fault here is readability. Breaking Paul rand’s #2 rule the logo Isn’t visible. The low contrast along with its funny perspective makes a flat unrecognizable shape.
Personally I don’t see a connection to the product at all.
So if you ask me, a nice solution to this would be:
Since that isn't an option, I arrived to a simple solution of marking the M letter via the silhouette. I arrived to this answer quite spontaneously, and even found others to think the same. Another option would be to change either the outside siloutte, or the godamned color palette.
4. Uber
I don’t remember you
The last few days had Uber showing off a massive re-branding. The logotype was OK, but the new app icons made a bit of a mess. Looking more like Chinese cooperate icons than specifically — Uber’s.
The icon is not recognizable in any way with uber. The drastic design change is something that happened in all four cases mentioned. The user looking for the app icon(or google search) had an awful moment where he cant find it. That’s why a good brand lasts years with minimal changes. Like twitter’s bird or mcdonalds M. I think the main issue designers have with the Uber icons is they don’t see a connection to the product. unlike the old U, the new icon is not memorable.
The truth is, I didn't know exactly where to start. You can redesign the icon in so many ways, to try to connect it to transit, or the old logo. Since I like typography I tried to make the current icon resemble the iconic capital U letter in the previous versions. Its far from perfect, but it made me realize that the current icon was too general and simple. And I mean simple -not in a good way. So something is missing there. I am not sure I fixed it there but maybe I stressed the problem.
In conclusion
Learn from the best. Both in what works and both in whats wrong. Seeing these design processes can teach a lot. Here is a good one. I highly recommend following this blog brand new for more processes like these.
Don’t forget to ask yourself what does work in “good” re-branding.
Tell me what you think in the comments…
