Actually, this redesign is not nearly as bad as some of the others you’ve shown - it least it still is simple in its graphic impact. Like you, though, I don’t see the point in ditching the old one.

People might not care about slick corporate makeovers, but it definitely doesn’t hurt when it is done well and when there has been a true shift in the corporation itself. If corporate makeovers and the such were dependent on whether the consumer actually cared, I don’t think it would be called branding. The changes don’t even necessarily need to be overtly noticed. It could be a subtle change that represents the company more appropriately for years to come.

The whole “out of the box” speak from Kodak is just embarrassing. I think even the most out of touch consumer has to know that is the most played out cliche of our day.

The logo doesn’t do anything for me either. The new logo actually looks like it could be the “before” shot.

It remains to be seen if Kodak can survive the digital reformation, but it is going to take more than a new logo. I didn’t know that it was really a question if Kodak would survive. They are making some great digital cameras, and I think they are making some needed changes. I know they are restructuring, since less people are developing film, but I would imagine that they are still one of the top camera manufacturers in the world. Am I wrong?

“…they are still one of the top camera manufacturers in the world.” Kodak’s fortune has been built on film, not camera innovation. Digital has forced more than just a simple restructuring, Kodak has been forced to reinvent itself now that the market that it dominated has all but disappeared. I think that “survival” is a fair analysis of their situation. In Kodak’s favor is the fact that unlike a company that has made mistakes (like Quark) Kodak still has a huge value in their brand. Being forced to reinvent your company is a very legitimate reason to redesign your logo. That is why I think the redesign is more strategic than just “different for the sake of being different” as mamachristy suggests. They have good reasons to tweak their brand… somebody should tell that to their Director of Brand Management.

FYI, the yellow stripes are not actually part of the logo. Yes, Kodak put them there in the press release, but according to the team at Ogilvy’s Brand Integration Group (that designed the logo), the stripes aren’t part of the logo.

Ignoring the graphic execution, this is an amazing job. Kodak really is in a fight for survival. They’re doing a good job of reorganizing and altering their business to fit the times. Not such an easy task. They recognized that the old logo simply had too much baggage. Tradition is exactly what they need to lose. Tradition is gone and not a sustainable business for them any longer. We haven’t seen any of the new visuals that will surround this mark, so it’s tough to make an overall assessment of how this will turn out, but I think it’s a great move.

I feel the logo growing on me. It is probably a mix of knowing the yellow bars aren’t part of the logo and that BIG did it. I know that shouldn’t cloud my judgment, but I just can’t help it. I admire the days when a simple Bauhaus style “abc” or a very direct logo and identity like Conoco were bought and sold by the famous and powerful. It is impressive that BIG was able to sell this mark to Kodak. I still can’t help to think that there was a more subtle change to refresh this brand. So much equity.

There has been a lot of criticism of that “a” over on Speak Up. It does seem weird, but it also adds some unique quality to the mark. Someone also pointed out that the “a” on the old mark stood out as well.

The lines are a mistake on the press release. They shouldn’t even be an issue.

This logo is old-school modern. At the very least it is a nice contrast to the InterFutureBand stuff we have been seeing.

Im right now doing a rebranding of Polaroid(at universe)and find this subject very very interesting. I agree with you about the relevans in the legibility of the brand name Polaroid. Nowdays Polaroids logotypes constancy is in their colors. I think it is time for a change. Sure enough Polaroids name is too strong to change, perhaps add a catchphrase. But I think the logo can be changed since colors today dont really say anything in the industry of photography. I also wonder how much the digital format has destroyed Polaroids “instant and now” patented products.

Please give me feedback. I would really appreciate any kind of criticism as long as it is constructive.

Freddie,

For some reason I am having trouble believing that you are really responsible for rebranding Polaroid, but here is some advice nevertheless:

You are right that you can’t change the name “Polaroid,” but I cringe when you say “add a catchphrase.” There isn’t a catchphrase in the world that can compete with the value of the world “Polaroid.” Rather than slapping meaningless jargon onto the company name, a rebranding effort should focus on simplifying things.

“I also wonder how much the digital format has destroyed Polaroids “instant and now” patented products.” I use Polaroids more now than I ever did before digital, but I am obviously the exception. Digital hasn’t destroyed the product (they still work great), but you probably meant the destruction of Polaroid’s reputation for innovative products. Yes, people wouldn’t expect digital innovation to come from a company known for instant film. It is going to take more than a logo to change that perception.

Hopefully Polaroid has given you some information about the direction they are trying to take the company. Surely they aren’t abandoning instant film. I find most of the old design from Polaroid to be very inspiring. If you haven’t seen this site, check it out: The Branding of Polaroid (I talk about it here.) Perhaps you could use some of the great design of the past in the rebranding efforts. It would be nice to see a company embrace their history rather than trying to rebuild from scratch.

“University” Ahhh. Now I get it. I like your attitude of learning. That is how I feel, too.

sirschy-> “It is likely, however, that Kodak fans will still be able to spot it on store shelves. But will it attract Fuji or Agfa loyalists?”

To attract other groups the logo is not that important. Its of course their coorporate image but if they have a working packaging design they will be seen.

After talking to Bennett, Paul and Kyle, I feel obliged to voice my opinion on this matter. I know that this is an old blog discussion but it has been nagging me ever since I first read it in January. I have been an outsider looking in for a few months not quite sure what to say on some matters, but I assure you, I have something to say on this. My mother-in-law stored her old Kodak camera in the upstairs bedroom of the family’s old farmhouse. Ironically, my husband stumbled upon it at about the same time as this discussion was first posted. I just wanted you all to know, that approximately 30 years ago, the logo was very similar to what they are now calling their new identity. Simple block letters (most likely a GeoSlab or Clarendon typeface) adorn the case as well as the camera. I realize that the new logo now has a bauhaus type font applied, but take away the serifs on the old typeface and bingo, there you have the new look. It’s nothing new nor refreshing…just same old Kodak.

The evolution of company logos is inevitable. As companies grow their outlook on their position in the world changes. With these changes comes a need to re-create the visual that people use to identify them. If companies never redesigned their logos, design it’s self would never grow. Not to mention one little fact, designers like us thrive because companies like to change their look. As the world marches on, fashions change, technology changes, and that requires companies and their logos to change.