Quark Logo, Take 2
by Nate Voss, (15 comments)
This is from Bennett’s last comment on Change Is Good? I checked my calendar and April Fool’s Day isn’t for another 10 days, so… yeah.
« My Typographic Reeducation: Part 2 of 11 | Main | What Took So McLong? »
Sponsored by:
 |
|
 |
Make sure you understand our COMMENT POLICY before you comment. If you haven't left a comment here before, your comment may need to be approved before it will be published. Once it has been approved, it will appear on this entry. Thanks for waiting.
Comments (15)
DC1974 said:
Somebody somewhere else (ad/design goodness, mayhaps?) mentioned that the new logo looks like Sony Ericsson’s. Nice job Quark! (Personally, although the feedback is horrible, changing it again in 6 months just seems really, really sloppy. Like, “We don’t know who we are, but we are willing to suggestions!”)
Posted on March 21, 2006
Travis said:
I also hate the fact that the “Q” of the Quark logo and the “Q” of QuarkXpress are different….shouldn’t it be the same if the font is so similar?
Posted on March 21, 2006
Bennett said:
It looks like Quark will have to scrap a good deal of their trade show materials Maybe they can sell the giant “Q”s to the Scotish Arts Council or to one of the many other companies with the same mark.
Posted on March 21, 2006
Nate Voss said:
If they put that on Ebay it’s mine!
Posted on March 21, 2006
Kyle said:
You’ve got to be kidding. Another logo change, so soon? That’s just not right (for all the reasons already mentioned).
Posted on March 21, 2006
Bennett said:
Mike Miller just commented on the old Quark logo post, about the new logo looking similar to Monster.com’s. While the new Quark logo does share some traits with Monster and Sony Ericsson, that is to be expected. You could find similarities in almost any new logo. It think we are trying a little too hard to find a similar logo. If it has a twin out there, these aren’t it.
I don’t think the new logo is spectacular, but it either shows that they finally care what we as designers think or that they are really desperate (maybe a combination). To me, it is a sign of weakness.
There is an interesting article on Creative Pro about the new logo. It also shows an enlarged version of the logo, which answers my question about what the funny little white speck in the top left bevel is. From the look of the larger logo, it looks like a lens flare of sorts. Seeing the new logo in all of its beveled, gleaming, drop shadow glory, makes me like it even less. I think they applied every trick in the book. Of course, when I scroll along my dock, I am hard pressed to find a software company that doesn’t.
Posted on March 21, 2006
Bennett said:
Not that I ever plan on having Quark on my computer again, but I wanted to see what it would look like if you put this logo in the dock with the rest of them.
Posted on March 21, 2006
Jake said:
I really don’t think they had much choice but to listen to the people who are the bulk of their sales. It’s ashame that the new logo doesn’t seem to step up the way it needed to. I think they stumbled and they tried to stand up too soon.
It would be very interesting if the old new logo stuff showed up on ebay. I think they could actually make some of their money back that way. Of course, I can just see all the employees making plans to go dumpster diving the minute they know it’s tossed.
Posted on March 21, 2006
JonSel said:
I wanted to see what it would look like if you put this logo in the dock with the rest of them.
I think this is an incorrect comparison, as it is confusing corporate and product identities. Photoshop, Illustrator, XPress, etc. are all products, sold in a three-dimensional package and living, primarily, in a computerized environment. It’s logical for them to take advantage of that environment, hence the 3D, fully colorized and photographic icons. Adobe and Quark are corporate brands. You’ll notice that Adobe’s corporate logo is flatly rendered and in 2 colors.
Why is this done? Because Adobe makes many products and doesn’t want them to be confused with the corporate entity. If a product is dropped from the line, doesn’t perform well or is a drag on sales, the corporate brand doesn’t immediately suffer. Quark has always had this problem because they and their product are simply known colloquially as “Quark”. All associations of the product are shared with the company and vice versa. Adobe’s had sub-par programs (Illustator had some pretty balky versions before heading into CS, Pagemaker…) but they didn’t drag on the corporate image because there was a dividing line. Quark needs this and, once again, fails to do it.
Posted on March 21, 2006
Tom said:
Here’s Quark’s official announcement:
—
New logo debuts today Quark is announcing a new logo for the company today, which you can see on www.quark.com. As a valued customer, we wanted to inform you directly of this news.
Quark has made a commitment to be closely attuned to its customers, and we appreciate the feedback we received from the design community in relation to our re-branding initiative. So, we have created a new logo that is both an evolution of our visual identity and a strong representation of the new Quark. Since the visual identity of the company represents our renewed commitment and focus on our customers, changing the mark to avoid any perception of similarity enables us to further define our unique identity.
Thank you for your ongoing support of Quark.
Posted on March 22, 2006
dburney said:
Man - I’m glad I’m not the only one who saw the Sony Ericsson logo. I feel bad for any designer tasked with rebuilding Quark’s identity at this point. It has moved beyond the point of a visual challenge to that of visual suicide. Any logo from now on for Quark will be closely examined and critiqued by the very industry they’re serving. Talk about pressure.
Would we have made the Sony Ericsson connection were it not for the snafu of the previous effort? I’m not sure. But as soon as I saw the new logo I thought of the little logo on the back of my wife’s phone. I’ll admit the similarities aren’t going to make or break the logo. But, personally I prefer something a little less 3D. When I was in school, we weren’t even allowed to go 3D. It was always flat, B/W first, then color. If it doesn’t work under those circumstances it will never work under all the applications a logo will need to work.
Oh well - that doesn’t mean a 3D logo can’t work, but I would’ve much preferred the simplicity of something flat for a company primarily serving the print industry as opposed to something with so much flair. They aren’t a gaming company, they aren’t a 3D software developer, they aren’t a tech company.
Posted on March 22, 2006
Mike Miller said:
Yeah, it could be said that we are trying too hard to find similarities but it’s just little ironic that they changed it because it looked so much like something(s) else and yet still, their new-new logo again looks like something else.
It’s like the guy you used to work with whose talking amongst you and group of your peers but seems to say or do something stupid. You feel sorry for them and hope they stop talking but instead they end you saying or doing another not-so great thing instead of just letting it be.
Posted on March 22, 2006
Bennett said:
JonSel, Agreed. I was on that line of thought when I was doing the comparison, but hadn’t put all my thoughts together. Thanks for the cohesive argument.
It does appear that the new Quark logo works better as a product icon rather than a corporate identity.
Do you think they could have corrected this problem with two different icons, or are they doomed because their product name and corporate name are one in the same?
Posted on March 22, 2006
JonSel said:
Do you think they could have corrected this problem with two different icons,
It would be absolutely appropriate to do such a thing. Would that solve everything at this point? No. People know this program as Quark, whether that is its real name or not. The time to protect against this type of confusion is before it happens. Look at Adobe, again, for comparison. All of their products do use “Adobe” in them – Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Reader – but the packages all have distinct designs and have the Adobe corporate logo on them. But there’s not confusion, quite likely because of the multiple product lines. I have had people ask me if I “was using Adobe” for the project, which always then needs a qualification, “Um, which Adobe program would that be?” Quark doesn’t have that option.
Posted on March 22, 2006
Wrench said:
Yo, that Quark logo is F’UGLY! What is that, an eyeball? What the f?
Quark might as well lie down now and let InDesign piss all over it while chanting “house on fire, house on fire, put it out, put it out.”
Posted on April 3, 2006