Why did they change the good old logo to this disgusting triangle

File: reebo29394_21885_jb.jpg (38KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 450x320px

Also, reebok previous logo and stitching looks like Puma

agreed.
looks so basic sports wear now

og logo with jack looks best, main reason i want some boks

>>12539234
>the first logo
>since 1895

you have to be retarded to actually believe it
>one quick google later
yep, the name Reebok was established in 1960, the company itself was established in 1958, 1895 is the year J.W. Foster and Sons Limited was established and it was a different company, owned by Reebok founders' grandfather

whoever made this picture was retarded

I like the original logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwFC626lRT4

>>12539257
>>12539333
because you people bandwagoned the trend too late. also they still have the old logo

>>12539234
You're aware that Reebok is owned by Adidas right?
And that there aren't a lot of creative ways to differentiate brands at a time when there was no internet to help spot repros
If you want to complain about a brand that bites on other shoe companies go through skecher's website. They blatantly rip off whatever shoes happen to be selling right now.

You can similarly complain that lacoste/puma/Ferrari ripped off Slazenger, who probably ripped off a well established brand like lyle and Scott by using an animal as their logo
But of course that whole idea probably originated with centuries-old men's fraternal organizations like the freemasons and Greek frats

It's all derivative

>>12539375
He literally typed, " Yeah, I know it is the same company."

>>12539381
Brand identity is important. My company take its logo portrayal really seriously, and they point out in our internal manuals how the logos of various subsidiaries actually correlate with the parent company

>>12539234
The new logo is the only reason I buy reebok