Thoughts /gd/

Logos are about recognition, above all else. Could someone visually improve upon the Starbucks logo? Yeah, probably. But at the cost of losing brand recognition, its just not worth it.

>>260317
only Mercedes logo could work, the rest are bad.

>>260317
In a vacuum, I don't think the Nike, Starbucks, Mercedes or Coke logos are bad, but I don't think they work with the brand for various reasons, mostly what >>260319 said (especially for Coke and Disney).

The Apple logo is regressive, the Target logo doesn't really say anything, the Disney logo just doesn't look right and the FedEx logo tries too hard to preserve the arrow of its predecessor.

>>260317
>In 2019 in an obscure move ESPN and FedEx combine to ship sports balls all over the world.

>>260317
if you have to ask.. then...

>>260338
kek

god these are awful

>>260317
literally all of them are awful

>unnecessary hyphenation

Yeah, it's visi-
onary as fuck.

4 years? Lol
Maybe more like 40 years with several rebrands along the way.

>>260317
did you made this or where is this from ?

>>260317
>Target
>Not just turning into a red dot

>>260317
>minimalism is in
>a concept never ends and only gets more pronounced

They are all horrendous. They would go down as the costliest rebranding disasters of all time.

But then how do you begin to rebrand something as iconic as the Nike swoosh or coca fucking cola?

File: url.jpg (8KB, 218x231px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 218x231px

>>260682

>>260682
The question isn't how, but why? Neither could risk all the recognition and history behind them unless they came up with an entire new brand, which is risky. Nike's logo is pretty safe from being dated, which is the beauty of an abstract mark. And the Swoosh is synonymous with high quality athletic gear. Change that, and it's a good five years before New Nike looks like anything other than a knockoff.

Coca Cola has a logo that finds its very strength in being dated. They're all about trying to harken back to the good ol days when sharing a soda was an act of social interaction and not just something you slug down with your burger. Could they update it? Sure, but their brand does a good job of staying modern.

>also all these plebs that think a logo and a brand are the same thing

>>260317
Shit. Simplification is the wave of the future, and all these do is complicate the logo. You want to make it easier to recognize a brand, not harder.

I think target's logo will remain a Target.

The best one is the Fedex one.

File: 501897.png (485KB, 590x775px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 590x775px

>>260816

>>260657

Holy shit one guy on /gd/ gets it

>>260698

Fun fact, the guy who designed the NIKE logo got payed the current equivalent of $200 USD

>>260816
you're insane. the negative space forming the arrow between the E and the X is so subtle and smart. The 2020 version makes me want to puke. Is that supposed to be an E? The arrow isn't so subtle anymore eh? WTF it looks like star trek tng wiped their ass on the FedEx logo please change your major kid you're no paul rand

>>260912
Fun Fact: It was designed by a female intern, wasn't paid much at the time, but was later given a 1 million dollars by the Nike company for her part in shaping the company's future.

>>260927
Not challenging you, but I'd love a source, I was told different, this is a fascinating enigma.

>>260657

Could you elaborate?

>>260934
I think he's being sarcastic and is implying there's no evidence the trend of minimalism will be relevant or become more pronounced in the future, making all these logos presumptuous leaps of logic.

>>260941

Oh, alright. That makes sense. For some reason I didn't read his post as

> implication
> arrows

Good point though. I think minimalism's popularity right now is largely due to the advent of actually good web design. I don't think it's going anywhere, as there's certainly instances where it's appropriate. I just also think when people say "minimalism" in 2016 they often have a skewed understanding of what that means. A lot of the logos on he left hand column are substantially more minimal than the ones on the right. Iconic logo design will always be minimal, but the minimalism meme is bound to die eventually.

>>260929
Phil Knight documentary.

Saw it on Netflix.

File: Coca-Cola.jpg (74KB, 540x206px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 540x206px

Coca freaking cola use basically same logo for over 100 years now. And for last 100 years there was lots of changes in world. So I really doubt they will want to change it...

fedex looks good

>>260317
These are all shit. They thought they could improve on GOAT logos but this is pathetic. I could maybe see the mercedes logo working. But Apple? that's literally the greatest logo in all of history. And Coca-Cola? That shit's been around for 100+ years.

>>260941
I'm all for minimalism, but there would have to be some absurdly redundant cause to do the "revision" ones, because the current ones are really good and minimalistic. The person whomever made this doesn't understand minimalism. Sure, it's opinion based, but minimalism in my opinion does not mean delete the most anchor points or get the most empty unfilled space.

>>260929
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBTiTcHm_ac

>>261435
2007 is da best

>>261435
Ah those two years when coco cola was renamed coke coke.

File: image.jpg (500KB, 1500x1434px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1500x1434px

>>260317
All of them are shit!!

>>260317
Lol wtf? Delete this thread OP