If you launch a logo you get three types of hate: Hate The Cost. Hate The Business. Hate The Idea. Sure enough it’s happening…
• The Cost
The Daily Mail predictably goes for the ‘HOW MUCH!’ — route (Apparently between £5k and £13k).
• The Business
‘Twitter flips the bird, adopts new logo’ — says the LA Times (a reflection on the business’s approach to be populated by, but not to consult, the masses).
• The Idea
Commentator rdd_johnson on Gawker.com says: ‘Birds attack without any type of reasonable warning (no growling, raised fur, pounding a big beaver tail) and by “attack” I mean the ridiculously close fly-by while standing on your deck thereby spilling your drink. They poop on you while stealing your fries on the Boardwalk. They divebomb your dog as you walk past “their” trees, and who presumes to “own” trees? Only asshole birds, that’s who.’
This kind of thing doesn’t happen (as much) when rebrands are led by the story of what’s happening to merit a new look, a new name or a fresh approach. Particularly if there’s actually something in it for the audience.
At SomeOne we believe rebrands should create symbols of change, not just a change of symbol.
We create BrandWorlds — our collective phrase for lots of good stuff for people to see and use. Typefaces, Colour systems, photography, illustration, sound, animation, film, pictograms… and in there, a logo (or three)… then there’s something in there for everyone… more to love, less to hate…
Never launch logo as part of a programme of change, otherwise it takes all the flack (remember Gap-gate?) — launch a story, explain what’s going on… and use a rich visual brand identity to support change.