responses

1. wade2008/10/23 @ 8:25

   I agree. Some good work here, but I have to say something about the logos. There are beauties, such as Sprint, Mindshare, BestBuy, and QVC, but I still can’t accept the new changes made to AT&T, Mindshare, British Telecom, Virgin, and Holiday Inn. A logo shouldn’t be an illustration. It’s undeniable that it feels more “today” and might look good on your website, but how are you going to embroider that on a shirt, letter-press it on the company letter-head, or print it one-color on the cardboard of your shipping packaging? I’m not completely against an update or rebrand, but I do have problems with these new three dimensional illustrations.

2. wade2008/10/23 @ 22:03

   I just came across an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the Major League Baseball logo and “the golden era of logos.”

3. Vuel Egham2008/10/23 @ 22:37

   I agree on most points. Things not good in a logo:

   - Gradients of any kind
   - Small spindly garbage
   - Super wide text, or taglines

   Since I work with over thousand of logos in print materials at work for customers and partners, I am painfully aware of how poor logo creation can be a pain in the butt to work with.

4. wade2008/10/28 @ 0:09

   Here’s a great quote by someone who left a comment on an article discussing 2008 logo design trends:

   “I tend to agree with max (although I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m “offended”). Logo design needs to transcend recent trends. That is, unless you don’t mind rethinking corporate identity every few years. No logo lasts forever, but the best logos are very primal, reaching beyond whatever the contemporary whims are. You can’t avoid contemporary style altogether (nor should we ignore our new design capabilities which weren’t available in the past). But logos need to be flexible, adaptable, and retain their visual content no matter what medium they are used. None of the Web 2.0 designs or more complex designs (the Silverlight logo in particular), really fulfill that. Aesthetically, they’re pleasing. But they are lousy *logos*.”

5. Vuel Egham2008/10/28 @ 17:45

   A perfect quote:

   “Aesthetically, they’re pleasing. But they are lousy *logos*.â€?

   So true…

6. wade2008/11/3 @ 7:48

   RBS TV, a Brazilian television network, just updated their logo. What do you think of that hotness?

7. GildedCage2008/11/4 @ 15:57

   Okay, after reviewing the 50 items, a few thoughts: I like the old versions of 11, 12, 14, 31, 32, 41, 44, 50 at first look. (possibly others given extra time to consider) On similar logo discussion sites I’ve heard #39 referred to as the new ‘sphincter ‘ logo, which makes me laugh every time I see it now. I think both versions of #20 are an absolute atrocity, as well as both versions of #21 being an overt obamination (stupid pun, sorry).

   As far as cars being on this list, is it safe to say the newer model should seem better than the older? What car can you think of where the ‘newer’ model has been a visual step backwards? Though I’d never buy any version of this car, I remember the 2000 Mitsubishi Eclipse was such a horrible step backwards from the 1999 model.

   The MLB logo is a beauty, I’ve loved it and the league since I discovered them as a youth in the mid-80′s. I’ve never read about the origin of it, but have definitely observed over the years how other league logos have knocked-off that template. I think I’ll join the cause in helping Mr. Jerry Dior get some recognition from the league as the logo hits the 40 year mark. “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” song hit 100 years in ’08. The MLB / media had many features and specials throughout the season in commemorating that song as part of the great american pastime.