Visual design, including logos, definitely says something about the company. Subconscious clues that I might not fully understand (but that are certainly present) affect me when I first learn of the brand. Then, after knowing a brand and having either a positive or negative experience, the logo does indeed remind me of that experience when I see it. The logo loses it’s original subconscious clues and now reflects back my experiences to me.

So the shedding of skin of an old to new logo is definitely one part of it, but so is making sure you have a logo that sends the right signals to newcomers. There are lots of examples of big companies + bad logos and small companies + great logos, but those fringe cases aren’t useful for talking about the craft in general.

The stepping back and considering the branding from all sides and creating a design that communicates well to all of these angles is the hard part and I think that is why parts of the design community die a little bit when they see something that does indeed communicate (and might suffice), but seems to miss some of the marks quite pointedly.

If a logo, on it’s own, has the power to destroy (or drag down) an otherwise good company with a solid reputation for good quality products and services, then in my logic (or lack thereof) a logo should also have the reverse power, as well; and bring a down company up.

I’m just looking for an example of that. Or if that’s not logical, I’d like to know how it is that Google’s awful logo isn’t having any negative effect on them under the arguments that you and Ian are presenting.

Logically, an example or lack of an example wouldn’t prove or disprove our arguments.

It’s not about whether it might not affect their bottom line. If you even have to mention that, I would consider the logo a failure because you’re discounting that it will help them.

I would say the Nike logo definitely represents some of the ideas of the company itself. Nike is a sports company. The logo is a check mark, perhaps symbolizing completed goals, and definitely a mark of success. It is also very dynamic and full of motion, an important aspect of sports and outdoor activities. Not only that, but the swoosh going towards the upper right (as many logos do) is a sign of progress and improvement, something people often strive to achieve in their sporting adventures. Finally, the logo could even be argued to be a subtle reference to the letter “V” for victory (Nike being the Greek goddess of Victory, for which the company was named).

On the other hand, the new Gap logo feels like a corporate brand from the 80s coupled with one quarter of the Windows 98 packaging, both extremely dated and not a look I would see the company striving for. Of course you could make an argument that they were trying to reference the American Apparel brand, but I would say they did a very poor job if that was their goal.

@Mark
The changes Microsoft made to the logo for IE9, in my opinion, aren’t anywhere near improvements, so that is a non-argument.

In terms of Phillip Morris (I’m not familiar with the brand as I don’t smoke but…) it sounds like an improvement because they were consolidating their brand and making it more applicable to a wider product range. If they had any negative connotations with their old brand, I would assume the switch would help them shed those bad associations in consumers’ minds.

And finally, for Google, I think the fact that they tried to “beautify” their home page by adding photo backgrounds shows the pressure they were under from seeming under-designed compared with Bing. However, I think they approached the problem in a very poorly thought out manner and that’s what it was a total flop. But that threat from Bing was and is still present. They even tried to update their logo slightly a while back in response to the pressure that the sleaker Bing was giving them. (Although because they are a big and well known brand they have to do so slowly and in stages so as to not shock consumers. Something Gap completely threw out the window with their redesign.)

But either way, I don’t think you providing examples of companies that don’t have a focus on good design “down to the last detail” helps to destroy my argument in any way. I’m not arguing that companies need to do it to be successful; I’m arguing that designers are passionate about good design, even in the smallest doses, and that is why they are criticizing the Gap redesign.

Let’s take a bad company and give them a spruced up logo. Microsoft cleaned up and simplified their Explorer “e” for version 9 — did that change your feelings for Microsoft or their browser? Or do you think it’s the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig?

Phillip Morris, the conglomerate known mostly for cigarettes under that brand, changed their name to Altria and created a new logo to reflect their diverse portfolio of companies, but they still sell cigarettes — is that ok?

Google has to have the king champion of goofed up logos, complete with sad Photoshop bevels and bad drop shadows. There is NO PLACE this hack looks remotely close to good or translates well. They even tried to prettify their page with full screen photography ala Bing, the masses rejected the beautifying attempt.

How does all that play in this “good design down to the last detail”?

You either love or hate Dell. When you look at the logo you are reminded of that feeling you have for it. The logo doesn’t dictate that feeling. Apply this to basically any other logo in the world.

If down the road someone comes to love Gap jeans and they see the logo they will think they love Gap jeans. You are saying the logo shouldn’t convey that.

Logos are a big deal, they affect the brand and indicate which direction the company wants the brand to go. If logos weren’t a big deal, everyone would get their logos from 99designs and designers wouldn’t have jobs.

Also there should be discourse about how the logo could be improved, but how much of that has been done? Instead it’s simply told that it sucks. That is not improving, iterating or anything else beyond just bitching.

As for Gap, people will or will not like the clothes. Of all the clothes you wear how many of them can you think about the logo that represents their company? Now if they start printing clothes with that huge logo on the front along with gradient then I would consider them being silly.

Of course I think it could be improved and every company should strive to put out the best logo they can as I have stated a million times in the entry, comments and in the past. However, I don’t see this change affecting their bottomline which has been in a 5 year decline.

Logos for clothes work (or don’t work) when they become the clothes themselves. I’m no expert in Gap clothes, but going through their online selection I’m not seeing the logo be present anywhere visible on the clothing.

So once again, strive for a great logo that is well-designed. It makes sense and gives you a stronger leg to build on, but there are just too many instances of companies succeeding in spite of their ugly logos to pretend that this changes things for Gap.

I will stop flooding you with comments, now (heh, I was going to day this in my previous one).

That’s a good point about English! I have added it now. And I agree that the links under skills might be a bit too much. The only thing that keeps me from removing ‘em is that they draw attention to my skills hehe… not that that is a good enough excuse. One more thing for the to-do list!