Designing for the Future
Brand New’s wrap-up of the best and worst logos of 2009 is a good read. Their choice for worst logo of the year is Bing, which I can’t say I disagree with. It just sort of looks slapped together, which was probably the point to make it feel a little more cuddly like Google. Also interesting was going back and looking at the comments on the original MSN redesign post Brand New did, which they suggested because of the fight in the comments between folks at Futurebrand, the original branding agency responsible for the MSN butterfly, over who actually did the work.
Leaving the fighting aside for a second (it’s just sort of amusing), I found this explanation from one of the designers for how the logo stuck around so long quite interesting:
Ten years is several lifetimes at Microsoft, so for a logo to last that long there is a little miracle. One reason I think it lasted so long was that the next version was designed at the same time as the original. The first version was with flat colors, and the subsequent version was with gradients. In 1999 monitors couldn’t handle gradients very well but we knew the advance was just around the corner.
The idea of designing future iterations at the same time you’re designing the original is a pretty interesting one. Of course it’s much easier when there’s a known known, like monitors that can handle gradients, in the pipeline, but it’s still impressive.
Hi, I'm 
I can’t help but have a lot to say on this topic as I jump on this article every year.
In direct response to your post, the idea of having V2 ready at the same time as V1 is not a unique one. When Gillette launches a razor they do it fully knowing what the next step is. I’m sure they aren’t the only one, but it’s a prominent example. Although this could be a new application to the world of designing logos. Is it a good one? I don’t know.
The new MSN doesn’t offend me at all. I hardly see it on the worst list, but I’m not a purest designer… just a marketer.
Does the Yale update belong on the worst list… at all? Come on! I think people are holding on to the history behind the logo which can be dangerous as it is not something that the consumer will likely get. The original is outdated and even a little childish in my view, but I might be committing blaspheme here so please convince me otherwise. The new one is certainly boring, but I took it as an improvement. Am I alone?
The Hilton design is one of the most horrific to me visually, but I think Kraft is the biggest crime on this list. Kraft has some cash right? They have some experience right? Then how the hell does this happen? It looks like a Kraft take on the Stop and Shop re branding (google it for you non north-easterners) It also wreaks of the Walmart movement and even has a scent of Unilever’s recent work. Apparently it was so bad they even tweaked it mid year, but still totally missed the point. The worst thing is that I think I have seen a logo even closer to this than my other examples, but I can’t recall it right now. This looks like something I would put down on paper to get my bad ideas out of the way first.
Fast Company properly ripped the Philly design recently (Design Crimes: Philadelphia’s Awful New Logo). I can’t help but agree. But what can you expect from design by committee… a committee of untrained, opinionated people.
I have to disagree with Guitar Hero. The old logo oozes Rock and Roll, and has such great recognition. The new logo is just a crappy inverse of the old one. The author notes “the new identity is more fitting of the billion-dollar enterprise it represents. And, a spike more or a spike less, it still rocks.” The irony in this statement almost makes me cry. Rock is not supposed to be corporate, and even when it does grow to that level there is nothing wrong with holding on to the grunge roots. Why would you want a Rock related Icon to be more corporately fitting? This makes no sense to me. How about authenticity? Will guitar hero forget its roots, go on a coke binge, cater to the rich, and have an epic collapse finally realizing what was truly important? Probably not, but it sounds like a good story in the works…
Pfizer is a ridiculous mention. Sometimes its good to step out of the design world and look in as an outsider. In my survey 19/20 people didn’t even know there was an update. Noah, can you run snapshots from your brand mapping program to see if people started calling Pfizer “snuggly” “loving” and “cuddly” after this revision? I’m going to guess it’s the same day to day :)
I don’t have anything new to add to the others really except I love the Melbourne work and if you are from Melbourne or spent much time there you get this version even more. It’s a great reference to one of the great pieces of architecture in the center of the city in a subtle way… quite unlike the Liberty Bell.