A little while ago, Yahoo! showcased different logo options on its website for 30 days. This activity received a fair share of attention (at least for the initial few days) and certainly kept the buzz going about what can be expected from the brand next.
Over the last few days, since the unveiling of the new Yahoo! logo, critic’s commentators and design gurus have had a field day criticizing both the process behind the logo and the outcome itself. Had it been a design firm that had worked on the re-design, most people would have taken apart the lack luster logo and moved on.However, because of the relatively unconventional process, the people involved and its proud glorification the design process also received a considerable amount of flak.
To be fair, anyone who has watched/read/heard about Marrisa Mayers style of working, this approach to the logo design process should not come as a complete surprise.
It is true that the new Yahoo! logo lacks any punch, and is only a marginal (if at all) improvement over the previous logo. I can also understand how it all seems so preposterous to designers that every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that they can make a logo, and when that someone happens to be the CEO of $10 Billion Dollar brand, the whole design world is bound to cry foul.
All the nitty-gritties of design aside, I find it charming that Marrisa took on a challenge based on the belief that she could deliver and put her efforts and thought into it (It takes a certain confidence to do things that are not your core competence and that passion has to be appreciated). Yes there is a certain amount of astuteness to the process, but if it was done well the Yahoo! logo redesign process held some great possibilities:
1. The 30 days of logo showcase could have been used to build an unprecedented hype around the brand and its future offerings/changes.
The unveiling of a lackluster logo after 29 days of hype amounts to nothing.
2. The process offered a safe rebranding strategy, where everyone was prepared and nothing could come as a shock or surprise. It could have been a perfect launchpad for something grand.
3. The use of polling has certainly worked in other scenarios and is a safe way to evaluate the popular choice (however, for this strategy to work the brand has to be really popular :), besides certain sites claim that the logo was picked irrespective of the poll results).
The opportunity which could have been used to build momentum around Yahoo’s rebranding and build up brand expectation, turned out to be a giant failed plan at best.
What bothered me most of the logo design process is that the vision behind the logo redesign involved thoughts like:
“We knew we wanted a logo that reflected Yahoo – whimsical, yet sophisticated. Modern and fresh, with a nod to our history. Having a human touch, personal. Proud.”
and yet, all that was explored was typefaces in different fonts, colours and sizes – almost all of the 30 options failed to capture any of the beautiful aspirational qualities that Marrisa had in mind.
Aspiring for a brand identity that does not truly reflect the brand perception is as bad as lying on your CV and getting caught.
Mistakes are the only sure shot way to learn :), and in the end it is the brand that matters and not just a fancy logo. To be fair, there are plenty of professionally designed logo’s that have failed terribly at rebranding or evoking the right emotion.
Here are some of my favourite logo transformations, from the recent past:
And, some that I thought went terribly wrong:
And, some where the transformation does not seem enough for the time and effort:
