Comments on: Aol.logo

By: David Airey

David Airey — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:28:53 +0000

I don’t think much of it one way or the other, Raja. Not much to talk about for me.

By: Raja Sandhu

Raja Sandhu — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:52:35 +0000

David, your thougths on MTV’s direction?

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/02/09/2010-02-09_mtv_loses_iconic_logos_music_video_and_music_television_tag_and_replaces_with_ne.html

- Raja

By: Tanya

Tanya — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:19:01 +0000

I think that this completely loses the point it was properly trying to make, i am sure it was a good idea on paper but once on computer and implementing they should of discarded. The type is confusing with the dot. why did they need a full stop? why? whats the point, aol is not a sentence but a brand name, a full stop is not required and who decided to lowercase it. The random images that appear behind it make it all seem thrown together a bit like the London logo. I think in today’s logos people are trying to hard to think outside the box, a logo is meant to last generations, they will be re branding in a year i bet, meaning Wolf Ollins lost aol valuable money, time, and credibility. To me a logo is timeless and clever and does not need rebranding for at least 5 years or more.

I think someone needs to be sacked at that design agency before they make any more mistakes.

By: Gerard Syms

Gerard Syms — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:40:56 +0000

OOPS. Got some typos in there. I’ll be more coherent and chalk the above to snarkiness! Yes, controversy creates buzz and we are buzzing, aren’t we? At the end of the day however, if even this new school of thought, as it seems, is produces this kind of identity work, and getting paid for it… then that’s the way the cookie crumbles. If Aol. manages to become profitable once more… If potential clients are ‘inspired’ by this… Designers who are truly craftsmen and women must raise the bar in what they offer their clients and continue to educate them, regardless of trending.

By: Gerard Syms

Gerard Syms — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:35:16 +0000

Sigh. Is this what branding evolving into? Or reverting to? To my eyes, this isn’t fresh or invigorating; it doesn’t communicate any positive quality that comes readily to mind, and it certainly isn’t memorable in an enjoyable or even good way! Am people really supposed to be driven to their computers mumbling excitedly, “Aol.Aol.Aol!!”??!!! Gimme a break, mon!

By: Raja Sandhu

Raja Sandhu — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:53:50 +0000

That’s good old publicity be it bad or good, it works, thanks David. This morning I caught the homepage, http://www.aol.ca/ What a disaster. http://www.aol.ca/

By: David Airey

David Airey — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:51:37 +0000

I agree. You could insert just about any logotype in there, but it would need to be short, and basic, to be legible at a fleeting glance. Hence the split decisions from designers. I've just read a nice, relevant discussion over on Brand Republic. You might like it, too: What good is outrage?

By: Raja Sandhu

Raja Sandhu — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:44:01 +0000

I agree with you on the logo ‘packaging’ being enjoyable, but that is an entire different aspect of the system. With all the nice videos and treatments (and some not so nice), it’s safe to say you can insert just about any logotype in it’s place and still have the same impact. I am guilty of jumping the gun many times and sort of over-reacting to the logotype only, like most of us. In that sense, I could echo what many of your readers have already stated. If you really break it down to Brand purpose, it comes down to profitability. You can add all the buzz words of the industry like, consumer traction, brand churches (starbucks/apple), yada yada, in the end it’s still about profits. These days we have come to align ourselves with the brands we choose so I think for those that fit the new ‘future’ vision of Aol. will justify it. While it’s true that if something looks better, the more we will desire it, in this case, I think Aol. has overlooked the product and focused more on the packaging.

Who’s to say this early if it’s a wise move.

I know, if I’m buying chewing gum, the package does most of the convincing for me, rarely have I looked at the ingredients.

In the end, the numbers will tell.

By: David Airey

David Airey — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:18:32 +0000

That’s a nice read, Raja. Thanks for the link. I do enjoy what Wolff Olins has done with the whole package. The videos are sharp, too. What’s your take?

By: Raja Sandhu

Raja Sandhu — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:10:21 +0000

Hi David, did you get a chance to read this interview http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/alissa-walker/designerati/exclusive-interview-wolff-olins-and-aol-why-aols-new-brand-future ?