As such, any redesigns are more of a refinement, introducing subtle changes to refresh the look whilst considering customer recognition. Here are ten successful logo redesigns courtesy of Brand New, with a little explanation behind the change.

1. Toys R Us

Toys R Us logo redesign

“The star has been stuffed into the engorged R in order to make a tight and simple(r) wordmark which is less patriotic, more bulbous and more fun.” Joe Marianek

“The US could have been just a tad closer to the R to keep the same spacing throughout.” Armin Vit


MSNBC logo redesign

“The revised logomark for msnbc, while not really expressing the acronym in a technically, grammatically correct fashion gets away with it just fine. And the use of the lowercase is less imposing, more legible, and just plain friendlier than the all-caps imperialist approach.” Christian Palino

“…the new logo has switched from the unbelievably clunky, non-flattering, monolithic, typographically-wrong — heinous horizontal scaling anyone? — uppercase wordmark to an überfriendly lowercase setting. The peacock’s feathers, of course, have been left unrattled. The move is instantly beneficial in that the mark becomes approachable and rhythmical, instead of cold and monotonous. And this is achieved just by switching from one sans serif — a mangled Helvetica or, worse, possibly Arial — to another — the never-wrong Gotham.” Armin Vit

3. BusinessWeek

BusinessWeek logo redesign

“The blue bar was a point of equity that could have been easily ported to this news masthead / identity. Other than that, I really think this was a step in the right direction.” Kyle Hildebrant

4. Science Channel

Science Channel logo redesign

“A very effective reference to its main purpose of screening science related shows, so the “periodic table” look is well used here. I especially like the orange / tangerine that they chose, which reproduces nicely on RGB screens, and also has that sense of being new and fresh. That being said, there does seem to be too many different points that parts of the logo are being aligned to. The “Sc” to the edge of the box, the word “Science” to the middle of it and “Channel” to the edge of “Science”. Seems rather clunky and I am sure there are better ways of doing it.” Bjorn Yeo

5. Dolby

Dolby logo redesign

“The double-ds have been merged together, removing the visual separation and additional noise that was present in a logo that has to appear at extremely small sizes. This merger allows more lateral space for the Ds to have a wider form that marries well with the new typography. In addition, the “DOLBY” wordmark has been liberated from its bounding rectangle, employing a lighter-weight typeface for better legibility.” Christian Palino

6. QuickChek

QuickChek logo redesign

“The typography is forgettable, nothing to worry about but nothing to praise either, maybe a geometric sans would have added some interest. Overall, this is a great visual upgrade for a modest chain of stores that will likely benefit from the added differentiation…” Armin Vit

“Solid, competent work.” Jerry Kuyper

7. Qantas

Qantas logo redesign

“The sleeker form makes sense — more power in the legs and a larger tail. Overall the new logo is a huge improvement while retaining the brand equity from the original kangaroo.” John Feldhouse

8. Delta

Delta logo redesign

“The new logo is simple and to-the-point. The new colours sit much nicer than the old ones — the blue is more dominant and the typeface is much more modern.” Leanne Johnson

“The sense of depth given by the two reds isn’t forced at all — quite the opposite. It would have been so easy to use (and these days probably sell) gradients / bevels / etc. This gets the job done very nicely, while showing restraint.” Von K

9. NFL

NFL logo redesign

“…this (logo) has to be embroidered on everything from knickers to headbands to shoelaces so minimizing the number of stars and opening up that space was the best thing to do. And to be able to justify it with the teams per division argument is even better.” Armin Vit

10. Hunter

Hunter logo redesign

“I am glad to see someone get rid of gradients and all the bubbly stuff!” Nick Irwin

“I love that their new logo does not try to be all flashy and 3D. Its great to see a company who realizes that good design does not mean throwing drop shadow and gradients on everything.” Apt Design

A huge thanks to Armin and Bryony for their work on Brand New, a wealth of info on major logo updates.


The beauty of some of the logos that has been changed is that you hardly see it apart from each other, only when (like in this article) seeing next to each other you notice the difference, although some of the changes are huge.

I believe that is the real power of the designer, making the changes without actually seeing it but really improve the logo and create a stronger brand. Thank for the reminder of underconsideration, great resource!

As with all good logos, the most important thing is the context in which the logo is being used. For example, the new logo for the Qantas Airlines surely looks more sleek on the tail section of the airplane. Even the MSNBC, the bold lettering would have created a headache to watch on TV. The only thing I, personally have not accustomed myself to is the new Dolby logo. I still prefer the old one as I find it synonymous with the technology, iconic in a way just like the DVD logo. But then again, it is just an opinion. Great post David!

Justin: yep, I am also a bit nostalgic of the old Dolby logo, although the new one clearly is an improvement.

The only redesign I don’t like is BussinessWeek. I liked the serifs. The letter-spacing may have been a bit tight, but I think it was way more expressive.
David, what’s your take on this? could you please be specific?

“Its great to see a company who realizes that good design does not mean throwing drop shadow and gradients on everything.”

-Well said. I enjoyed this post very much. Thanks.


There’s some great re-designs there from Brand New. I can remember the whole Ford Logo redesign from their site on April fools day.

I’m a big fan of re-designs myself, and can understand a company wanting to upgrade their image. The examples above do just this, but some other re-designs I have seen over the years are worse than the original.

Take the Pizza Hut logo re-design for example, it looks like a kids version from their menu! Maybe it’s just my personal dislike…

I agree that this is not “re-design” in the purest sense. Refinement is good, but I like to think of it as evolution. I believe logos should be able to evolve and adapt to keep up with the times. If the evolution is good forward enough but subtle, it gives the impression the logo is timeless. As long as they don’t forget their roots, like all of these do, it is a successful evolution.

Course there is one I don’t like and that is the Toys R Us logo. I never thought the old one was patriotic. If anything the white star on the now blue R is more patriotic than the old one. I can understand wanting a less horizontally long logo, but I don’t see the difference as enough to warrant the change. If anything the new version is less readable and understandable to new viewers.


I love the new MSNBC and the new NFL logo (although I worked on the Madden videogame last round and it was SUCH a pain updating all the logos)… and I agree, this is more of a “refinement” of the older logos.

Good post. =)

The new Qantas is crap. It doesn’t look like a kangaroo at all; more like something you’d see chasing Sigourney Weaver. I also prefer the old Hunter: the new one is forgettable, and the ‘H’ seems very forced, with too many swashes.

I’m considering doing some advertising for designing logos. I’ve done a few for friends and church activities so am SO glad to have stumbled onto this “class”!
All that to say I agree that the original Hunter perfectly described a classy, long established thing. I pondered the new a bit and thought it must be “youngsters” who are not into vintage who reject the old one. By the way, I’m 76 – a youngster still.

i have to disagree about the refinement comments. a design is a design. This ‘refinement’ still requires the analysis of objectives. In fact it is much harder than starting from scratch to strike the balance.

And it sounds a bit wierd to say ‘Hi! i’m a logo refiner!’

Agree with logoforce all day long on this one.

The Quantas new kangaroo is terrible I think, the tail is way too fat and clumsy and doesn’t seem to represent the same movement as the old one.

Hunter, if they’d have taken the original logotype out and used that it would have been great. New one is too weak for me.

NFL re-jig is perfect. Keeps the original feel but makes it that little bit better. I do prefer the old NFL type though, which kinda contradicts what I just said.

Course I don’t know anyone who says, “Hi! I’m a logo redesigner.” It is all design, regardless of the starting point. I agree that taking an existing logo to the next level can be a lot harder than starting from scratch. But a huge part of the design process is eliminated when you already have an existing logo to work from. The brand very seldom changes, for example. It would not have in any of the versions showcased above. You are working with an existing color palette, an existing personality and often existing layout. Yet, the more constraints you have, the harder it is to come up with something truly great. It can definitely be a greater challenge for an artist. I have a question, however. Do you hesitate before putting a ‘refined’ logo in your portfolio if you did not design the original?


I remember reading that the main reason for changing the Qantas logo was that in the older logo, the kangaroo’s legs extended down below the aircraft tail and wrapped around the rear section of the fuselage. With the newer aircraft such as the A380 and the upcoming 787 Dreamliner, that section of the fuselage is entirely carbon fibre and more difficult to paint, hence they had to restrict the legs to just the tail section only which is why they changed the angles and ‘squished’ the kangaroo a bit more.

The whole periodic table thing is starting to get to me because, as a designer, I am so familiar with Adobe. But I guess millions of others aren’t. Still, the designers of the periodic table-based logos know they are essentially following Adobe’s lead on this.

The QuickChek has a Payless look, with the Q and the green.

It is striking what a seemingly subtle adjustment can do for a logo. I would say the above redesigns have finessed the logos into something that resonates with contemporary markets quite well – except the Quantas redesign. It seems more tribal now and a sort of 1990’s way.

Overall, a very good list in my opinion. I would say looking at things as a designer and as a brand really need to be looked at from two different perspectives.

I tend to think that while some of these aren’t my cup of tea personally, they really update and build upon a company’s brand or identity. For me, sometimes the brand supersedes the logo, and it really is hard to move away from something if it is still working.

I think people should try to look and see if people have some sort of brand equity built up in these, and if so would it lose value if the ID was completely scrapped. I am not sure it is a prudent move to do so from the standpoint of an airline to completely overhaul the mark unless the public had no confidence in them to begin with.

Yes, maybe the Quantas logo isn’t very good, but it wasn’t in the first place. However, I think people have come to recognize it and anything different may alienate people.

Thanks very much, everyone. All your input is interesting to read. Excuse my group response at this time, as I’ve not yet set up an interenet connection in my new home in Northern Ireland. I’ll probably be using a temporary office space for the next week, when normal service will resume.

I hope you’re all well!

I agree that the execution on the original Hunter logo is a little ugly, but I’m pretty sure they put a physical button on their products that looks just like that. This is a case where that 3d effect is justified. They just needed to render it a little better.

NFL, NHL and UPS all improved their shields with simple updates. All these redesigns are very good also….I agree the Science Channel one could have been better. There’s really no need to write ‘Science Channel’ underneath the logo.

You’re kidding right?

The hunter logo… while I’m not familiar with the brand… looks like the before and after shot were mixed up.

The “bubbly” version looks professional to my eyes, while the “improved” version looks like a ten minute (max) photoshop job… make the background green, the text green, choose the font… nothing to it.

I hope the bosses kid did that, and they didn’t pay some designer megabucks for it.

It’s dull, lifeless and boring.

I believe Delta was the best Overall improvement. On the Hunter one, they definitely took a step in the right direction, but not feeling the final product there.

I also enjoy the more “Science Nerd” approach that the Science Channel took. Now I just want it back on my Cox Cable, after it was dropped without warning.

The new Toys R Us logo looks blind. It cannot look back at the viewer. The star blots out the eye and offers nothing a sentient being would recognize as a thing that sees. The only thing worse would be an X representing death. Sad, but true.

I agree that the Delta logo was a great improvement, and the color-difference provides a pretty slick effect, but I wish they had maintained the blue top part of the logo, rather than making it all red. The all red logo would work if the original was all red, but I think they should have paid homage to the old logo by keeping the blue top.


I’m of the ilk that 3D renditions for 2D artwork generally aren’t a good idea, but it’s always good to receive difference of opinion.


I hear you.


You might just like this previous post:

When is a bad logo design actually good?


Yep, the VISA refinement is one I’m in favour of too.

Thanks to all for the additional thoughts and comments.

The new Hunter logo is much better than the original. I don’t know how you could think an obviously vector designed font driven logo is raster/pixel/photoshop based. The original, with its lighting and 3D effects is the photoshop creation.

The original logo sure looked pretty, but its usability was extremely limited. If you limit a logo like that, you limit the amount of effective advertising it can do. That limits your client’s bottom line.

And never assume a logo you design will only be used online. You never know what the future may hold for your client’s company/service/product.

Fancy lighting and 3D effects can always be added later. But you have to have something simple and straight forward first.


Re-the hunter logo.

Are you looking at this from a designers viewpoint or a clients?

I think you’ll find that most customers would prefer something a bit more snazzy that a basic two tone logo, I certainly would.

The second might be vector based, but it doesn’t look like it… it looks like someone chose a font and typed it out and it was done.

If you removed the flare and the shadow, the old logo would still be far nicer than the second.

The Qantas redesign really sticks out to me. So much has been achieved with little change. It much more dynamic, there’s more movement in the kangaroo, and the slightly increased italics in the type really add to the overall effect of a forward moving company.

I know I am in the minority here, but I disagree about the at&t logo. I read a scathing critique on the new logo by a successful designer and one of the points he brought up was that at&t had changed their name from upper to lower case and how that no longer made the name look like the acronym is was. I thought he had missed the point. at&t no longer wants the name to be perceived as an acronym, so the change from upper to lower was deliberate to convey it as a single name. They are competing in the wireless industry now. They are no longer American Telephone and Telegraph. They are no longer AT&T. The Wireless industry is about youth, cutting edge, advanced technology and so forth. Their old logo, although wonderfully designed and very recognizable, portrayed a company of age. Yet their name alone is enough to keep with that image, but the rest had to be updated to compete. The color palette changed little, the globe, although 3D, is faithfully inspired by the older globe, and dropping the case was smart to convey at&t as a one word name. The average consumer hardly noticed a difference. That transition also marks it as a successful redesign. The 3D globe is limiting, but at&t can afford the very best advertising money can buy, and, because of their industry, it will be used in broadcast more than print. In a pinch the text of at&t can be used alone without losing client recognition. It is certainly a better globe than the new Xerox beach ball.


I think you’ll find that most customers would prefer something a bit more snazzy that a basic two tone logo, I certainly would.

This would depend on your target market. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of my clients would opt for the Hunter refinement over the original, but can appreciate this won’t be the case with everyone.


I also hold a certain fondness for Paul Rand’s classic UPS logo.


I was sorry to see Saul Bass’ AT&T logo bumped for the new, 3D, transparent globe that other large corporations are preferring. Not so much for the lettercase, but for the cheapness I now see in the icon. Cheap because it’s more trendy than iconic.

Love the Science Channel redesign! Very fitting, and the first thought that comes to mind is the periodic table of elements. Well done SC.

I’m surprised there’s no mention of Walmart’s logo redesign.

I agree that most of these are vast improvements in terms of immediate recognition and ease of reproduction. However, after working on several redesign projects myself, I tend to disagree that the “7. Qantas” logo is an improvement. I understand the desire to make the kangaroo have more movement, but it is really losing it’s recognition as a kangaroo. To me, it’s starting to look like a Terradactyl. I suppose they fly, but I don’t necessarily want to fly on a dinosaur.

I get that too about the kangaroo… where does an animal lose it’s “animality” and just become an abstract “thing” which could possibly look like anything after a while. Stretch it out a bit more and you get an odd looking, three pointed star.

The comment about riding a dinosaur was a good one, but as long as they don’t crash, why should anyone care? ;)


Great collection!

One that comes to my mind (maybe because I am from Brazil) was the one done for the now defunct TransBrasil airline.

And am I the only one that thinks NASA’s is seriously outdated?



The 10 refinements shown above are more successful than Walmart’s. However, being based in the UK, I’ve not seen much of Walmart at all, and viewing a logo in context always helps.


You certainly aren’t the only one who thinks that way about the NASA logo. It doesn’t say much for their forward-looking goals. What’s also strange is how the NASA website has a higher Google Page Rank than Google itself (9 compared to 8). Although debating Page Rank isn’t the best use of time, just thought it odd.

UPS and at&t both HAD to be updated because their businesses grew and changed. Problem is they both had much loved and respected logos done previously to their current flashier redesigns. Kinda of a damned if you do and damned if you don’t issue. UPS is trying to show they are more than just the United Parcel Service and at&t is trying to leave American Telephone and Telegraph behind. Both are also trying to keep cutting edge and young in fields that have a lot of competition. In my opinion their redesigns are successful (I feel the same about Xerox except without then beach ball; that font treatment is very good), but that doesn’t mean what they were forced to leave behind wasn’t just as brilliant and cutting edge for its time or that it would not have stood the test of time. A new age has come and some companies can’t afford to appear, in anyway, as if they could not make the leap from the old to the new. Trish

i hate when people bash drop shadows and gradients now-a-days.

yes it might not be right most of the time, but it can be right every once in a while.

so when it happens “every once in a while” don’t complain and leave it alone!!!

I cant say i like ALL of the after logos, nor can I say that I favor all of the before logos. The fact is, five or ten years from now all these logos will most likely change yet again, like they have before. Its a constant process to focus on newer consumers yet still relating to those who have been using that company’s service.

Comments from a consumer’s perspective, like anyone cares…
1. ToysRus: The R looks like it’s in a hurry to be someplace else and the colors are dull. The star? Why? Welcome to the republic of West Florida.
2. msnbc: win
3. BusinessWeek: looks fine. A little plain but I like the sans font. Serif font is to business as the Bedazzler is to fabric. Yes. I said Bedazzler. It’s that serious.
4. Science: This logo says “I’d rather be eating pizza but I had to stay here and be a logo”. The justification is unjustifiable. Orange? ORANGE???
5. DOLBY: A fair upgrade. I don’t like the B but that’s just me.
6. QuickChek: Better than the original. A bit too green for me.
7. Quantas: The font change is perfect.The kangaroo looks like a terradactyl that got a wing half shot off. It’s bizarre. The tail is too thick and my eyes are drawn to the sharp corner on the foot and the lack of toes. Really, that’s where I look, every time, and I think it detracts from the logo overall.
8. DELTA: It’s beautiful, though I’d have put the letters ever so slightly closer together. Just a teensy bit. But the double red warms the cockles of my heart.
9: NFL: Good job. That’s where serifs come in handy.
10: Hunter: What is with the green? This looks like a lawn-care company, not a maker of fans. And the font…Great for a greeting card company, not for something that has to be durable and elegant. Their new logo says “We want you to like us, even though everything we produce is now made in China”. The old logo was a bit much but had an old-world appeal. This is a bad redesign.

I’m sure you only made a type in your comment about Qantas, it has no U in it, the reason is because it stands for “Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services” which was the original run for the airline.

Just thought I’d chuck in some trivia.


Thank you for the trivia Wolfie! :o) The spelling “Quantas” was indeed a typo, oops. So much for my proofreading. Cheers!

I hate the quickchek redesign.

It’s not THAT much of a departure from the original and it’s like they’re trying way to hard for a web 2.0 look. The Q logo thing feels like its floating off. Overall, not a resounding success.

Hunter’s as well. Such a major departure from the original logo/typeface feels weird. Hunter’s logo looks Holiday Inn-ish and I don’t like it.

Otherwise they’re good redesign. I especially like the Science Channel’s new logo (though the clunkiness is apparent) and the Toys R Us logo as well. Personally, I thing msnbc’s lowercase gothic type is off but less offensive visually than that caps locked nightmare. Haha.

NFL is probably the most powerful redo here and I’m really likin’ it.

Those some pretty appeasing and modernized logos. I love that companies are now keeping up with the current cultural trends. If only society could follow suit, I think the world would be a better place.

If only our country would become more of a peaceful and accepting place, and not a raving hate-filled police state like it is today. I think that the federal government is trampling on every american’s soul’s right to breath. And, it is clearly indecent.

Furthermore, television is warping the heads of our youth with the liberal mediatoric stance on out patriotic decency. In conclusion, making love with a stapler is almost never as fun as it first seems.

FrigginGlorious, Huh? I am major politically opinionated when it comes to USA politics and government, but this is certainly NOT the forum.

Here is an opinion that is perfect for this forum, and it will probably not be popular. I love the at&t logo. The more I study it the more I like it. It doesn’t use any gradations or lighting effects to get the 3D effect in the ball so it translates seamlessly between 3-color flat vinyl on their service trucks to back-lit 3D building signs to the truly tiny logo put on the phones they sell. I loved the previous logo as well, but this update really works great all around. Promise that is the last I’ll go on about the at&t logo in your forums, David.


Quite the popular post, this one! I appreciate your continued thoughts and comments. Thank you. Please excuse that I can’t respond individually this time around. I’ve a few deadlines fast approaching, but be sure I read all you typed.

I prefer the ones that have just tweeked their colours and fonts. Not keen on the science channel one, before or after, think it could be a lot more futuristic and inspiring!

My favorite logo redesign is Chevron’s. They added a slight gradient to the arrows to make it look like bent ribbon. Very well done, I think.

These are all successful re designs, but all are very safe more of a design clean up than a re brand, so asides from snickers is there a bold rename and rebrand that has worked wonders?

I can’t believe this is the first time I have visited this site! This is great stuff.


The subtle effect added to the Chevron logo is interesting. Have you seen the website favicon, though? The text definitely shouldn’t be included above the mark.


Thanks for stopping by my second blog. I’m glad you like it. I wasn’t as convinced about the Marathon-to-Snickers rebrand. Never felt the same about them actually.

Bye for now.

The description of the Science Channel re-design is spot on. It is a very effective re-design, but the alignment of each element is really odd and doesn’t make much sense as to why the designer formatted it that way.

1. I love the rearrangement of the star and the letter “R”. It works much better, the quotation marks were distracting. However, as a store for children, I question the removal of both red and yellow, as the use of them made the logo youthful and the letters pop.

2. msnbc- perfect.

3. Much easier on the eyes.

4. I have to agree, the new logo is too similar to Adobe, and it looks strangely “off”. It is too weighted on the left side.

5. Love everything but I’m not sure if the B is quite right.

6. Like the new font. Not sure about the Q.

7. I adore the font change, it really conveys movement. The color is nice also. The sharp corner of the kangaroo’s heel IS a bit awkward.

8. Bravo. Very classy.

9. A little clean up, just what it needed.

10. I thought that the “before” and “after” were mixed up here, as well. I really don’t see how slapping a light green font over a dark green background is an improvement. The gradient on the “before” IS a bit much but it also has much more personality than the latter. The redesign makes me shudder.

Great article!


I agree about the Science Channel alignment. I’m curious about the reasoning, and it’d be good to see what was experimented with.


Good of you to take the time. I’d give the Hunter re-design the same comment you gave Delta — very classy. Of course it’s good to have some difference of opinion.

question is……..who took the hyphen out of Wal-Mart and put tat STAR there in the first place…..Wal*Mart.
Sam died in 1992…..
1993 Wal-Mart International division formed…..
1996: Wal-Mart opens stores in China….
2002:Wal-Mart’s Global Procurement Center opens in Shenzhen, China..
now….what year did the STAR appear?.

I disagree about the qantas logo, it used to look like a kangaroo, now it just looks like an evil face cackling

I disagree with the DOLBY and the hunter change.
Change in a logo must not stick when you compare the two side by side, viewing them must be instantly decisive.

I agree with the aligning of the science channel logo. It dosen’t make any sense, especially the “channel” part, it makes the logo very unbalanced. Im afraid it will tip over.

The new Quantas logo was a great improvement mostly because of the new typography i think.

It is great to see the before and after logos because doing a redesign is one of the hardest things to do. It must be instantly recognizable and yet new. First rate graphic design work!

#1 – Totally unnecessary.
#2 – That’s their web logo.
#3 – Still looks outdated.
$4 – Adobe ripoff?
%5 – Totally unnecessary, pt. 2… just take off the rectangle.
^6 – Obvious need for change is obvious. But are 21st century designers getting lazy!?!?
&7 – Aight… just stop bending the kangaroo in painful angles… leave those legs alone!
*8 – Congratulations, we’ve got a winner! (Maybe the blue should invade the bottom bit of the logo, no?)
(9 – Also a winner, less of that spaghetti restaurant-inspired crap and MORE FOOTBALL, Madden-style! I will miss those curly letters though
10 – You could’ve fooled me… I thought the ‘before’ was the ‘after’! Guess they afraid of getting their assed sued by Ford, eh?

i think we should consider Agro Bank from Malaysia. Its so refreshing compared to the old one.

A very enjoyable post on the whole, though I don’t quite agree on the Dolby logo. The new logo, having lost its boxes, has also lost some of its power. The earlier version had a sense of definitiveness about it which the new logo lacks. For that matter, the metamorphosis of the Business Week logo seems uncalled for. The blue bar was brilliant and the typography very appropriate. The current, less formal look lacks character.

the kid – I know it’s been a year and you likely won’t see this, but I think the Abbey Road logo is great too – although I don’t think it’s piano keys being represented. I think the lines represent the iconic crosswalk outside the studios, the one in the cover photograph of the Beatles’ ‘Abbey Road’ album.

The much beleaguered new Qantas logo is horrible.
The kangaroo looks deformed the type is amateurish.

The only disagreement I have is the NFL Logo. Yes, good choice to limit starts and make simpler, but what’s with that stiff typography that no longer relates to the frame of the shield? And really, it is pretty lame to begin with, isn’t it, so they could have kept going. By the way, great website for students of visual identity.

Logo re-design requires special talent. The hunter logo and science channel have great re-makes. I love them. Great post. Keep the good stuff coming!

Do not like the kangaroo logo though

@Jen Marsh – The new Chevron logo is awful. The gradient adds nothing. A ribbon cannot be folded like that – the bottom would be flat not pointed. And as a folded ribbon it ceases to be a *chevron*, which is a flat, v-shaped heraldic device. The change is utterly moronic and reeks of a marketing weasel trying to be “Web 2.0”.

1.I like the new green that they used on the letters.
4.It is true that this new logo looks like adobe’s hehe
9.NFL new logo looks great! the football is more defined (it previously looked like a torta)

many of the redesigned logos look really good, some of them have small changes that make big difference. my favorite is the “toys r us” logo and i prefer how the hunter logo look before.

Great post, David. I feel #8 Delta isn’t a very good re-design and it seems to have gone back in time. Does anyone else feel this is also true?

Its funny how much a small change in the NFL logo made such a difference. I wonder if I would notice the difference if I were not looking at them side by side.

Thanks for the post.

The old Hunter’s is really better. The new one is ordinary, too simple and light, looks like a brand of organic salad or something like that.

I just love how they’ve simplified the Toys ‘R’ Us and Dolby logos, they’ve taken the essence and made it cleaner and more powerful, beautiful!

I agree with the blog post. the designs of the Qantas Airline looks much better now, I am thinking of riding in the aircraft. If the design is kind of cool, then the services and systems of that specific company will look great.

The Toys R Us, MSNBC, and Dolby logos were changed for the better and recognizable reason. However, I felt that the Quick Chek and The Science Channel redesigns went just a tad too far. I don’t think the consumers would have an easy time trying to find the new science channel compared to the old design.

Just wanted to comment on the Science Channel logo. The only thing I might have done differently, is probably align it more towards the center, giving it that Periodic Table of Elements look, and then maybe use the black font. I like the simplicity that was done with the logo, but just a couple of quick touches could have made it that much more exciting.

Nice improvements … except for Hunter. I cannot see the revision as an improvement. If I were the Hunter client, I’d be down the highway.

I really like the Hunter upgrade. And, maybe it’s just me but, something I hadn’t noticed before is how the “H” reminds me of air movement.

The new Hunter “logo” if I would call it that is the worst example of a “logo” I have ever seen. They took a very stylish, pretty logo, with tons of character and turned it into a simple ehh moment. Branding that plain Jane on fans is going to look ugly. That old bubble shield logo is awesome and looked great on their product.

I am willing to bet most in that company hate this new “logo” I place quotes around it because I don’t consider it a logo. It is simply a font with the word Hunter spelled out. Is this what some consider logo’s now?

Can’t agree with the assessment of the QuickCheck logo. Not that the old one was great or anything, but it was instantly identifiable. The new logo is everything we’ll be complaining about 5 years from now the way we complain about the bubbled gradients and drop shadows of 5ish years past.

I have no idea what this company is trying to get across and it looks profoundly generic. They would have done better sticking with the legacy logo.

Honestly, it’s hard to choose the best one, Because most of them are good. And after all, the best logo redesign is QuickChek.

I don’t agree with a comment by “me” above me about the redesigned logo. Just like Jerry Keyper commented, it’s solid and competent work. Actually, it’s not perfect, but there are no better logos in the list.

About the worst logo, congrates to Hunter. I don’t need to explain why because Keith Tauber, Thomas, Kyle Irwin, and Wolfie Rankin have done so in their comments above.

Overall, thanks for inspiring us with this list, David.

Good morning from Delaware!

My phone shows ** by name and email. The only other request is for a website which I don’t have. Please tell me what’s missing.
Marian Humphrey

Share a thought