I just don’t understand what’s with these corporations all deciding to change their logos — corporations with instantly recognizable logos, which makes it much worse. The point of the logo is instant recognition, so what is the point of building a brand for all those years and then changing the logo once people can recognize it at a glance?
Intel, AT&T… the finger points at you.
And now, at Kodak.
First off, the Kodak symbol is instantly recognizable to most people, even in these days when the company is faltering because of their late entry into the digital imaging market. You could slap that icon onto a product without the Kodak type, and people would still know it was a Kodak product. Even the distinctive Kodak type could stand alone as a logo. Brilliant design move to dump it for a couple of yellow lines.
The concession to history made by the designer was to keep the signature Kodak colors. The only problem is, there is so little of the color that it is pointless.
Kodak says that they eliminated the box after 70 years as some kind of metaphor for “breaking out of the box.” That’s clever and funny, and the director of brand management at Kodak will be looking for another job soon because the brand has just been dismantled.
Kodak wants to be known as a cutting-edge, 21st century innovator. Fine. But why did they have to destroy their history to do it? With this non-distinctive logotype, they’ve positioned themselves as a newcomer in the marketplace instead of a company with more than 100 years experience in imaging.
I liked the old logo; the squareness of it and the arrow-like “K” would always make me think of a frame of film. I’m not so keen on the “a” in the new font; it looks like an upside-down “e,” like a schwa.