Has anyone on this forum seen Kodak's new logo yet?
Printable View
Has anyone on this forum seen Kodak's new logo yet?
No, but does it have anything at all to do with photography? :~)
Yeah, there's a thread over on APUG.org with an image of it.
I'm surprised they remembered how to spell it correctly.
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/01/kodak_logo3.jpg
Article: interviews.engadget.com/2006/01/07/kodak-unveils-new-logo/
What is the Y generation, anyway?
many years ago I worked for ICI. They got themselves a new chairman who made a few changes including the logo. The old logo was a circle with a couple of wavy lines in it and the the letters ICI. The new logo was a circle with a couple of wavy lines in it and the the letters ICI. What was difference I hear you ask. Well the new logo had an extra wave in the wavy lines. So whats the point of the story. Well ICI is big company. A very big company. They have huge stocks of stationary. They have huge stocks of advertising literature. All their products have their logo printed on them. It all had to be changed. It cost the company millions of pounds just for the sake of putting an extra wave in the logo lines.
If I were a an EK shareholder I would like to know how much this little exercise is costing the company. Will every retailer have to change every kodak logo in their store. They won't like that unless Kodak are paying.
Hey Rob,
It looks like they're trying to save on yellow and red ink!
I don't remember how it goes in latin, but theres a great phrase that translates into something like : "If I labor to be brief, I become obscure."
That notion kind of fits in with Kodak's new logo :-(
I think it's a good move on their part as the previous TM resembled K-Mart style graphics.
Now - if Ford would kill the blue oval ... Bring back a simple script like before
Reminds me of when KFC updated the portrait of the colonel a few years back.
I like type logos and humanistic fonts, so this is a step in the right direction. The dumb thing is that they probably paid Siegel & Gale millions to do what any sensible 23-year old graphic designer would have done for a tiny fraction of a million dollars. I would have eliminated the lines and set the red type against a field of gold myself.
All type logos make a lot more sense these days, when a brand identity has to be legible in a 50 pixel gif online. I'm just glad they didn't do anotherdot.com swish or something really stupid like AT&T or the worst logo in the universe.
Of course their best logos were circa 1935 when they were also the most high tech company in the world and their quality control surpassed anything the Germans could do. What a pity they lost their way and fricking General McArthur gave away the American optical industry.
I have a vague recollection (they all seem to be vague now) that the red shape symbolized something like the Instamatic cartridge being inserted in a camera or something. That would not be very much in keeping with their current business focus, I suppose.
I think as Frank suggests, an all-type logo works better these days for Internet legibility.