A friend recent sent me this post from Gawker, thanks Bruce! In the post they poke fun at the rationale (download) provided by the agency, Arnell Group, on the multimillion dollar logo refresh. Personally, I want to look for the positive in what they created, but this document does not do them justice. What do you think? Please comment.
Posted at The Letter
Advertisement
About Alan Hart
I am an entrepreneur and business strategist with more than 13 years of experience. I began my career by founding two companies and has since worked with companies ranging from start-ups to Fortune 500 in the areas of innovation, strategy and marketing. Today, I am a partner at Keen Strategy - helping companies out-differentiate and out-innovate to win in the marketplace.
View all posts by Alan Hart
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d261a24b-6795-4def-b017-13ae6fe9ca1f)
April 28th, 2009 at 8:34 am
My first reaction to it was, “Huh?”
My second reaction was, “They stole that from the Grateful Dead!”
My third was “They stole that from Obama!”
Now I kinda like it. I think I like the font choice more than the logo itself. I enjoy the thin seriffed goodness. I hate what they did to the Mountain Dew logo/branding though. That sucks.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Err, SANS seriffed goodness, I meant to say.
April 28th, 2009 at 8:55 am
I am dazzled by the “science” and the “story” that led to their ultimate conclusion. Unfortunately, I simply don’t like the logo … I would have preferred a more retro/classic logo given their “soda pop, sody popy” campaign …
I can only assume the market research and customer feedback studies are housed somewhere else.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
It’s good branding. I think it is definitely a “twist” on the Obama logo, but it is still consistent with their branding over the years. They’ve worked hard to be the Taste of the Next Generation and building off the momentum achieved by Obama’s Change logo is just smart.
April 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Great question. I’d like to know when it was debuted as it does have an Obama tint to it. Then again, it’s consistent with their own theme over past logos. My question would be this: The logo is so dominant, does it not push the “Pepsi” branding, which is also a thinner font, down? Or have we come to see that logo as being Obama, and we thus buy it? I’d like to know sales since the move as a number of neighbors not in the marketing/journalism biz have commented on it.
Again, good debate.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
no comments on the subtle difference between Pepsi and Diet Pepsi logos now? Personally, I think they’ve overthought and subjugated the pepsi name, but if it get’s them a wee bit of share it’ll be declared a success.