You know the greatest lesson I learned from the tv show The Wire? When your brand lacks credibility you make a change to the brand.[1][2] Good move by Microsoft.
On other hand, I'm still trying to grok why Twitter changed it's logo recently[3]? Was something inherently being tarnished about the Twitter brand? As far as I know, the answer is NO.
I'm going to make a major assumption here, but I think it had to do with it being driven by a Creative Director and not by a Marketing (i.e. Business) person. The blog post and title at least reads that way.
Microsoft isn't changing their brand, they're updating their brand. It's something virtually every company does from time to time, and it's not a sign of the apocalypse. Microsoft isn't escaping any of their past with this change, they're still very recognizable as the same company as before.
Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter. They didn't update their brand because it was weak, quite the opposite. The twitter brand is currently so strong, it afforded them the unique opportunity to drop the words from their trademark and use just an icon. Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
> Microsoft isn't changing their brand, they're updating their brand.
Semantics.
> it's not a sign of the apocalypse.
I'm sorry if I implied it's a sign of the apocalypse. I didn't mean it that way. The point is Microsoft has suffered greatly due to the massive success of Apple. This is no news to anyone. They're not going to die anytime soon, but they have a MASSIVE threat. The Wire's portrayal of the character's brand and that of Worldcom, are not a 1:1 match, I agree, but the theory is the same.
My point was to draw the real reasoning behind branding and why companies shift and update brands. I've personally been trapped in this before, and thought "God that logo looks like shit! That company, or my company, should change it! They would do so much better if they did!" Branding/Logo is about associations of an image with the company and its values. When the values of the company deteriorate, lack credibility, etc, than the association of the logo starts portraying those negative values (or lack thereof).
For example: How many people here think Google should change it's logo? The logo itself lacks any sort of design principles and very clearly was created by a techie with lack of graphic design. So why on earth hasn't Google changed it?
> Your assumptions about the reason for updating a brand are even wronger in the case of Twitter.Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
I apologize, I wasn't aware that the logo before explicitly included the name. Regardless...
> Twitter's rebranding was them stepping up to an exclusive club of the worlds most highly recognizable brands.
8 of the top 10 brands in the world have their name in their logo...[1] What exclusive club are you talking about?
>How many people here think Google should change it's logo? The logo itself lacks any sort of design principles and very clearly was created by a techie with lack of graphic design. So why on earth hasn't Google changed it?
They have changed it. They subtly update it every couple years to keep the shading and the bevel in line with current trends.
In any case, you're either missing my point, or you're missing the point of the scene in the wire. That was about a brand escaping their old image. Microsoft isn't doing that. They're embracing their old image, celebrating their old brand, and remaining recognizable as who they were before, even though they had the new logo. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what worldcom and the barksdale crew were trying to do. If they wanted to escape their old image, now would be a perfect time to do it, with their most different products ever, but they are sticking by both the windows and the Microsoft brands.
> They subtly update it every couple years to keep the shading and the bevel in line with current trends.
Apparently not. They changed it once in 1999 (after its original in 1998) and again in 2010.[1]
"The logo was the foundation for new icons and hundreds of tiny alterations designed to accommodate and seamlessly integrate the expanded functionality of the left-hand panel."[2]
So they had a legitimate design reason for changing the logo, not based solely on the brand...
and your link to the top 10 brands only shows coke for me, but here's what i'm thinking of: golden arches, chevy bow tie, nike swoosh, apple logo, playboy bunny, wikipedia crossed W.
I think of Twitter's logo change as the time they turned from "openish tool for loosely connecting millions" to "closed tool for broadcasting to millions". I wonder if that was intentional.
So when Apple change their name from Apple Computers it was because they lacked credibility? No, of course not. But because it's Microsoft everyone throws this nonsense around.
Rebranding is something that all companies do at varying times their lives. When you haven't done it in 25 years... yeah, it's probably time for a refresh. Trends change.
You really think a business person with real money on the line makes a dramatic change like this based on the notion of "When you haven't done it in 25 years... yeah, it's probably time for a refresh. Trends change."
No, but I think that a business person with real money they spend on market research that says "people perceive the logo as old and out of fashion" might decide it was time for a refresh.
> people perceive the logo as old and out of fashion
So, I think we both agree, the original logo lacks the previous associations of value and therefore needed to be changed/updated. People don't buy things because of a lack of newness or because they are deemed old. They buy based on utility (whether that's perceived or not is another question).
You do realize that most major companies have undergone brand/logo refreshments at some point? Infact its much more difficult to pick out a popular company that hasn't redesigned their logo/brand since it birth. If you think that signals the demise of a company then you should visit thefacebook.com sometime.
I'm assuming I don't have to explain to you the sentiment over Microsoft's product base (consumer mainly) in the past 5-10 years in comparison to it's biggest competitor, Apple, right?
Apple is a single, targeted competitor to a fraction of Microsoft's business.
The XBox 360 is a great console, MS hardware is still top notch, Office is still Office and Exchange is still Exchange. Windows 7 has been widely well received, and IE 10 is on track to be the most compliant browser in the IE line.
Half (or more) of Microsoft's business, and far more of their profit, is two product lines: Windows, and Office.
They're also synergystically linked: if you're running on Windows, you're far more likely to want/need Office, and if you're using Office, you're far more likely to want Windows.
Crack either side of that diptych, and you've vastly undermined the business. Apple is attacking both. The OS through both its laptop and desktop (yes, you can still buy desktop Macs) offerings, but increasingly, mobile (iPhone, iPad, even iPod). Apple iWork is a competitor to Office, and some products (notably Keynote) are vastly superior to the Microsoft offerings.
Apple's not the only competition, of course. Google appear primed to take on more of the space as well (Google Apps, Android). And there's even Linux on the desktop. One of these years.
So you're suggesting some purchasers of Apple products are vapid enough (and monied enough) to buy them out of "goodwill" towards Apple? It's possible, of course an alternative is that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. I know which way I'd bet.
Ah, but that is one alternative! Now you'll have to excuse me, I'm off to buy a new MBP with the specs of the standard PC laptops of a few years ago for double the price, acting as a rational consumer.
I do not thing that buying something because you think it has a good brand (or you have goodwill towards the brand, however you want to phrase it), makes you vapid.
High end consumer products like Apple hardware most certainly have a certain fashion aspect which is important to remember when you considering why people make the purchase decisions that they do.
While that may be something that you do not value when purchasing hardware and gadgets (I know I do not value it highly at all either), there is certainly nothing fundamentally wrong with those that think otherwise.
Those are wholly related. Were the quality of Apple's hardware or software to decline my goodwill towards them would take an immediate drop. The one and only reason that I use their things because I find those things, and the support behind them, to be the highest quality.
I am not sure how that is relevant to be honest. Are you saying that there brand doesn't matter, or that it is healthy because their products have found success due to technical achievements?
On other hand, I'm still trying to grok why Twitter changed it's logo recently[3]? Was something inherently being tarnished about the Twitter brand? As far as I know, the answer is NO.
I'm going to make a major assumption here, but I think it had to do with it being driven by a Creative Director and not by a Marketing (i.e. Business) person. The blog post and title at least reads that way.
[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undertow_(The_Wire)#Barksdale_t...
[2]- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbbZc2pab9k
[3]- http://blog.twitter.com/2012/06/taking-flight-twitterbird.ht...