I think designers think that the customer really cares about it like they would. If the customer can still find the business they would care more about the value and service they get from brand.
This of course this is very different with that logo is something which is on the product you wear, drive etc
Consumer habits vary so much it would impossible for a large corporation to update a logo to complete success. It would need to carry over cultures, countries, placement, consumer tastes…I don’t think there is a name for this
Ira Glass said in regards to taste:
> All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But it’s like there is this gap. For the first couple years that you’re making stuff, what you’re making isn’t so good. It’s not that great. It’s trying to be good, it has ambition to be good, but it’s not that good.
>But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is good enough that you can tell that what you’re making is kind of a disappointment to you.
The quote might be irrelevant to your question but it provides some context about what taste is. Basically it is what separates the creative. Your taste might differ from another creative but we all can appreciate good design.
Kinda. But if you boiled it down i think its true. Its the same with food, the most highly praised stuff within culinary curcles are mostly disgusting for the average joe...
THAT is one I really don't get. Old KIA was basic, bland. New KIA is just kickass, techy, and is a legible wordmark while serving as an almost symbol itself.
It still exists as my number one redesign on my list.
It’s so good. It matches the new design language of their vehicles. The old logo would’ve looked so out of place on these futuristic, angular vehicles.
Disagree calling it a *terrible* design. Its a good design that missed the mark in a one very unfortunate way. The general public takes things literally and aren't considering the form, they're just trying to read it and for that I do agree, its terrible. As a stylistic form though, its aesthetically on the money.
All they had to do is make a subtle adjustment to make that look like an A and not a backwords N and they'd have nailed it. So close.
https://preview.redd.it/21d4wgybd4uc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dfc977561d018408e79dcb83332203c0b202263
I also grew up in the 90s with this. So... I dunno.
You're entitled to your opinion, however I will say your comprehension feels lacking. An "N"s middle line doesnt connect this way, that would be backwards.
https://preview.redd.it/qkldgmn2f3uc1.jpeg?width=914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=296fb99597dd7a8b5bf2df70fe929b91afdaec15
yes that image is a backwards N. that image doesn't have the defining split that make the kia logo read as K I A
https://preview.redd.it/bls39dxvf3uc1.jpeg?width=914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54f123f22c928a49c693e065a30bb103c27a77ad
sorry, I sometimes forget the English words for saying my points.
It is more that I mean "an important design choice of visual thickness" or along those lines.
I am curious to know if you are of Russian or similar nations, as they are the only ones who use the backwards N. If that is the case, then I can absolutely see how thats what you see first.
Still doesn't excuse you calling it a terrible design (you might want to add "imo" to the end of it next time)
No, I'm from the US. It looked like a backwards N to me when I first saw it, and now I can't unsee it (well, I can, but I choose not to lol)
And you're right. I will edit my original comment to say IMO.
you choose not to…why? it only looks like a backwards N if for some reason it was double the width of the K
this is the designer equivalent of wilful ignorance
Compared to the old logo it's a tremendous step forward and it's nice to look at... but it' may very well be on TV sets, they could be selling Pens or publishing Records.
It's my pet peeve with it, it simply doesn't say cars, one can argue that Ford, VW or most other companies are the same, but in this case it was a redesign, certainly they could have put it on the list of improvements.
It doesn’t need to. For most people, their experience of the Kia logo is when they see an actual Kia car on the road, or an ad for a Kia car. The link is clear. Kia already have a recognisable name in their industry. The branding just needs to be clear and memorable.
I’d even go so far as to argue that the majority of the most successful brands have logos that have nothing to do with what they actually produce. Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola, Google, Sony, and on and on. You could argue that Amazon does with the whole a-to-z thing they have going on, but even that’s a stretch.
Your logo is just a signature that supports your brand.
That's why I made clear that I'm aware of that fact.
But as a designer I feel that, since it's a redesign, it's a missed opportunity.
I also said that is MY pet peeve and I don't expect everybody to feel the same.
In the end is just the difference between a good logo and an excelent logo.
I guess my question then is what do you consider examples of excellent logos that accomplish this? Not just in automotive, but any industry. Just curious.
Again from memory and not at my computer... the renewed logo of Burguer King since it's recent... Yamaha musical instruments... The Hawaii Coffe Ass. ...
There may not be a lot, but that only makes them better in my consideration.
Wait people hate it? I, a designer, constantly rave about how good it is and how much it elevated their entire brand. Their old logo was quite literally preventing me from considering them as an option.
I also just found out they have a logo [specifically for their Korean Market.](https://images-stag.jazelc.com/uploads/theautopian-m2en/logohistory.jpg) This one is way cooler!
Seeing the current (non-Korean) logo next to all of the former iterations makes it especially not look like it says KIA. I was reading them all on autopilot and I swear to god I saw Kim before I saw Kia.
That's a miss. The whole purpose of branding is to be "liked by consumers".
If you want a medium where having the design appreciated by experts is critical (and you don't care if average Joes like it), try fine art.
naa- branding isnt there to be liked, but to be working. people dont need to love the BK logo, they need to recognize it and associate the right "values" with it
Agreed—any response from neutral to wanting a tattoo of a logo is fine. Broad swaths of the target audience finding the logo distasteful or ugly, however, is a miss.
Unfortunately you can’t really prove any of this
The only clear way to determine anything like that would be engagement to 2x same day as change and stay up higher and higher. And ppl are upset that they can buy the logo and put it on stuff and wear it.
Eg., How do you know it was immensely hated?
To get on same page, what is “immensely hated” (definite it so I’m thinking what u think) ?
how do you determine who “immensely hates” thing-X ?
Fine art is not an exception in terms of being geared towards only to a select few. I'd rather say that the ones who dislike succesful and well engineered brand re-designes are the in-between people. Those who are somewhat interested but lack the whole scope of what good design or art is. The wider audience of consumers don't think about these things, they just experience that something is fresh, exciting, and belonging in the now.
I would call it a strategic failure. There are plenty of “good” designs that don’t resonate beyond a specific group.
Using the Burger King example, most people would agree the identity is well designed, but some may disagree with the concept or style.
It’s only a failure if the rebrand results in a drop in sales. If some people claim to not like the new Burger King logo, so what? Does it work for the company? If the answer is yes, it should be considered a success.
Ehh, what you’re describing is a different problem and much much more complex. A drop in sales can be attributed to a multitude of factors, the least of which could be a logo or visual branding.
You have to think of every factor from marketing touchpoints, naming, PR, product quality, pricing, distribution, etc. that could result in a loss of sales.
As much as I am biased to believe good visual branding can change lives, it has been proven to not have as much impact as other marketing and brand devices on profitability and success. A logo should be aesthetically pleasing, be relevant, be functional, and be memorable. But it can only be as successful as the collective parts of the whole.
So, if the strategy is to resonate with a target audience and the logo doesn’t succeed at this, it is a failure. Intention counts.
Personally, I don’t agree with OP’s assertion that BK consumers generally don’t like the logo. Or maybe they do, I’m not sure what the data says. Either way, the logo is obviously banking on brand equity and nostalgia.
FWIW, I do really like the original BK logo.
Bingo. IMO the true test for a redesign is how people feel about it in 5 or even 10 years time, once the shock of the new has worn off and it has built some equity. Even then, most people’s opinion will be heavily influenced by how they feel about the organisation as a whole.
That’s the true test of business and all decision making
There is no team or function that would not like to know 10 yrs future data. This does not exist. It will in 10 yrs
you’re saying an imagined non-existent [x] is how to best test something
Come again, what?
What partner or employee has this skill, I will do anything in my power to work for them not hire them, I’m a measly human
I’m saying that you can only truly judge the success of a visual rebrand (or another change like a rename) in retrospect, because there’s always going to be a vocal group of your people who will dislike any change, and your customers need to live with the new branding for a while so that they can experience it in practice. That can take years.
rebrand. someone who is not a designer can't analyze intentions within design. they can't understand possible problems of old design and cling onto them based on personal taste fed with nostalgia. a brand may change their image 10 times in years, but most people will think one they are use to is the best one.
Not quite. Most people rarely "like" a logo (how often have you heard "I like that logo!" from the average person?). It's just something they become familiar with and recognize. When you change it on them when they see no purpose it makes them angry.
Eventually people just move on and accept the new design, for the most part.
See, I would argue that a logo needs time and space to breathe and tell its story.
A vocal minority is ALWAYS going to hate any change. They'll hate that they weren't a part of the process. They are parasites for attention and self-importance. You can ignore them.
People that are apathetic or in favor of something, are much less apt to go through the motions of attention-seeking as an argumentative person is.
You are correct regarding new logos. I was responding directly to the title question, which included no time for opinions to mature variable.
If given that time/space and still not positively perceived by the target, still ineffective, especially if it impacts the target’s behavior.
I don’t like your athletic wear logo on my clothes/gear because I feel it’s ugly.
I choose another brand with an aesthetic that appeals to me and projects a message about me to others.
You *have* lost sales.
I’d 100% argue it only has to be liked on the consumer side.
Have you seen an In-n-out drive thru menu? Their revenue isn’t funded by graphic designers
I think of it like a person who's really into cars vs. someone who isn't. The one person freaks out over the power of the engine, the sound of the exhaust, 0-60 speed, the technical specs of the car. The other person likes the colors of the buttons for the windows.
A decade in this business has taught me one thing, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's a completely subjective experience. People that love logos like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Apple, timeless brands, need to also realize that they love those logos because those brands are so successful. They're timeless because they've been around for a long time and have marketed themselves amazingly well.
I think this is less about design and more about change. People are generally averse to changing something they're familiar with, or something they've grown attached to. I think if the current Burger King logo was the original one and they switched to the new one, you'd get the same reaction.
Whether people like a logo or not is irrelevant, it is whether the logo works or not. People hate the new KIA rebrand but damn has it turned them from being seen as cheap shit cars to semi cheap decent/good cars (regardless of what the cars are actually like). The problem with rebrands though is people don’t like change, they like what they are used to, if you give it 30 years and revert it, you would probably get the same reaction.
There is a larger conversation here that is missing. Is it the logo consumers don’t like or did Burger King launch a new brand and failed to follow through with appropriate ads and campaigns to get the public on board? If anything, people are attached to the nostalgia of the old logo and have zero attachment to the new one.
A company with a poor logo can have an overall positive outcome from the public with the right campaign / perception.
[MAYA Principle](https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-for-the-future-but-balance-it-with-your-users-present). Defined by Raymond Loewy, designer of the Air Force One logo, the Coca-Cola bottle, the Shell Oil logo, the US Postal Service logo, and the Greyhound logo.
Maya is an abbreviation for “**Most Advanced. Yet Acceptable.**” which means that Loewy sought to give his users the most advanced design, but not more advanced than what they were able to accept and embrace. Loewy believed that:
*"The adult public's taste is not necessarily ready to accept the logical solutions to their requirements if the solution implies too vast a departure from what they have been conditioned into accepting as the norm."*
Bad design.
A logo for a publicly facing company shouldn’t be a wankfest for those “in the know” and unappealing to your actual audience. What’s the point?
I don’t think the new BK logo is bad. It looks a lot like the [Hungry Jacks logo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Hungry_Jack%27s.svg/640px-Hungry_Jack%27s.svg.png), which I think it quite a great logo actually.
Familiarity. Next time Burger King rebrands, those same people will prefer the one we have now.
But we also have to keep in mind that humans live on spectrums of preference and a lot of it has to do with factors that have nothing to do with design. Some people feel more comfortable with their environments being full because it makes them feel comforted and safe to have belongings. Others prefer minimalism because it makes them feel free of constraints. Some people view design from an emotional standpoint such as feeling nostalgic, others view it from the standpoint of logic and reason. Not everyone's brains work the same, and that isn't a matter of taste so much as just how their brains are wired and we're all different. And that is okay.
But yes, studying graphic design would allow you to apply logic and reason to a rebrand that the uninitiated would not be aware of. I can appreciate that hyper-functionality of a super-simplified logo. But I also understand the emotional attachments.
I am mixed about the the new BK logo, it is just not eye catching anymore other than it just being new. The blue made it pop out more when driving by, but now it just seems to be a bit bland and less attention grabbing.
I've noticed this same phenomenon in photography. There are techniques that are considered "bad" in photography, and photographers love to gripe and shame. But if the viewer/customer/etc likes it then the photographers opinion doesn't matter. The opposite is true for things that are "good."
The designer understands all the small details, the intricacies and the meaning behind each and every point. The consumer makes an opinion based on taste and preference
A lot of people are missing the point here. It isn’t to have consumers “like” your logo. Likeability is totally irrelevant. People may not like the Burger King logo, but if the rebrand helps sell more burgers, it’s a success.
Until this moment I didn't realize Burger King had rebranded. I love what they've done. Probably still won't eat there, but at least their design department is on point.
Weird thing is, I just read this and was like... "wait....what does the old logo even look like?" I had to look it up...and then I saw it and was like "ehh...that's why I can't remember it." Just looked up the new one and like it much better.
It could keep people from buying it if they don’t know the brand already. When Starry came out, I saw it in the store for the first time and it just looked like very overpriced off-brand soda to me. I found out later that it was brand name soda, but I was so put off by it that I wasn’t willing to spend all that extra money for something that looked so boring. If the logo wasn’t so bland, I might have recognized it as something worth that price.
Isn't the redesign pretty much just going back to how it used to look? I prefer it cause I always thought the buns were peaches when I was a kid, it looks more like a burger now. Although I still thought the old logo was nice enough, too.
No quite, it's been subtly modified. I have to dig out the video where the changes were explained
EDIT: [redesign BK logo 2021](https://youtu.be/sQROpfZAyNE)
I think the new Pepsi logo is another good example. Me and my coworkers like it because it brought back some of their old design cues with some contemporary styling, but my wife and a couple friends I’ve talked too don’t like it. They think it looks cheap. I can see how the red and blue and black can feel a bit like middle school mascot colors, but I still think the way it’s put together is cool and certainly better than their previous logo.
But, as many other users have said, esoteric is the word we’re looking for. Doesn’t mean the BK or Pepsi logos are bad, just means they decided to have a stronger flavor, rather than going for something generic or inoffensive.
Everything in the flow is poorly defined except for purchases
Poorly defined as interpretable or non-consensus of views.
Are you sure you are talking abt the same thing?
A really good example of this kind of thing, or perhaps the opposite, is, surprisingly, the Trump MAGA hats. Not because of what they stand for (fuck that guy) but because it shows just how much clean, polished design can actually resonate less with people than something that feels simple and unrefined.
Those hats don’t match his campaign brand—which itself was a fairly bland and conventional design—and almost feel like a bootleg piece of merchandise. Yet that lack of refinement lent credibility to his obviously-bullshit claims of being a “man of the people” as opposed to an “elite” (despite being, you know, a wealthy real estate developer and businessman).
Sometimes the best designs are the ones that don’t feel like they were made by some snooty designer, and I say this as a snooty designer.
Logo does not need to be liked by the consumer. It only needs to be memorable and associates itself with the product. The best example is Noctua. No matter how over-designed the logo is or how horrid their product's color palette is.. it is still associated with quality.
Every time their product shows up on a PC building video, the reviewer or the comment section will tell you how much they hated it.
Regular people don't have the expertise to judge a rebrand. It's too technical and complicated. It's not just about the logo. People also don't like change. They fear change. When Burger King started using the previous logo, coming from a logo more similar to the current one, people didn't like it. In the future, when Burger King replaces its logo with one similar to the one they just abandoned, people won't like it either. It's a law of nature.
A logo's primary function isn't to be liked. It's not even one of the most important functions. And in many cases, it's not even necessary. Its main purpose is identification. And often, when people complain about a logo, it's because they're mentally reconnecting the new logo to the existing identity. Which means it's working. One of the most obvious cases is the case of Kia. Where many people reacted negatively. Even not understanding what the logo says. And during the two or three weeks of the launch, one of the most important Google searches was for that new car with the misspelled Kia logo. Which resulted in everyone understanding that was Kia's new logo. And that's what needs to happen in a rebranding.
(Edit: A designer's judgment regarding a logo isn't about aesthetic preferences. It's not about whether they like it or not. It's about the functionality and performance of that logo within a branding system. On the other hand, people don't understand branding, and their judgment is purely aesthetic based on the logo out of context. This could result in a designer giving a very positive judgment on a logo, but at a personal level, they might simultaneously say they don't like it aesthetically. This can happen, for example, if that designer is not part of the target audience for that branding.)
Those seem appropriate to the context. What’s the funny part?
The question is full undefined assumptions. It is convoluted. It’s unanswerable without the important stuff.
You shared the least critical part of your question
Also it’s a bad topic for answers, good topic for opinions
Fact 1: We cannot agree on shit, we can’t know something unless it’s a number in the past.
Fact 2: we still need to decide/do stuff today - in spite of that how stupid this position is.
This is the situation we find ourselves in. It’s hard af to navigate.
world class business builders have particularly useful ways of dealing with Fact 2
I think designers think that the customer really cares about it like they would. If the customer can still find the business they would care more about the value and service they get from brand. This of course this is very different with that logo is something which is on the product you wear, drive etc Consumer habits vary so much it would impossible for a large corporation to update a logo to complete success. It would need to carry over cultures, countries, placement, consumer tastes…I don’t think there is a name for this
Taste
i hope this is satire
I don’t know much about this, can you explain what you mean?
Ira Glass said in regards to taste: > All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But it’s like there is this gap. For the first couple years that you’re making stuff, what you’re making isn’t so good. It’s not that great. It’s trying to be good, it has ambition to be good, but it’s not that good. >But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is good enough that you can tell that what you’re making is kind of a disappointment to you. The quote might be irrelevant to your question but it provides some context about what taste is. Basically it is what separates the creative. Your taste might differ from another creative but we all can appreciate good design.
Kinda. But if you boiled it down i think its true. Its the same with food, the most highly praised stuff within culinary curcles are mostly disgusting for the average joe...
I too, love all the new Burger King branding. The one that comes to mind for me is the KIA logo, people seem to hate it but I think it's fantastic.
THAT is one I really don't get. Old KIA was basic, bland. New KIA is just kickass, techy, and is a legible wordmark while serving as an almost symbol itself. It still exists as my number one redesign on my list.
It’s so good. It matches the new design language of their vehicles. The old logo would’ve looked so out of place on these futuristic, angular vehicles.
You mean KN? Terrible design, IMO.
Disagree calling it a *terrible* design. Its a good design that missed the mark in a one very unfortunate way. The general public takes things literally and aren't considering the form, they're just trying to read it and for that I do agree, its terrible. As a stylistic form though, its aesthetically on the money. All they had to do is make a subtle adjustment to make that look like an A and not a backwords N and they'd have nailed it. So close.
Yep - if the bar were there on the _A_, it'd be a great logo. As it is, it reads as K И...
All great points! And thank you for actually coming up with a valid argument, instead of jumping down my throat lol
Like the legible Mercedes star or Nike swash? We don’t read well-known logos, we know them.
Agreed. I was wondering what this new KN car brand I was seeing all over was for a good minute.
https://preview.redd.it/21d4wgybd4uc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3dfc977561d018408e79dcb83332203c0b202263 I also grew up in the 90s with this. So... I dunno.
Me for a year, thought it was some small brand EV company or something
You're entitled to your opinion, however I will say your comprehension feels lacking. An "N"s middle line doesnt connect this way, that would be backwards. https://preview.redd.it/qkldgmn2f3uc1.jpeg?width=914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=296fb99597dd7a8b5bf2df70fe929b91afdaec15
[удалено]
yes that image is a backwards N. that image doesn't have the defining split that make the kia logo read as K I A https://preview.redd.it/bls39dxvf3uc1.jpeg?width=914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=54f123f22c928a49c693e065a30bb103c27a77ad
It's actually a Russian I (ee)
I would hardly count that as a defining split, but to each their own!
sorry, I sometimes forget the English words for saying my points. It is more that I mean "an important design choice of visual thickness" or along those lines.
Ah okay, I get where you're coming from.
[удалено]
I am curious to know if you are of Russian or similar nations, as they are the only ones who use the backwards N. If that is the case, then I can absolutely see how thats what you see first. Still doesn't excuse you calling it a terrible design (you might want to add "imo" to the end of it next time)
No, I'm from the US. It looked like a backwards N to me when I first saw it, and now I can't unsee it (well, I can, but I choose not to lol) And you're right. I will edit my original comment to say IMO.
you choose not to…why? it only looks like a backwards N if for some reason it was double the width of the K this is the designer equivalent of wilful ignorance
Because it's fun and I don't do that with everything? It's not that serious lmao
When I first saw the logo it was on a new car and I legit thought it was a new car manufacturer. No part of my brain read KIA.
Compared to the old logo it's a tremendous step forward and it's nice to look at... but it' may very well be on TV sets, they could be selling Pens or publishing Records. It's my pet peeve with it, it simply doesn't say cars, one can argue that Ford, VW or most other companies are the same, but in this case it was a redesign, certainly they could have put it on the list of improvements.
It doesn’t need to. For most people, their experience of the Kia logo is when they see an actual Kia car on the road, or an ad for a Kia car. The link is clear. Kia already have a recognisable name in their industry. The branding just needs to be clear and memorable. I’d even go so far as to argue that the majority of the most successful brands have logos that have nothing to do with what they actually produce. Apple, Nike, Coca-Cola, Google, Sony, and on and on. You could argue that Amazon does with the whole a-to-z thing they have going on, but even that’s a stretch. Your logo is just a signature that supports your brand.
That's why I made clear that I'm aware of that fact. But as a designer I feel that, since it's a redesign, it's a missed opportunity. I also said that is MY pet peeve and I don't expect everybody to feel the same. In the end is just the difference between a good logo and an excelent logo.
I guess my question then is what do you consider examples of excellent logos that accomplish this? Not just in automotive, but any industry. Just curious.
Again from memory and not at my computer... the renewed logo of Burguer King since it's recent... Yamaha musical instruments... The Hawaii Coffe Ass. ... There may not be a lot, but that only makes them better in my consideration.
But the Kia logo appears on cars, not on TV sets…
Good Lord, I don't know how to even begin (9\_9)
I really wish they would kill their "Have it Your Way" commercials. It makes me want to stick a toothpick in my ears.
KN...NIN...if has definitely gotten people talking.
Wait people hate it? I, a designer, constantly rave about how good it is and how much it elevated their entire brand. Their old logo was quite literally preventing me from considering them as an option.
Imagine ruling out an entire brand of car because you didn’t like their logo
Imagine spending 30 grand on something that you don’t even like when other options exist
The KIA logo is just wrong. That's my professional opinion.
I also just found out they have a logo [specifically for their Korean Market.](https://images-stag.jazelc.com/uploads/theautopian-m2en/logohistory.jpg) This one is way cooler!
Seeing the current (non-Korean) logo next to all of the former iterations makes it especially not look like it says KIA. I was reading them all on autopilot and I swear to god I saw Kim before I saw Kia.
The 1964 one is actually good!
Dawg what? I don’t even know what that logo represents.
Same. How people like it is beyond me. It looks like KN with a backwards N.
That's a miss. The whole purpose of branding is to be "liked by consumers". If you want a medium where having the design appreciated by experts is critical (and you don't care if average Joes like it), try fine art.
naa- branding isnt there to be liked, but to be working. people dont need to love the BK logo, they need to recognize it and associate the right "values" with it
Agreed—any response from neutral to wanting a tattoo of a logo is fine. Broad swaths of the target audience finding the logo distasteful or ugly, however, is a miss.
I'd say the Instagram logo was immensely hated when it came out, and now it's super recognizable (note I didn't say "liked")
Unfortunately you can’t really prove any of this The only clear way to determine anything like that would be engagement to 2x same day as change and stay up higher and higher. And ppl are upset that they can buy the logo and put it on stuff and wear it. Eg., How do you know it was immensely hated? To get on same page, what is “immensely hated” (definite it so I’m thinking what u think) ? how do you determine who “immensely hates” thing-X ?
I don't have hard data, I just remember the reaction on the internet and from my friends when it was originally announced
Often people can't explain why they don't like it, they only don't like it because it changed.
Fine art is not an exception in terms of being geared towards only to a select few. I'd rather say that the ones who dislike succesful and well engineered brand re-designes are the in-between people. Those who are somewhat interested but lack the whole scope of what good design or art is. The wider audience of consumers don't think about these things, they just experience that something is fresh, exciting, and belonging in the now.
I would call it a strategic failure. There are plenty of “good” designs that don’t resonate beyond a specific group. Using the Burger King example, most people would agree the identity is well designed, but some may disagree with the concept or style.
It’s only a failure if the rebrand results in a drop in sales. If some people claim to not like the new Burger King logo, so what? Does it work for the company? If the answer is yes, it should be considered a success.
Ehh, what you’re describing is a different problem and much much more complex. A drop in sales can be attributed to a multitude of factors, the least of which could be a logo or visual branding. You have to think of every factor from marketing touchpoints, naming, PR, product quality, pricing, distribution, etc. that could result in a loss of sales. As much as I am biased to believe good visual branding can change lives, it has been proven to not have as much impact as other marketing and brand devices on profitability and success. A logo should be aesthetically pleasing, be relevant, be functional, and be memorable. But it can only be as successful as the collective parts of the whole. So, if the strategy is to resonate with a target audience and the logo doesn’t succeed at this, it is a failure. Intention counts. Personally, I don’t agree with OP’s assertion that BK consumers generally don’t like the logo. Or maybe they do, I’m not sure what the data says. Either way, the logo is obviously banking on brand equity and nostalgia. FWIW, I do really like the original BK logo.
Change. People don’t like it. Logo redesigns are almost never received well, unless the original was a disaster obvious even to non-designers.
Bingo. IMO the true test for a redesign is how people feel about it in 5 or even 10 years time, once the shock of the new has worn off and it has built some equity. Even then, most people’s opinion will be heavily influenced by how they feel about the organisation as a whole.
That’s the true test of business and all decision making There is no team or function that would not like to know 10 yrs future data. This does not exist. It will in 10 yrs you’re saying an imagined non-existent [x] is how to best test something Come again, what? What partner or employee has this skill, I will do anything in my power to work for them not hire them, I’m a measly human
I’m saying that you can only truly judge the success of a visual rebrand (or another change like a rename) in retrospect, because there’s always going to be a vocal group of your people who will dislike any change, and your customers need to live with the new branding for a while so that they can experience it in practice. That can take years.
Agree on all, yeah.
This. 🔥
This is the literal definition of esoteric.
rebrand. someone who is not a designer can't analyze intentions within design. they can't understand possible problems of old design and cling onto them based on personal taste fed with nostalgia. a brand may change their image 10 times in years, but most people will think one they are use to is the best one.
If it’s not liked by the target audience it’s called ineffective logo.
Not quite. Most people rarely "like" a logo (how often have you heard "I like that logo!" from the average person?). It's just something they become familiar with and recognize. When you change it on them when they see no purpose it makes them angry. Eventually people just move on and accept the new design, for the most part.
It’s crystal clear: If dislike of your logo (new or old) results in the target audience avoiding your business or choosing another, it is ineffective.
See, I would argue that a logo needs time and space to breathe and tell its story. A vocal minority is ALWAYS going to hate any change. They'll hate that they weren't a part of the process. They are parasites for attention and self-importance. You can ignore them. People that are apathetic or in favor of something, are much less apt to go through the motions of attention-seeking as an argumentative person is.
You are correct regarding new logos. I was responding directly to the title question, which included no time for opinions to mature variable. If given that time/space and still not positively perceived by the target, still ineffective, especially if it impacts the target’s behavior.
Not at all. People may not like the new Pepsi logo, but does the logo make them buy less Pepsi? Likeability doesn’t mean shit, sales do.
I don’t like your athletic wear logo on my clothes/gear because I feel it’s ugly. I choose another brand with an aesthetic that appeals to me and projects a message about me to others. You *have* lost sales.
Subjectivity. Most likely on both sides.
I’d 100% argue it only has to be liked on the consumer side. Have you seen an In-n-out drive thru menu? Their revenue isn’t funded by graphic designers
I think of it like a person who's really into cars vs. someone who isn't. The one person freaks out over the power of the engine, the sound of the exhaust, 0-60 speed, the technical specs of the car. The other person likes the colors of the buttons for the windows. A decade in this business has taught me one thing, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's a completely subjective experience. People that love logos like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Apple, timeless brands, need to also realize that they love those logos because those brands are so successful. They're timeless because they've been around for a long time and have marketed themselves amazingly well.
Esoteric
Class without appeal
The purpose of the logo needs to be paramount not the look.
I think this is less about design and more about change. People are generally averse to changing something they're familiar with, or something they've grown attached to. I think if the current Burger King logo was the original one and they switched to the new one, you'd get the same reaction.
The BK retro branding is so crazy good, I hope they dig in and keep it for years to come. I absolutely love it.
I’m with you 1000%
There's a new burger king logo??
[Burger King logo redesign 2021](https://youtu.be/sQROpfZAyNE)
Missing the mark
Whether people like a logo or not is irrelevant, it is whether the logo works or not. People hate the new KIA rebrand but damn has it turned them from being seen as cheap shit cars to semi cheap decent/good cars (regardless of what the cars are actually like). The problem with rebrands though is people don’t like change, they like what they are used to, if you give it 30 years and revert it, you would probably get the same reaction.
There is a larger conversation here that is missing. Is it the logo consumers don’t like or did Burger King launch a new brand and failed to follow through with appropriate ads and campaigns to get the public on board? If anything, people are attached to the nostalgia of the old logo and have zero attachment to the new one. A company with a poor logo can have an overall positive outcome from the public with the right campaign / perception.
[MAYA Principle](https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/design-for-the-future-but-balance-it-with-your-users-present). Defined by Raymond Loewy, designer of the Air Force One logo, the Coca-Cola bottle, the Shell Oil logo, the US Postal Service logo, and the Greyhound logo. Maya is an abbreviation for “**Most Advanced. Yet Acceptable.**” which means that Loewy sought to give his users the most advanced design, but not more advanced than what they were able to accept and embrace. Loewy believed that: *"The adult public's taste is not necessarily ready to accept the logical solutions to their requirements if the solution implies too vast a departure from what they have been conditioned into accepting as the norm."*
Bad design. A logo for a publicly facing company shouldn’t be a wankfest for those “in the know” and unappealing to your actual audience. What’s the point? I don’t think the new BK logo is bad. It looks a lot like the [Hungry Jacks logo](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b1/Hungry_Jack%27s.svg/640px-Hungry_Jack%27s.svg.png), which I think it quite a great logo actually.
~~“A bit” is an understatement~~ Sorry I misread your comment, it does look a lot like it, practically identical.
Haha that’s ok. Fun fact — Hungry Jacks is simply the name of the BK franchise in Australia.
Ahhhhhh okay, that makes way more sense hahahaha thank you! I thought I was missing a joke
A lot of people just don't like change. We just try to see if the logo is effective for the brand.
Esoteric.
It’s part of the principle of Ego design.
Familiarity. Next time Burger King rebrands, those same people will prefer the one we have now. But we also have to keep in mind that humans live on spectrums of preference and a lot of it has to do with factors that have nothing to do with design. Some people feel more comfortable with their environments being full because it makes them feel comforted and safe to have belongings. Others prefer minimalism because it makes them feel free of constraints. Some people view design from an emotional standpoint such as feeling nostalgic, others view it from the standpoint of logic and reason. Not everyone's brains work the same, and that isn't a matter of taste so much as just how their brains are wired and we're all different. And that is okay. But yes, studying graphic design would allow you to apply logic and reason to a rebrand that the uninitiated would not be aware of. I can appreciate that hyper-functionality of a super-simplified logo. But I also understand the emotional attachments.
a bad design?
I am mixed about the the new BK logo, it is just not eye catching anymore other than it just being new. The blue made it pop out more when driving by, but now it just seems to be a bit bland and less attention grabbing.
If the logo doesn’t work/resonate with the target market then its bad design.
I agree with you, but I would argue “ineffective“ as opposed to “bad”
I call that "My Portfolio"
They are uncomfortable with changes I think.
I've noticed this same phenomenon in photography. There are techniques that are considered "bad" in photography, and photographers love to gripe and shame. But if the viewer/customer/etc likes it then the photographers opinion doesn't matter. The opposite is true for things that are "good."
Simple: Deeper level understanding = deeper level appreciation.
The designer understands all the small details, the intricacies and the meaning behind each and every point. The consumer makes an opinion based on taste and preference
A lot of people are missing the point here. It isn’t to have consumers “like” your logo. Likeability is totally irrelevant. People may not like the Burger King logo, but if the rebrand helps sell more burgers, it’s a success.
Until this moment I didn't realize Burger King had rebranded. I love what they've done. Probably still won't eat there, but at least their design department is on point.
Weird thing is, I just read this and was like... "wait....what does the old logo even look like?" I had to look it up...and then I saw it and was like "ehh...that's why I can't remember it." Just looked up the new one and like it much better.
Crap. The consumer is the only set of eyes that matter. If they ain’t buying it does no one any good.
Ineffective
Isn't the new Burger King logo just the old one from the 90s?
No [Burger King logo redesign 2021](https://youtu.be/sQROpfZAyNE)
Oh okay, so it's the old logo with tiny changes.
It could keep people from buying it if they don’t know the brand already. When Starry came out, I saw it in the store for the first time and it just looked like very overpriced off-brand soda to me. I found out later that it was brand name soda, but I was so put off by it that I wasn’t willing to spend all that extra money for something that looked so boring. If the logo wasn’t so bland, I might have recognized it as something worth that price.
I haven’t heard any negative comments about the updated Burger King branding.
Isn't the redesign pretty much just going back to how it used to look? I prefer it cause I always thought the buns were peaches when I was a kid, it looks more like a burger now. Although I still thought the old logo was nice enough, too.
Nope not quite [New Burger King logo redesign 2021](https://youtu.be/sQROpfZAyNE)
It’s just the old BK logo, no?
No quite, it's been subtly modified. I have to dig out the video where the changes were explained EDIT: [redesign BK logo 2021](https://youtu.be/sQROpfZAyNE)
Mods please pin this: [Burger King retro logo redesign YT video about the subtle changes 2021](https://youtu.be/sQROpfZAyNE)
I think the new Pepsi logo is another good example. Me and my coworkers like it because it brought back some of their old design cues with some contemporary styling, but my wife and a couple friends I’ve talked too don’t like it. They think it looks cheap. I can see how the red and blue and black can feel a bit like middle school mascot colors, but I still think the way it’s put together is cool and certainly better than their previous logo. But, as many other users have said, esoteric is the word we’re looking for. Doesn’t mean the BK or Pepsi logos are bad, just means they decided to have a stronger flavor, rather than going for something generic or inoffensive.
Non-performant. Described: Subjectively Aesthetic but objectively non-performant.
Everything in the flow is poorly defined except for purchases Poorly defined as interpretable or non-consensus of views. Are you sure you are talking abt the same thing?
A really good example of this kind of thing, or perhaps the opposite, is, surprisingly, the Trump MAGA hats. Not because of what they stand for (fuck that guy) but because it shows just how much clean, polished design can actually resonate less with people than something that feels simple and unrefined. Those hats don’t match his campaign brand—which itself was a fairly bland and conventional design—and almost feel like a bootleg piece of merchandise. Yet that lack of refinement lent credibility to his obviously-bullshit claims of being a “man of the people” as opposed to an “elite” (despite being, you know, a wealthy real estate developer and businessman). Sometimes the best designs are the ones that don’t feel like they were made by some snooty designer, and I say this as a snooty designer.
Logo does not need to be liked by the consumer. It only needs to be memorable and associates itself with the product. The best example is Noctua. No matter how over-designed the logo is or how horrid their product's color palette is.. it is still associated with quality. Every time their product shows up on a PC building video, the reviewer or the comment section will tell you how much they hated it.
They tend to be more nostalgic, but the will get used to it and they'll like it eventually
Regular people don't have the expertise to judge a rebrand. It's too technical and complicated. It's not just about the logo. People also don't like change. They fear change. When Burger King started using the previous logo, coming from a logo more similar to the current one, people didn't like it. In the future, when Burger King replaces its logo with one similar to the one they just abandoned, people won't like it either. It's a law of nature. A logo's primary function isn't to be liked. It's not even one of the most important functions. And in many cases, it's not even necessary. Its main purpose is identification. And often, when people complain about a logo, it's because they're mentally reconnecting the new logo to the existing identity. Which means it's working. One of the most obvious cases is the case of Kia. Where many people reacted negatively. Even not understanding what the logo says. And during the two or three weeks of the launch, one of the most important Google searches was for that new car with the misspelled Kia logo. Which resulted in everyone understanding that was Kia's new logo. And that's what needs to happen in a rebranding. (Edit: A designer's judgment regarding a logo isn't about aesthetic preferences. It's not about whether they like it or not. It's about the functionality and performance of that logo within a branding system. On the other hand, people don't understand branding, and their judgment is purely aesthetic based on the logo out of context. This could result in a designer giving a very positive judgment on a logo, but at a personal level, they might simultaneously say they don't like it aesthetically. This can happen, for example, if that designer is not part of the target audience for that branding.)
Funny how the two replies I’ve gotten so far is “taste” and “a miss”
Those seem appropriate to the context. What’s the funny part? The question is full undefined assumptions. It is convoluted. It’s unanswerable without the important stuff. You shared the least critical part of your question Also it’s a bad topic for answers, good topic for opinions Fact 1: We cannot agree on shit, we can’t know something unless it’s a number in the past. Fact 2: we still need to decide/do stuff today - in spite of that how stupid this position is. This is the situation we find ourselves in. It’s hard af to navigate. world class business builders have particularly useful ways of dealing with Fact 2