Kodak Introduces New Logo

kodak_old_new.jpg

On the heels of Intel's logo change comes another from Kodak. After 35 years, the photography giant introduced a new logo at the Consumer electronics Show in Las Vegas Friday. The new logo does away with the graphic Kmart-like K graphic and shifts to simply the word Kodak in a new typeface with horizontal bars above and below. It's cleaner looking but the company has some great equity in the old look. We're leaning towards the "we like the old better than the new" end of the spectrum. What are your thoughts?

by Steve Hall    Jan- 7-06   Click to Comment   
Topic: Brands   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Comments



Comments

I don't think either logo is amazing, but the new logo is not compelling enough to scrap their old design. At least the old logo felt vaguely photographic with its wedges converging like image to a camera lense. Now the logo would be equally generic enough for a tech company, a dump truck maker, a courier service, or a consulting house. It will lose its luster over time, but by then hopefully Fuji and Kodak while have merged into KOJAK.

Posted by: Nik on January 8, 2006 3:31 AM

I like the new one, although I can understand why most would say they like the old one.

Posted by: Baba on January 8, 2006 4:19 AM

It is the old logo which give impact of kodak's distinguished quality, the new one looks ordinary and loses edge over the lod one.Moreover old one was well thought over & designed.I think company should not change old logo and if at all time warrants it should be designed better than old.

Posted by: Amit Patel on January 8, 2006 4:47 AM

The new logo looks like something I would've done, which isn't saying much. I wonder how much they spent on this.

Posted by: Terry Heaton on January 8, 2006 9:05 AM

Yeah, the new one is pretty generic. It's not unpleasant, but it's not interesting or fresh or memorable, either. Which probably means that it was created by committee, at great cost.

Posted by: Laura on January 8, 2006 10:20 AM

I hope Kodak didn't pay too much for that new logo.

Posted by: btn [TypeKey Profile Page] on January 8, 2006 7:33 PM

This unexciting new logo is one way to go - or they could of just continued investing in ASSvertising.

Posted by: Julian on January 8, 2006 8:41 PM

It may be an olog , a gool, a loog, or a golo. It is not a logo.
At least they haven't changed the company name to Kovaya or Avayko, or Fodigita.

Posted by: owen on January 8, 2006 11:43 PM

I like the old one better.

An old logo has the capacity to take on new meaning, but the newer one doesn't look built to last. Perhaps that is just a reflection of the times

Posted by: Kev mears on January 9, 2006 4:54 AM

Shame on all you nay-sayers. The old Kodak logo brought up images of film and smelly old chemicals. The old Kodak logo could not be separated from its glorious but old-technology past.

I have watched in sadness as Kodak has missed every opportunity along the way to benefit from their brand's position in a changing world.

If adapting to a new world were as simple as changing a logo, then this new logo would suffice just fine.

George Eastman chose the word Kodak because of its sound (he thought it sounded like the click of the shutter). I think he'd be OK with this new logo which displays the word "Kodak" quite clearly and brightly. The name Kodak is about all that's left of the brand, IMHO--but that's a lot! This logo does the job of "saying" Kodak about as well as any.

I think it's good....and I hope they paid A LOT for it (ha).

Posted by: Scott Brooks on January 9, 2006 6:39 AM

PROs: conveys simplicity yet in a classic, distinguished way + definitely more flexible/amenable to use in modern marketing mediums + maintained the original color scheme + strategically parallels kodak's changed business.

CONS: doesn't feel substantial or bold enough + will take a lot of work to get the instant identification (translate: meaning to consumers) that was built up over time.


p.s. I've rarely seen a re-branding (or even initial branding) campaign that was a unanimous hit - us marketers and business professionals are notoriously hard to please.

Posted by: Ian Palmer on January 9, 2006 11:12 AM

The new logo looks like a first-year art school student's design.

It doesn't lend itself to translate across all mediums (as suggested by some) nor does it help Kodak refresh the brand image.


Just my 2ยข

Posted by: Jo on January 9, 2006 1:13 PM

Naah. You're right about the equity - yes, the old one looks K-Martish, but at least it has equity. The new one looks generic, and has nothing.

Posted by: ralph on January 9, 2006 1:20 PM

Well, at least it doesn't have one of those "arcs" that permeated tech and dot com logo spending in the late nineties. And since they already started with a word that doesn't mean anything, they didn't have to create one.

You can be sure they paid some "identity experts" way too much money to rid themselves of their insecurity with their photographic roots.

Posted by: Stevie on January 9, 2006 1:39 PM

Companies like Kodak that benefit from brand equity and recognition should always be careful about re-branding.

Unless the previous logo/brand hurt your company, your image and your sales, you shouldn't spend time and money changing it. It takes years, a lot of money and sweat to build the same recognition for the new logo.

Kodak's new logo does not add anything. At least, not at first glance. It's just...yet another logo. Therefore, I don't think the startegy is paying off.

Martin

Posted by: Martin on January 9, 2006 2:03 PM

I don't know anything about the industry (other than as a consumer), but this seems like an over-reaction. I would guess Kodak execs got themselves concerned the old logo was more associated with past technologies and wasn't cutting edge enough.

I disagree with that thinking--I don't think the old logo represented "film" but was associated with a love of picture taking and the creation of memories. I'd argue their time and money was better spent recapturing the higher ground by updating the existing visual elements rather than throwing them out.

Guess it depends upon how they activiate the new brand, so time will tell.

Posted by: Augie Ray on January 9, 2006 3:35 PM

The equity in Kodak's brand is in the name alone. Whether their name shows up in the old little box, or is a word between horizontal bars, means almost nothing. They didn't blow an enduring and powerful slogan like Intel did by dumping "Intel Inside".

In this particular instance, at least, the Kodak change is probably as insignificant as it gets.

Also, this kind of a change doesn't necessarily disconnect them from their old technologies because those technologies are in the name anyway, not in an accompanying slogan or graphic. Not like, say, RCA Victor dumping the logo of the their player and the dog with the slogan "His Master's Voice".

Posted by: Don on January 9, 2006 4:12 PM

At least they kept the colors, those will be old friends to those looking for the old logo.
As for those who see the old logo as a symbol of smelly chemicals and noisy cameras - ptoey on you! I miss my hours in photo lab!
As you're grumbling that your printer is out of ink trying to print out photos, just think, it used to be that you had to volunteer as a photo lab technician or work in a photo store in order to print nasty photos. And you had to sniff those chemicals the whole time. Sigh.

Posted by: DC Grrl on January 9, 2006 4:59 PM

If there is one thing that all logo designers should pay heed to- it's type. Classic typefaces that never go out of style are key to brands that last.
Apple get's bonus points for sticking with their version of Garamond, IBM for their use of their Bodoni- and if there is one failing in this new logo- it's the new type-that "a" is awful.
There was a ton of equity in that old logo- and said that Kodak had been there forever. Why they want a new logo - when their old is a classic is beyond me- but - if the new one isn't a slam dunk- on the order of the FedEx rebrand- they shouldn't have done it.
This wasn't the slam dunk- it wasn't even a free throw... it was an.... airball.

Posted by: David Esrati on January 9, 2006 6:46 PM

What an insane decision to do away with the old logo. They threw away a couple of million and got nothing in return. Not only is the new logo as powerful as the old one it is also damn ugly. It indeed looks as if a first year student designed is, or maybe the nephew of the chairman did it, nepotism rules, right?

Posted by: Roeland de Bruijn on January 10, 2006 3:30 AM

Typical - the real problem is that Kodak has been last to market with anything new and ground breaking on either the consumer or pro photo market so the anwer is - New Logo! New Look! New Kodak! Nope - they shit canned a bunch of people - took their b&w paper out of production and are still light years behind Canon or Nikon in camera sales so a new logo means diddly - pissing on a forest fire is what I think

Posted by: Peter on January 10, 2006 1:43 PM

Kodak, AT&T, Intel. Notice a trend? Sometimes I wonder if the designers of the world just get together, agree on a simple uninteresting new look that hasn't been used for at least ten years, and then agree to use it for all new accounts. If everyone uses it, it's a trend. Is it good design? It's sad to think that the first decade of this century will be remembered for dull, uninspired, and just plain dumb logo design.

Posted by: Matt Peterson on January 11, 2006 7:40 PM

Definately like the new one better. Just my opinion!

Posted by: CellphoneSavant on February 14, 2006 2:06 PM

I think the new logo is crap. The font used for the KODAK was better in the original. Isn't there a way they can get Emeril to Kick the old logo up a notch instead of scrapping it? I am a big fan/supporter of Kodak all the way, but this new logo has to go.

Posted by: MR. NY on March 2, 2006 10:01 AM







Featured FREE Resource: