Kodak unveils new logo
By Paul Miller 
posted Jan 7th 2006 7:27AM
posted Jan 7th 2006 7:27AM
This year's CES seems
all about being down with the gen Y demographic, so in celebration of such efforts, Kodak is busting out a new logo to
replace their 50-year-old current one. They're also throwing off the restraints of a yellow box that has held their
corporate identity for the past 70 years, so we're guessing they didn't just do the changeover on a whim. Kodak seems
to hanging out with the cool kids like Motorola now, being featured on their phones and all, so here's to Kodak's move
to "break out of the box, in a lot of ways."
I wish all these companies would stop changing their logos. There's no need to "get with the times" or update your corporate image if you're one of the pillars on which an industry was built! I am going to miss seeing the old Kodak logo. :(
That new logo looks kinda like a 1970s font.
Kinda cool, except that perhaps the "a" could have been a circle with a vertical line to its right.
Old one's better!
Somebody at Kodak just doesn't get it. In this case it is likely a Board of Directors that voted for the new logo. How can anyone think that some odd font with two lines can represent a company as well as the old one which really was a symbol.
Take the word Kodak out of the old version and anyone who has a vague interest in photography or imaging would still be able to tell you what company's product they were looking at. Now you will be forced to read the word Kodak before being able to identify with the company.
I would really love to hear the marketing spin on such a backwards step for the company's branding and identity.
Bad decision. This is a company that's in the imaging business, so what do they do? They dump their old logo, which was a stylized image of a camera, and replaced it with a logo that doesn't have any image at all, just a word.
Wonder how much they gave the design firm to some up with that...
In my hometown, Kodak's chemical plant was the largest employer in the region. I worked there while in college.
Old logo- better.
I like the old one...........
Suckage meaningless logo. It's like all new logos, formless and empty like intel they ditch a good logo for a thin meaningless band of text just so they can attract some press attention! It's not a symbol even it's just words with lines what is going on!!!!!
Hmm.. too bad the new logo has no 'character'. I like the old one better.
When companies are lost and frightened and they know radical change is necessary, but they don't know what to do, they change the logo.
Their next move: Selling rebranded iPods at a loss.
Three SELL signals that are always right:
1) They throw away a great logo, and/or
2) They move their headquarters out of the dumpy, low-slung industrial park they thrived in and build a corporate Taj Majal, and/or
3) They build that Taj Majal in sunny La Jolla near the CEO's new friends and favorite golf courses, even though the factory's in Iowa.
Changing the companies logo is acceptable, however this was a very bad move.
1. The word Kodak with two lines struck above and below is NOT a logo. It is unrecognizable, and also looks bad. The previous logo was easily recognizable, and only needed to be slightly futher stylized to be refreshed.
2. The font used in this logo is ridiculous. From this terrible new logo, I gather that they are going for a classic / reputable image by using an old styled font. However, companies in the past used new modern looking fonts to keep their logo looking fresh as time passed. This new logo kodak has made just makes them all ridiculous. You can bet that the next time you see a set of parallel lines, you will NOT think of kodak.
I figure the new logo is kind of bland as well. They probably should've just tweaked the old logo a bit to give it a bit more of a "digital" feel...
Old news. They've been using that logo on adverts over here in the UK for a while now.
What the hell does a logo matter anyhow? It's not like people shop by the logo--they look for the manufacturer, yes, but it's not like "Oh. I need the little box with the word Kodak inside it."
Just like Intel WTF is the difference--It's just a Logo.
Companies change. Things need to be updated. When Kodak first started, yes--all they made were cameras and film for cameras. But now they are branching out into a bunch of new areas, and it's time for a 'face lift'.
I think the new logo looks better. It's less of a square, so it'll take up less space on their products. Not only that, it's not a solid freaking burnt-orange and red--allowing them to put their logo on colors other than that and not have it look hideous.
And it's the same thing with Intel. Back when they came up with the whole "Intel Inside" yea, that was their gig. They made CPU's, and that's what they were known for. Now they make hundreds of products, most of which don't actually go inside anything at all. They are a standalone external product.
Not to mention that hasn't actually been on a sticker of their processors in a VERY long time... I remember the Pentium that would come with two stickers: A red and a blue "Intel Inside" sticker... Now that just doesn't make sense anymore. People know what a P4 is. They don't need to be told its inside anymore.
Same with the AT&T/SBC/Etc logo... (although, i am wondering why all the companies are changing them at the same time.) It's still the same. Now it's just sorta clear with the lines going in a spiral. It still looks like a globe, and that's ok. Because when have you seen that logo on anything other than their trucks?
In closing, you can't make them change their logo and b***hing about it won't help. Just keep your old Kodak camera, Pentium II, and AT&T branded phone... and sell them to a collector in 50 years--when they change their logo again.
Is it just me or does orange & gold remind you of the 70's?? Shag carpetting anyone?
The old logo is very good, why they changed i dont understand
---
Because it's a square. The company name should be a horizontal rectangular shape. Having a fat square with the tiny words Kodak in there.. is just useless.. you can't use it on letterhead you can't advertise properly with it.. there's a lot of things wrong w it.. it should have been changed a LOOONG time ago
look at the old logo.. the actual word.. the font is nothing memorable.. it's like.. Helvetica Bold or sth.. who knows..They wanted to drop the big fat K thing.. and still be unique so they had to go get an interesting font..
When you look at the above pics which one is your eye drawn to first?
'nuff said
What a great example of how to totally ignore a century of brand awareness and respect.
This isn't an example of a logo attached to a brand that has a history of failing or leting down consumers, this is one of the most recognizable logo/color combos in advertising.
I agree with previous posters, this is a grasping at straws to fix what's wrong issue.
It's Kooky Kool 70's retro.
No, it's actually quite boring, looks like a "logo design 101" first attempt. They could have done a much better job. The old logo has a much stronger identity which could have been integrated into a new design.
Note that the "cool kid" Motorola still has their original flying "M" logo!
Dear Kodak,
Instead of making more consumer based P & S cameras that are decent, why not try remembering what the company used to be about...the Pro. Where is my DSLR? I know you used to make them and that they took either Canon or Nikon lenses, but have since stopped. Why?
Please compete with Canon and Nikon. They have learned that DSLR's are the way to make a lot of money while focussing on a market that you have been neglecting for years.
I'm sure the Corporate weenies will never understand, but I just felt the need to vent...
Joe
#18 said it best. It's not like Kodak is some is some pissant company in need of attention, they've been around since 1881, and their classic logo reflects that longevity.
...someone got paid for that??
Bad. They changes a good, expressive logo for a new, inexpressive one. The K- shaped beam should, at least, have been preserved. Now it just looks like any cheapo logo from some boring company, sporting some modernish font. When I think what a more gifted designer could have done for them. And when I thing what this mediocre work probably brought to some not-so-gifted designer makes me want to cry out loud for a company that was a legend in my childhood.
Mat
I guess it is easier to change a logo than make the real changes necessary for Kodak to succeed. The brand equity of the old logo wouldn't be lost on the older folks moving into digital, and the new logo isn't going to make any difference to younger folks where Kodak wasn't much of a contender already...esp when they are using "Buck Rodgers in the 25th century" type font....now they just need to break out a spandex clad Gil Gerard and Erin Gray as spokespeople.
As a designer doing logo work for major multi-national corporations, the redesign has no character, even less vision, and is as memorable as a 1976 McDonald's fast-food bag. Want to go out on a limb Kodak? Change the colors and make a decent high-end camera.
I think I'm going to cry. I'm serious. :(
http://www.kodak.com isn't using this new identity yet.
In the pictured state, I don't like it. The two yellow lines really do not need to be there. It even looks kind of amateur-ish with those two lines (the whole less is more thing).
Either they get rid of the lines, or add two additional lines to create a box and fill it with the yellow. They can even do a play off their 'classic' logo using the yellow box... maybe have remnants of the original red "K" shape (but this time in yellow).
Whatever, do something with those lines... then it will look "cool" but a "retro-cool."
I say they replace this logo with a photo of the giant letters on top of their office here in Rochester... quit trying to go with new and modern, go back to giant, illuminated letters.
Grew up in Rochester, NY (Kodak's hometown)
Hate the new logo. Some things should never be changed. Even w/o the word Kodak in the old logo, most could id the company.
I heard Apple Computer is changing their logo to a banana!
Manual Trackback: http://guillemets.de/weblog/kodak-aus-alt-mach-neu.
Perhaps the logo was OUTSOURCED to India??? What do you expect from a bunch of losers who are running the place? Perhaps if someone who knew about customer service and keeping the customers and retailers happy ( ie.. real sales reps not outsourced brokers and call centers in USA with Kodak employees who know (and love) their products not people you can't understand. George Eastman must be turning over in his grave. Let's hope Kodak is still around to use this very expensive change.
Bad move.
From a (logo-) designers point of view the new "logo" isn't a real logo really.It's just a word between 2 lines whereas the old logo had a *UNIQUE* symbol that was recognizable *without* the name.
What i would have done do freshen up the logo is get rid of the yellow square , keep the rest, maybe sharpen the "K"/camera a bit and also a different tone of red.The result would have been a fresh and more stylish (like the Apple logo) adaption of the old logo without changing it's uniqueness and strength.
To put my money where my mouth is:
http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/4222/kodak19dv.gif
A rough sketch how an updated logo for Kodak could look the way i described above (time needed: 20 min)
Hmm the link above didn't work; once again:
http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/4222/kodak19dv.gif
And a (last) third variation:
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5213/kodak29ky.gif
Stupid stupid stupid move. Kodak’s shareholders should be asking some serious questions of the management that has approved this strategic change, and the agency responsible should be ashamed of the visual solution they have produced.
I can’t understand the strategy. So the business is moving into challenging times with a quantum shift to digital photography. That shouldn’t mean that the business should throw out the proverbial ‘baby with the bathwater”.
The Kodak logo (the Red K shape) and logotype with it’s memorable lower case a, have huge value as a brand to consumers. As much potential value as for example the Mercedes star. I will bet my hat that you won’t see the star disappear when cars with electric engines start to replace those with petrol.
What’s even worse (in my opinion) is that the new “more forward thinking” and “sleeker” logo is such a weak replacement. The horizontal elements are irrelevant and the typography is SO poorly executed.
From experience I can imagine the design process that the agency went through, and this looks like one (of the no doubt countless) variations that should have been left in the studio on the day of presentation. If this is the best then I hate to imagine what the alternatives were. What a shame, and a terribly missed opportunity.
Kodak… it’s still not too late!
I don't think that the new logo works well. Kodak has an easily recognizable brandmark, why they followed the Rowenta, Tefal fashion on over-simplifying things?
I am a designer and I think the new logo sucks. Nothing memorable or uniquely identifying about it. I'm afraid designers don't say no to challenges or money to redo logos. But in this case the decision makers failed. Changing the UPS logo by Paul Rand was the nail in the coffin to me.
They'll come around to the old logo. And if they don't, too bad. Think I'll buy Fuji from now. If they have no respect for design and landed up in some sweaty design shop in Lupa Lupa land, to hell with them. C
Working for Kodak has taught me a lot ... specially to expect the unexpected .. I don’t hate the new logo but I like more the old one. I don’t think it was necessary to do such change.
A Kodak Employee :)