Google Reveals New Logo

[jrodsep]

Rejected logos:

[LEWJ]

Beautiful. While I do see this as a tremendous upgrade, I think it's because I can't help but look at the grand scheme of things. This is undoubtedly a step forward for their brand.

With or without serifs, the construction of the wordmark, logos, and color distribution open up tremendous opportunities for the application of their brand. The key here (for me) is the fact that this brand represents technology and contemporariness/youth, but they have been holding onto a "logo" which identifies them as a search engine that does other things too.

The new logo shows me that they are making a huge effort to make their brand identifiable AND applicable to many different media-types, while holding onto a bit of nostalgia (color usage). The bolder font and even line-weights make this much more effective in terms of branding and application. In saying all of this, I am very much looking forward to how they utilize this refreshed/new identity (it is vital to this change). It could be a nightmare, but I don't see that happening.

EDIT: I wrote all this before reading the Google Design article. lol

[nickp91]

This is a welcome and well thought out upgrade

[Dynasty]

I could honestly take it or leave it.

[LEWJ]

There was no need to lighten the blue either.

FWIW, they did not lighten the blue. The logo comparison posted is inaccurate in terms of color values.

Notice in the video here, the values for their color blue are unchanged while the other three colors change slightly.

Also from the link previously posted:

We adjusted and pushed the vibrancy of the red, green, and yellow to maintain saturation and pop.

[Morgan33]

Glad the blue hasn't changed. The new wordmark will take some getting used to but I'm really starting to like the standalone 'G.' Works great in small applications.

[2001mark]

Meh, not a huge fan of it.

Although, the new G does equate from a perfect circle, + it gives a slight arrowed image to its 'tip'. Alas the G also projects an eye sore of an underbite, + the rest of the font looks like it came from a toddler's block set or picture book.

Any degree of elegance has vanished.

Having said that, it's as poor as Microsoft's downgrade to their new squared logo.

[CreamSoda]

Love the new G logo.

My only concern is that the new script logo is very heavy. Its really obvious on the new google maps UI

[-kj]

One thought I had: why not a nice modern slab serif, rather than going away from serifs completely?

[KittSmith_95]

The font bugs me.... it's a bit too thick for my liking, and that stands out.

Also, why not a serif at all? That was Google's thing. Heck, at least it's better than that crappy Yahoo update.

[BrandMooreArt]

Here's Armin's fantastic review: http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_for_google_done_in_house.php#.VefSFJZHbv4

I think the reason a serif font was never considered is 2 fold. One, the voice and personality of a serif font doesn't fit with the brand or rest of the identity. They are communicating simplicity and being visually economic; it's about doing what they need to do with as little as possible. They styling direction was based on letters you would see from a school book to teach kids bow to write, thats how crazy clear and simple they wanted this to be. Also, serifs add more visual information, which leads to larger file sizes, which leads to slower load times

The 2nd thing is, sans serif fonts have become the next evolutionary step in modern type design. There was a time and place where Blackletter was the easiest font style to read. Then it was Roman serifs for their variety and contrast. Now the zeitgeist says sans serifs work best especially on mobile and web. That probably has a lot to do with such a younger generation using the devices too

[Stampman]

I like it--I do like serifs in some settings, but here it looks better without them--and it's good to shake that up a bit.

[wildwing64]

I like it.

Really like the multicoloured G as an icon, but seeing that on tabs instead of just the blue G is currently throwing me off. I'll get used to it.

[Gothamite]

I like it--I do like serifs in some settings, but here it looks better without them--and it's good to shake that up a bit.

Serifs aid the eyes in reading large amounts of text. They don't necessarily have the same benefit to a logo, which is displayed on its own.

[GeauxColonels]

... But what's wrong with that? A lot of successful brands basically build their entire identity around nostalgia. We see it in sports all the time.

In terms of success, Google is to the Internet what the Yankees are to baseball. I'm sure someone out there could come up with a more modern look for the Yankees; do you think that just because of that, they are going to change? No.

Google's old look was not outdated to the point where it really needed to be changed. That font was basically the "google" font in a lot of people's minds. Instantly recognizable, which is what a brand should be. Now they just look like some dinky startup.

They are definitely catering to the younger demographic with the new blocky sans-serif font, same approach as Koodo mobile imo. I think it's okay. It's not a disastrous downgrade. The new logo is very vibrant but the old one was classic. I'm on the fence here.

I don't think that they're "catering to the younger demographic" and I don't think that "nostalgia" has a place with a company like Google. This is a tech company that's on the leading edge of virtually everything. They're reinventing ways to do everyday tasks and have entrenched themselves into everyday life for people of all ages. I think this would be one of the last companies that would bank on "nostalgia" as part of its brand.

[Alex Houston]

I don't care for the multi-colored G but feel the wordmark is fine. I would like to see more of the rejected ones though, since most from the posted screenshot were a little too abstract for most people.

[BrandMooreArt]

I like it--I do like serifs in some settings, but here it looks better without them--and it's good to shake that up a bit.

Serifs aid the eyes in reading large amounts of text. They don't necessarily have the same benefit to a logo, which is displayed on its own.

I think that may have been true in the 20th century about serifs, but ice always felt it was the variation in each letter (serifs, stroke weight, and true italics) that made them easy to read for a while. I really feel now we've gotten so used to monoweight geometric and humanist sans serifs that we more easily read them now. Just the evolution of human's interaction with type. Which makes sense because we learn to draw letters that are sans serifs. This evolution of type has also left out cursive, which to many today is harder to read and write - the opposite of it's intent

[leopard88]

I like it.

Really like the multicoloured G as an icon, but seeing that on tabs instead of just the blue G is currently throwing me off. I'll get used to it.

I still have a tab open with the blue G icon. I may just leave it open for old times' sake.

[Cosmic]

Also, serifs add more visual information, which leads to larger file sizes, which leads to slower load times

C'mon... this is "stripes make the jersey too heavy"!

[Darth Brooks]

I don't like the change. It looks like it came out of a "Make logos generic" thread.