« Medieval cities: Europe vs. the Arabic world | Main | Authoritarian Regimes »
The new Walmart [sic] logo
What do you all think? To me it looks at least ten years overdue. Here is more information, including pictures of previous logos, hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 2, 2008 at 06:02 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Do they push lowercase sans serif fonts in design school? It seems everyone is going to that style. I don't know if I like it or not. I think it might appear dated very quickly.
Posted by: MP at Jul 2, 2008 7:39:13 AM
The new logo already looks 25 years out of date.
Posted by: Steve R at Jul 2, 2008 7:41:17 AM
What's interesting is the abandoning of the "bargain"-type logo with the more contemporary, neutral one. It is fashionable, yes, but it's also softer, with those nice curves on the bottom of the W and the thinning on the top of the a. Does this bespeak a new corporate attitude? Time was they didn't want anything fancy in their stores because it detracted from the cheap-ness aesthetic. Now they're investing in green building design and making some (admittedly shallow) eco-gestures. They're still union-busting mega-bastards, but it makes you wonder where they're going with all this... or is it, simply, trendy?
Posted by: Renee at Jul 2, 2008 7:53:33 AM
It looks like a bad circa 1979 bank logo. KMart already did that.
Posted by: alex at Jul 2, 2008 7:56:37 AM
Looks like a drug logo. Don't like it. I rather liked the simplicity and heaviness of the original -- it got across a sort of "serve and obey your corporate masters" feel which fit well with the company. Oh well. Tempus fugit.
Posted by: Andromeda at Jul 2, 2008 8:07:35 AM
I wonder if they will now spell the company name as Walmart rather than Wal-Mart? Right now their web site (which uses the new logo) is still Wal-Mart.
Posted by: tom s. at Jul 2, 2008 8:25:24 AM
How will they do the squiggly in the Wal~Mart cheer?
Posted by: nelsonal at Jul 2, 2008 8:36:16 AM
I like the frontier logo best. Its true that this one already looks 25 yrs out of date.
Posted by: liberty at Jul 2, 2008 9:01:33 AM
The sphincter comment is priceless.
Posted by: meter at Jul 2, 2008 9:04:21 AM
The lesson here -- for all -- is that sometimes change is BAD.
The old logo was masculine, grounded, and not easily confused with other "identities". The new one has none of these virtues.
I can only imagine the instructions some (misguided) marketing executive gave the designers: "Make it light, airy -- hipper -- fresh -- more ...green!" Too often, designers privately choke on their disgust and give the client what they "want".
So add Wal-Mart to that legion of these faceless and nameless companies who have made similar mistakes. This is yet another anecdote of why business schools should teach design literacy!
Want another good example of a botched job? UPS. They traded a fantastic logo for an ugly "button".
Posted by: Change ForWorse at Jul 2, 2008 9:07:50 AM
I hate it; of the logos shown, the 'Frontier Logo' is the best. I don't understand or like modern aesthetics very well, they all seem dull and chintzy to me. This is the logo equivalent of a modern, worthless 'glass box' skyscraper.
The asterisk at the end looks like clip art.
Posted by: Paludicola at Jul 2, 2008 9:22:01 AM
I too liked the old logo better (and I like and shop at Walmart). I also agree that they appear to be going for "hip" or "green" but that's not why I shop at Walmart.
It actually makes me wonder if Walmart's eye is off the ball (low prices) as it appears they're trying to cater to a clientele that will never be regular customers.
So should I short Walmart based on a logo?
Posted by: Jody at Jul 2, 2008 9:22:28 AM
“The abstract total-design logo is the most marvelous fraud that the American graphic arts have ever perpetrated upon American business. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, these abstract logos, which a company (Chase Manhattan, Pan Am, Winston Sprocket, Kor Ban Chemical) is supposed to put on everything from memo pads to the side of its 50-story building, make absolutely no impact-conscious or unconscious-upon its customers or the general public, except insofar as they create a feeling of vagueness or confusion…Yet millions continue to be poured into the design of them. Why? Because the conversion to a total-design abstract logo format somehow makes it possible for the head of the corporation to tell himself: “I’m modern, up-to-date, with it, a man of the future. I’ve streamlined this old baby.” Why else would they have their companies pour $30,000, $50,000, $100,000 into the concoction of symbols that any student at Pratt could, and would gladly, give him for $125 plus a couple of lunches at the Tratorria, or even the Zum-Zum? The answer: if the fee doesn’t run into five figures, he doesn’t feel streamlined. Logos are strictly a vanity industry, and all who enter the field should be merciless cynics if they wish to guarantee satisfaction.”
- Tom Wolfe, author of “From Bauhaus to Our House” as quoted in 1972 (when he judged the AIGA’s Communication Graphics competition) in "Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design" by Michael Bierut
Posted by: Change ForWorse at Jul 2, 2008 9:27:27 AM
The new logo makes them look like an energy company. Doesn't BP have a sun in their logo?
Posted by: mk at Jul 2, 2008 9:29:15 AM
Renee: "They're still union-busting mega-bastards"
And that message really has meaning to American and international consumers, doesn't it? Walmart's sales in the latest fiscal year were only $375 billion. Sales growth may be slowed in the current quarter, but in the first quarter of FY2009, Walmart's sales grew about 10%, year over year.
Do you think anyone who shops at Walmart really cares whether the person scanning his T-Shirts and his bag of Cheetos is "union certified"? What I've noticed at my neighborhood Walmart is the growth in self-service checkout customers.
Yeah, let's unionize the Walmart workforce and watch how much more the company can automate jobs out of existence.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 2, 2008 9:30:17 AM
I like the old one better. They probably should have just lightened the color and maybe rounded some edges.
Posted by: aaron at Jul 2, 2008 9:33:04 AM
Is this change in response to the negative image of Buy-n-Large, from WALL-E?
Posted by: Bandwagon Smasher at Jul 2, 2008 9:49:24 AM
While I agree with Mr. Wolfe that logos probably don't make as big a difference as people think, when you say something like, "Contrary to the conventional wisdom ... make absolutely no impact," I'd like to see some evidence. If they made no impact, would people have such a visceral reaction when they changed logos?
Posted by: Mo at Jul 2, 2008 10:12:19 AM
this change is too radical.
it doesn't matter if the new logo is 'good' or 'bad' somehow. a brand is mostly perceived by its logo. changing the logo requires elaborateness and only slight changes should be made.
if the change is too extreme, customer perception and therefore attention will change (and mostly drop), sometimes to the point where the brand isn't recognized anymore.
negative example for this (in europe): 'fairy', changed to 'dawn' and back due to huge losses.
positive example for this (in europe): 'raider' changed to 'twix' (sonst ändert sich nix...; still can't forget the slogan of this multi million ad campaign). i know these examples refer to products and not to company logos, but i still think the same rules apply here. brand maintenance is a delicate business.
p.s. i'm missing the 'beta' tag
Posted by: rosid at Jul 2, 2008 10:33:46 AM
The new logo looks...so...so European.
Couldn't we have just re-imagined the American flag instead?
Posted by: b at Jul 2, 2008 10:48:23 AM
If a brand's overall mission has not changed, why change a logo?
As I understand it, the Coca-Cola's script letters on today's cans and bottles were created by Frank Robinson about 1872. Robinson was a partner of founder John Pemberton.
McDonald's golden arch logo with company name across it served them well for at least 40 years, though I think it has just recently been slightly modified.
Holiday Inn redesigned its signs in the early 80's, I think. But that coincided with their mission change - to serve the business customer rather than vacationing families. Still, the company name was written in the same font for over 50 years. Last year Holiday Inn announced it would require franchisees to spend $1 billion to change the company's logo.
I don't think WalMart has changed its mission. To me, changing their logo is a waste of time and money.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 2, 2008 10:52:25 AM
Reminds me a lot of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Iraq#Flag_proposal_and_controversy.2C_2004
Posted by: RB at Jul 2, 2008 11:53:06 AM
Looks awful. Like something out of the 70s. But that's kind of what it feels like to shop there. I'm not dissing big boxes, it's just that Walmart's stores always look like hell.
Posted by: dave at Jul 2, 2008 11:59:49 AM
Dave: "it's just that Walmart's stores always look like hell."
Well, after arguing that Walmart's mission - providing low prices - hasn't changed, I'll now suggest that the company adapts its mission very well to it's locales.
The Walmart SuperCenter which gets my money, in nearby upper middle class Highland Village, TX, does not "look like hell". At least that's the opinion of everyone who has commented about it since it opened last year. Please check out the photos of the gourmet cheese department, the produce section, the electronics center, and the bike shop.
As is the case at about every other Walmart SuperCenter in the nation, the parking lots at the upscale Supercenters in Plano and Highland Village are packed on Saturdays and other prime shopping days.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 2, 2008 1:01:15 PM
Good color and font choice, warmer, rounder are more friendly, but the goofy sun image throws me, it looks like something an energy company might use to green up their image and imply they're into solar energy.
Posted by: tom.a at Jul 2, 2008 1:57:57 PM
Not crazy about it, and I don't see why they wanted to spend a pile of money on it. I suspect the change will cost a lot more than the five figures Wolfe talks about it.
Maybe as they expand internationally they want to avoid the "American" look the star gave them. That's all I can think of. I've never been a fan of this sort of thing - changing stationery, logos, etc. Usually seems like a waste.
To add an item to John Dewey's comment, the interlocking "NY" the Yankees use was designed by Louis Tiffany in the nineteenth century, to be used on an award given to NYC firemen.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Jul 2, 2008 2:22:30 PM
I like the new one. The older one I've begun to think reflects on older stores a certain dingy-ness, the way older stores feel compared to the newer Supercenters.
Posted by: shecky at Jul 2, 2008 3:38:32 PM
Meanwhile, Target sits back and laughs. They must have one of the best corporate logos around.
Posted by: target at Jul 2, 2008 5:08:36 PM
Yeah, let's unionize the Walmart workforce and watch how much more the company can automate jobs out of existence.
No, they're too cheap to do that. They'll just use some third world country or just pull another Jonquiere. Besides, the automation would break down much like their low-quality goods. That is, the automation would break horribly and frequently.
Of course, if you restore the balance by repealing Taft-Hartley and friends, balance can be restored. That means taking every dirty trick away from business and allow a good faith negotiation. Right now, it's just "we win/y'all lose" in favor of the company. This happens when businesses can wage a war of attrition, and turn the "secret ballot" into a joke. The former is designed to force their hand out of good-faith negotiation. The latter is just to give the perception of a democratic choice(where the secrecy only holds as long as you vote in support of the company).
To deal with such entities until then:
Call in the National Guard next time they fly/drive in to react to a union(or start playing dirty pool with the community). Escort any of them out of the state; ensure they are cut off completely. If they wish to aid and abet hostile countries, they need to face the consequences.
If they respond by closing up shop, fine. If they're locked out of a large enough region, consider it justice. Just make sure they leave and nothing remotely similar comes back.
This logo won't evenTo deal with such entities until then:
If only they'd just call in the National Guard next time they fly in to a unionizing region. Escort them out of the state and report them as terrorists.
As for the logo and the slogan changes, they're nothing more than a whitewash. They've harmed too many communities and antagonized too many people to make any impact.
Posted by: sethstorm at Jul 2, 2008 7:08:32 PM
I love Wal-Mart. The fact that they are union-busting mega-bastards is a big plus.
I like the logo change. Its simplicity makes it look inexpensive but still good quality. I think this is a good message for them.
Posted by: tt at Jul 2, 2008 8:10:32 PM
If Wal-mart (or anyone) replaces a checkout clerk with an automated machine, one job is lost. But you've completely ignored all the other jobs created to design, market, build, install, and maintain that machine. You're acting like a checkout clerk position is a high-value add position that our economy should hold onto. And therefore, unions=good? You must live in bizarro world. By your logic, we should oppose any effort to automate a business process because a laborer might be put out of business. That's exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that continues to let unions mooch off their members (let's face facts - unions are primarily concerned with serving their own management, and in their spare time they pay lip service to their members while they pick their pockets). If you need more evidence of the deadweight loss imposed by unions, check out the Detroit auto industry. They made their bed, and now they are lying in it.
Does anyone go to the Wal-mart clerk because they enjoy their sunny dispositions? Frankly, if there is no line at either, I prefer the self-checkout to the clerk.
Posted by: J. Hoffa at Jul 2, 2008 8:41:25 PM
1. Companies generally should not ever change their logos, but once you start it's hard to justify stopping.
2. I am sad I can no longer type "Wal*Mart"
3. The logo looks very big-corporate/naughties. I guess that's what they're trying to do - look as generic as possible. There's a transitional logo on the bags now (new color, still capitals) that's a good compromise IMO.
Posted by: Paul N at Jul 2, 2008 9:33:28 PM
J. Hoffa:
If you need more evidence of the deadweight loss imposed by unions, check out the Detroit auto industry. They made their bed, and now they are lying in it.
They aren't going to die as they do what others won't do: mass produce performance into cars without a high pricetag.
This question remains: why does it take coercive action to remove unions? Something just seems a bit wrong when those who'd normally remove regulation would not even think of touching things like Taft-Hartley.
Instead, they would rather take the approach summarized as "Carthago delenda est". The meaning of that is sanctioned revenge on labor unions(until they no longer exist).
Posted by: sethstorm at Jul 2, 2008 10:58:24 PM
Respect to Mr. Dewey. I Couldn't have put it better.
Posted by: eric at Jul 3, 2008 1:00:56 AM
mk is right. This is a rip off of the BP logo, but not as amusing as the "brown ring of quality."
http://home.nyc.rr.com/dmcguire/brown.gif
Posted by: David at Jul 3, 2008 1:33:03 AM
No One Makes you shop at WalMart...
Posted by: M at Jul 3, 2008 1:37:28 AM
sethstorm: "Besides, the automation would break down much like their low-quality goods."
For someone who seems to dislike Walmart so much, you certainly seem to know little about the company. Walmart's huge edge over its competitors for 20 years has been its extensive use of computerized inventory control and automated warehouses.
sethstorm: "To deal with such entities until then:
Call in the National Guard next time they fly/drive in to react to a union(or start playing dirty pool with the community)."
You just don't get it, do you? Walmart's customers - who far, far outnumber the nation's entire union membership - don't give a damn about unions. You can rant all you wish, but politicians are not going to screw over the Walmart that America has proven - through its dollars - that it loves. Yeah, a few cities such as Chicago may try, but it's those cities that lose as the sales tax revenues just go to the next community over.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 3, 2008 4:58:12 AM
sethstorm: "They aren't going to die as they do what others won't do: mass produce performance into cars without a high pricetag."
That's just so amusing, sethstorm. Not one of the American auto plants owned solely by Asian companies has been unionized. Those plants are definitely producing the cars that Americans want - without a high pricetag. At the same time, GM and Ford just keep laying off workers and reducing the UAW roles. UAW is slowly dying. Employed UAW membership is less than half what it was 30 years ago.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 3, 2008 5:03:00 AM
I don't like the star. The font is ok though.
Posted by: Mr. EB at Jul 3, 2008 10:16:13 AM
John Dewey: "Not one of the American auto plants owned solely by Asian companies has been unionized. Those plants are definitely producing the cars that Americans want - without a high pricetag. At the same time, GM and Ford just keep laying off workers and reducing the UAW roles. UAW is slowly dying. Employed UAW membership is less than half what it was 30 years ago"
And so you're saying that 'auto worker unions = making cars that consumers don't want'? Not quite. GM and Ford have been done in completely by their own inept management -- this despite the significantly lower prices of domestic automobiles. The consumer doesn't make auto purchase decisions based on whether or not the people who assembled the car was union or not.
Meanwhile, in keeping with today's utterly twisted Corporate America business environment, GM's top execs just got amply rewarded for running GM into the ground.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=125948
Posted by: rangergranger at Jul 3, 2008 3:09:18 PM
"Walmart's huge edge over its competitors for 20 years has been its extensive use of computerized inventory control and automated warehouses."
Wrong. Walmart's huge edge over its competitors has been its sheer size, allowing it to impose price controls on its suppliers.
Posted by: meter at Jul 3, 2008 3:12:45 PM
rangerranger: "And so you're saying that 'auto worker unions = making cars that consumers don't want'?"
No, sir. I certainly did not say that at all. Sethstorm claimed that Detroit ansd its auto unions will not die because:
"they do what others won't do: mass produce performance into cars without a high pricetag."
I simply pointed out to Sethstorm that non-union plants were producing the cars that Americans want, at a low pricetag. So it is not correct that unionized companies "do what others won't do".
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 3, 2008 4:03:24 PM
meter: "Wrong. Walmart's huge edge over its competitors has been its sheer size, allowing it to impose price controls on its suppliers."
Meter, you are correct that Walmart's current economies of scale enable the company to negotiate lower prices with its suppliers. But Walmart was not always the largest retailer. Sears, Kmart, and Target were all bigger in the 70's and through most of the 80's. They had the purchasing economies of scale, not Walmart.
One of the key success factors for Walmart in the 80's and the 90's was its computer-driven logistics systems. Most researchers agree on this point. Walmart invested many millions in perfecting its inventory and ordering systems, and linking them to its suppliers' systems. Walmart also invested in leading edge distribution center automation. All these systems ensured that Walmart managers were on top of changing consumer preferences. Walmart managers knew instantly what was selling and what was not.
The ability to always know what's selling - the ability to ensure an adequate inventory of what sells - the ability to adjust prices based on known consumer preferences - the ability to reduce inventory carrying costs through hyper-efficient just-in-time systems - these are huge advantages for retail managers. For Walmart, thess advantages as much as any other enabled the company to leapfrog over KMart, Sears, and Target.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 3, 2008 5:31:03 PM
I'd rather they just rekerned the old logo instead of making such a blah, generic one. They want to brighten the image? Well, it isn't working.
Posted by: Lue-Yee Tsang at Jul 3, 2008 5:59:05 PM
Looks exactly like created by Marginal Revolution's Commenter Committee. Howard Luck Gossage said new logos should always look like created two decades ago.
Posted by: Hans Suter at Jul 4, 2008 1:50:53 AM
If you need more evidence of the deadweight loss imposed by unions, check out the Detroit auto industry. They made their bed, and now they are lying in it.
Blaming Detroit's problems primarily on unions is silly. It wasn't the unions who designed the crappy cars or refused to think about the possibility that gas prices might matter to car buyers. It wasn't unions that made GM stick a "Cadillac" label on a Chevy, and turn what was a prestige brand into a joke. And on and on. The management of the American auto industry has been inept for decades.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Jul 4, 2008 1:05:13 PM
Today, the noise around this brand is far more important than its graphic identity. I believe Walmart must have polished its reputation first, and only then 'celebrate' the 'substantial' change with a new logo that truly projects its essence. And if that was the case, we would have all loved the new logo, whatever it would have looked like...
Posted by: Johnny at Jul 4, 2008 4:57:51 PM
Blaming Detroit's problems primarily on unions is silly.
That doesn't stop some from using the tired old lines from the 1980's. They would bash GM, Ford, and Chrysler. When they were done, they bashed the unions for standing their ground. Rinse and repeat in 2003 when they aimed upwards at citizens who had superior talent, but were citizens. Is it not a rational response to defend against those who wish to remove your livelihood (business, not government)?
John Dewey:
I've been there when Sam (and not the current Benedict Arnolds) ran a pro-US business. One could get something that was of the US and it was well-made, worth the cost. For what they've done, I have no apologies to offer - the National Guard is quite correct in responding to a threat to the area they cover. They are not an entity that is willing to even negotiate in good faith - they merely wish to find a suitable mark.
Yeah, a few cities such as Chicago may try, but it's those cities that lose as the sales tax revenues just go to the next community over.
Thus a need to act on a larger scale. Their PR community can do quite a job to demonize people. That and that alone is what makes the low quality and prices palatable. They won't explain their dirty deeds on air.
Walmart's customers - who far, far outnumber the nation's entire union membership - don't give a damn about unions.
It doesn't take much when they've been conditioned to (still) think "Italian mobster" when they hear the words "Labor union".
As for Detroit, it will not die as they put performance in a car, not just reliability. The imports require a very huge outlay of $20,000-$25,000 before you see anything that was not underpowered for the body. They deliver something to a US population that cannot simply be ignored.
Posted by: sethstorm at Jul 4, 2008 7:24:28 PM
sethstorm: "It doesn't take much when they've been conditioned to (still) think "Italian mobster" when they hear the words "Labor union"."
My father was an elected union leader, sethstorm. He was definitely not an "Italian mobster", but rather a decent and honorable man. I am not conditioned to think that any union leader is an "Italien mobster". But I still don't give a damn about whether the workers who produce the goods I buy belong to a union. And if the son of a union leader doesn't care, why would the average American consumer care?
I do care about using my hard-earned money to purchase quality goods at reasonable prices. American consumers are well aware of who is producing quality automobiles, and it is not GM and Ford.
sethstorm: "Thus a need to act on a larger scale."
Keep your hands off my rights.
Posted by: John Dewey at Jul 4, 2008 9:48:33 PM
Seriously... a splash of color won't correct some correct business practices. Take the money spent on Photoshop and kick it over to people not getting paid for overtime.
Posted by: Dee at Jul 4, 2008 11:15:21 PM
