« 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The new logo already looks 25 years out of date.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 Its true that this one already looks 25 yrs out of date.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
