With a little bit of Google, NBC and maybe even a hint of the new "Pepsi Smile" thrown in for good measure, Kraft has completely revamped its logo. According to an article in BrandWeek, the new design follows a trend towards softer, more playful logos in a time of gloomy economic forecasts and job losses - something apparently referred to as "The Google Effect. In other words, a reflection of Google's, "Willingness to tweak it's logo for holidays and such" which has supposedly been widely influential in the design community.
Well hey, that's all well and good but no matter how Google "tweaks" or changes it, it's still easily recognizable as their logo. This new Kraft logo, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing in common with the one they built many years of brand equity on (okay, it incorporates red and blue). I for one am not sure that's a good thing.
In the BrandWeek article a Kraft representative, Mike Mitchell, says, "The company's new logo is a manifestation of bottom-up change at the company." The question is, does the average consumer give a rip about the bottom-up change at the company. Give them the good grub they're used to getting from Kraft, new logo or not, and they'll probably be happy. The problem is, now they won't be able to easily identify what they're used to getting from Kraft.
I'm all for evolution and I like the idea of softer, more colorful and playful logos (I actually kind of like this one). But in this case I think that Kraft and Nitro (the gang who designed the logo and sold Kraft on it, and who by the way are actually a pretty cool bunch I respect) blew it. To go from a brand mark/identity the majority of paying customers grew up with, to a logo that looks like an Internet start-up's ID is, in my humble opinion, pushing the envelope a tad too far. Peter Arnell has taken a lot of criticism for his agency's "Breathtaking" take on the Pepsi logo. But at least we still recognize it for what it is. In stark contrast, the new Kraft logo tosses the bath out with the bath water. To me, that's a far worse crime than anything (real or jealously imagined) committed by Arnell Group on behalf of Pepsi.
What do you think. Am I nuts? Is Nitro nuts? Is Kraft nuts? Is Kraft's new logo a cool example of new age branding where anything goes and equity doesn't matter? Or is the new softer, friendlier logo a mistake that could haunt them where it counts... at the cash register?
That's great that people can receive the personal loans moreover, that opens up new chances.
Posted by: EUGENIABONNER24 | March 17, 2010 at 01:39 AM
Create the next level with a memorable logo.
A logo crosses all culture and boundaries, communicate words, ideas and speak about what kind of company you are. Though a logo is
small but creates a huge impact on the image of your company. Some logos are so powerful that they become universally known as
symbols. Logo gives your firm an identity and helps customers recognize your particular product thereby reducing your selling
effort and costs. Take examples like McDonalds, IBM, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Nokia, Toyota, etc. A logo builds the firms image and
also helps to add prestige to the product or service which allows the firm to charge slightly higher price. In fact on paper almost
all of the firms are same so what makes them unique?
http://logodesignswork.com
Happy New Year
Posted by: Tonic Micheal | December 21, 2009 at 03:57 PM
well i don't like this logo it should be changed
Posted by: Custom Logo Design | December 04, 2009 at 03:26 AM
The good thing about your information is that it is explicit enough for students to grasp. Thanks for your efforts in spreading academic knowledge.
Posted by: logo design | August 07, 2009 at 05:18 AM
Points well taken - but I bet Arnell changed the iconic blue box, too in their infinite wisdom! You'll be SOL in the aisle! Where's my Mac & Cheese?
Posted by: Russ Tate | February 24, 2009 at 02:09 PM
I personally do not like the design for a number of reasons. First and foremost being the use of all lower case (to me this isn't web 2.0, it's web 2.OLD). 2. It looks like an internet start up company logo. 3. It has no presence. 4. It's boring.
Though with its many flaws, does it really matter? Because, when I go to the store to buy macaroni and cheese, I don't look for the KRAFT logo, I look for the iconic blue box. Or when I'm buying a frozen meal, I look for Lean Cuisine, not the Stouffer's logo.
In the end, to me the logo re-design while I think fails, it's not really that important to their end product.
Posted by: Ron | February 24, 2009 at 01:57 PM