Join the Conversation

11 Comments

  1. A single word in a sans-serif font constitutes a “impressive” new logo?

    Wow, I’m in the wrong line of work.

  2. Typically half-assed, like everything else Bell does. Less rebranding, more not-sucking, please!

  3. I only play a design critic on the internet, but I think you guys are missing the point: in a good logo or logotype, less is definitely more.

  4. Color me IMPRESSED! That is AMAZING! And I love how you SAW all of THAT in that little logo! “Snappy weirdness!” indeed!

    Will you come speak at my school?

    Excelsior! Sucks to Paul Rand!

  5. I’d love to. I usually give the talk, “How Not to Have Opinions on Things: Making Sure What You’ve Said Has Been Said…Before!”

  6. I have to agree with Joel on the logo. The old late 90’s logo had to go. It reminded me of the bike helmet company due to the face and the sporty eclipses.

    At my job I look through stacks of invoices and it is easy to identify what logos are good. If the paper is over 6 feet away and you can identify a small logo in a corner than it’s good. I know many will argue against that point… but I feel like that’s what a logo is supposed to be. Not something you stare at.

    I think they should use the old Bell Atlantic logo since they don’t compete in the same markets. Or a variation… http://www.thetelephoneguy.com/bell_atlantic.gif

  7. If less is more than wouldn’t not having a logo be the best logo you could have… or not have.

  8. The yellow on the old logo really does look like some cyber-punk mind trip concept gone horribly…plain.

    Incredibly dated… looks pre-90s is for sure. The new logo is nice. Not fantastic, but it’s simple and identifiable. I think one sign of a good, solid logo / brand is the ability to draw it by hand (if it’s graphical) and the ability to not be able to mock it up in MS Word without some idea about kerning and typefaces. I think this falls into that category.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *