I think I'm spending to much time on a piece of cheap filler material, but bear with me here. This is something of an ongoing topic that appears in The Mail every now and then. Any company which changes its logo is always "mocked", "ridiculed" or similar - I don't think I've ever seen a positive story about a re-branding. I suppose it's the core Mail value that change = bad.
You can guarantee that in the comments (and often in the article itself) that there will be the hypothetical question about why they should waste all that money on a new logo when they could have just spent it on ____ instead.
Why they have to do a multi million pound make over dumbfounds me when most companies are struggling to keep afloat this is not needed and shareholders should be furious
- Eye in the sky , northampton, United Kingdom, 15/1/2013 11:00
Maybe it's reading into it too much, but I think that thought process reveals a deeper malaise in the mind of the paper and its readership. A complete lack of understanding that sometimes you have to invest in something in order to reap a greater reward further down the line.
Of course it's also a chance for the section of their know-it-all readers who own a copy of Photoshop Elements to blart on about how they shouldn't have wasted £xxxx on employing expensive design agencies as they would have done it for a tenth of the price.
Today they're attacking ITV's recent re-branding:ITV logo hits rock bottom: Channel subject of ridicule after new motif is unveiled
I think it's quite a nice new look myself. It's more fresh and modern looking than the old design but not so dramatic that it's going to hugely offend anyone from the wide demographic they have to cater for. The Mail hasn't gone to any trouble to consult any design or marketing experts, the entire article is based on a handful of Twitter comments countered by a press release from ITV.
A lot seems seem to be being made of the claim that it looks like an arse. I suppose it does a bit if you cover 3/4 of it with your hand and have a juvenile mind.