For me Argos haven’t really been that creative with the logo change. They seem to have taken their existing mark and made it even more generic, softened the edges and changed the swoosh into a smile, probably based on the success of other online retailers. By ‘other online retailers’ I mean the largest online retailer in the world, Amazon. But the Argos logo doesn’t really match up to the Amazon mark because the swoosh in the Amazon logo might not be a smile, it might be an arrow which is why it is a little bit clever, it makes you wonder, creating something memorable. The new Argos mark is probably an attempt to associate happiness and good feelings with the brand, people like smiling so they will buy more stuff, that would be the theory at least.

In contrast the new website is a good improvement, no great but good. Argos.co.uk has always really annoyed me, the design has always been very lacking especially for a business that was based on a catalogue, transferring that expertise or experience should of created a wonderful website but unfortunately it created a pale blue, saturated red monster. I always thought they should of focused on creating the catalogue as a website, creating something more readable with browsing being the key focus of the design. Instead it always felt like a mish mash of text links, an overgrown navigation menu, and just too many things to look at, all too close together.

The new argos.co.uk is a step in the right direction. The layout is improved, with focus points more clearly defined using borders. The use of simple silhouetted icons is also a welcomed addition that improves usability while adding a more professional touch. The layout of all the pages have less clutter leaving way for clearer presentation of each product. This is another good example where simply adding more white space has helped the page become more defined and flow better. The ecommerce designer tells me this will sell more products, no a smile in the logo, users like to see information and a clear visual of the product.

They have also sorted out their typography. The old site contained multiple fonts that weren’t consistent in how they were applied. Now headings are treated to a nice serif font and Arial is used for rest, not mind blowing but much improved. There has also been a slight change to the blue colour used, personally I would look at less saturated colours in general, but that is just me, plus these colours already have the association with the brand. Overall the site is a massive improvement on the old version. I would still love them to take a catalogue style approach to the site, be a bit more creative, that’s what people know about Argos, they have a huge laminated catalogue amongst other things.

Official and polite introductions out of the way, this is in my opinion is a terrible concept and just a really bad idea. I’m not ashamed to admit I enjoy some of the finest sci-fi programmes like Battlestar Galactica, which is screened on Sci Fi in the US. The UK Sci Fi channel isn’t quite as prime time as the one in the US but I have seen the brand around. So as a brand it’s off to a good start because even though I don’t watch the channel I know the brand and I have an opinion of it, so there is some awareness of a brand I am not directly using which from a brand design point of view is pretty good going.

Having the name Sci Fi (with the correct spelling) for a sci-fi channel is as good as it gets from a branding point of view, ‘does what it says on the screen’, you can’t really get more simple and straight forward than that. According to their press release part of their rebrand is to try and appeal to non sci-fi viewers as well as their existing viewers, they really think this will be achieved by changing their name to SyFy? Seriously? I appreciate they are trying to evolve their brand, but this is really not the right way to go about it, the more I write about it, the more ridiculous it sounds. How can a board of directors or panel of executives really believe that making this change is good for the channel? Not just any channel but a sci-fi channel, it makes no sense whatsoever. I generally don’t like criticising the hard work of designers and I suppose the new logo and identity is good if you get past the awful concept.

The official statement also states that the new name “remains phonetically identical”, this simply isn’t correct. Take some examples, symbol, symmetry, syphilis (nice), how are these words pronounced? It would of been a good idea to put some time and effort into researching correct spelling and pronunciation.

On a marketing level this is also a very bad idea. Sci-fi has a cult following, a community of followers that don’t like to be messed with and by trying to move away from their sci-fi roots, the channel are sending the wrong message out and effectively alienating existing viewers. This whole thing just seems wrong on so many levels and if I worked for Sci Fi I would urge them to reconsider the concept and go back to the drawing board before it is due to go live in July. Seriously? SyFy?

The old mark was just that, old, boring and in need of serious attention. Logo’s on cars are slightly different because they actively promote themselves everyday at the front of their cars, sitting proudly, shining for everyone to see. It is really difficult not to notice an international car manufacturers logo if you live close to civilization, so when considering a new one or a refresh, being unforgettable isn’t absolute top of the list of priorities. I can see what the overall objective is, create a brand that represents innovation and the future, just one look at their website will show you this new logo is part of a ‘reinvention’, a campaign to make them more modern, their brand, their cars and their whole philosophy. As part of this ‘reinvention’ that new logo fits quite well, but on it’s own it’s slightly lacking due to the fact the overall campaign will finish and the logo will remain so it needs to be effective without the accompanying visuals, it needs more longevity.

A huge amount of work has gone into this rebrand, there is a lot of detail and it is all done to a really high standard. Still I find it a bit disappointing Citroen didn’t let a local French designer create something really special. Let the big faceless American company do the other stuff but look to smaller, independent designers for something truly inspiring and more French. Yes it’s more modern and it will work along side the current campaign but what about after that?

Some of you may not know that Apple actually had a go at a mass email service before, it was called .Mac but as you can imagine it only really appealed to users with a Mac, could of been the name perhaps? So with the developments surrounding the iPhone, Apple have timed this very well, reducing the price of the iPhone 3G and tagging on a new service that compliments the device so well, introducing Exchange support, making the whole package more appealing, more affordable and more compatible with everyone.

The logo itself is not bad, it is fit for purpose but not really inspiring. It is similar to the Windows Me logo, Windows Millenium Edition was a special version of Windows 95 released to mark the new Millenium in 2000. The ‘Me’ is very similar, but because the MobileMe logo doesn’t stand on it’s own, it probably won’t matter.

I will be keeping an eye on the MobileMe brand. Apple get branding so right, and to be honest it would be very difficult to get anything wrong here, they have the existing ‘mother’ brand of Apple to support the new one, they have a service people want or even need depending on how much of an iFan you are, so it’s safe to say MobileMe is going to be big. I will be looking to learn from how the brand is presented to the public, how they take advantage of the user base in terms of monetizing the web app when it is launched, following the success of the iPod service, iTunes.

Well it’s all a matter of opinion I suppose but that’s the great thing about the web, it allows you to survey opinion unlike any other research tool. Some might say whichever logo has had the most exposure is the most famous, a logo that has been in existence longer than any other. In that case the most famous logo would probably be the Christian Cross. First used in errr, the year 0, according to religious types, this logo or symbol has definitely stood the test of time and is certainly known throughout most of the world. You could also consider other religious symbols like the Star of David, Ying & Yang etc. the symbols are the original logos, symbolism at its best.

Of course, logo’s and brands can be famous for all the wrong reasons. A recent example is the 2012 London Olympic logo, having created such controversy the logo is now recognised everywhere but only because so many people weren’t crazy about it. How ironic is that, the more people don’t like the logo you design, the more impact and exposure it gets! Maybe we should all start aiming to create horrific logo’s for this exact reason, as they say, bad publicity is better than no publicity.

There are also logo’s that are famous for what they represent. The big tech companies, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Dell, among others represent technology and the future of how we live and work. Their innovations are in the news a lot so we are constantly seeing their logos not to mention most of us use their products to work or surf the web, more logo exposure. Similarly in the motor industry, they put their logos on the front and back of the vehicles so again we are bombarded with logos on the road, most of the time without even realising it, those motor companies who produce the most cars will have more exposure, Ford springs to mind.

I guess the only true way to name the most famous logo in the world would be to survey a demographic who are very remote, not too remote like the recent ‘last uncontacted tribe on earth’ recently in the news, but a group of people who don’t interact with western culture a lot, I wonder what logos they would recognise and which they would identify with. My guess would be some sort of religious icon, because these have been around the longest and had time to become part of even remote cultures. What do you think?