Old MeFi thread where I argue (wronglyDEC 27 2003
Old MeFi thread where I argue (wrongly as it turns out) that Google's branding efforts suck.
There are 13 reader comments
18 27 200312:18PM
kottke, you sounded like an idiot.
33 27 200312:33PM
Er, BrianB, Zeldman was saying the same thing.
54 27 2003 5:54PM
Is that to say that if Zeldman said it, it couldn't possibly sound idiotic in retrospect? I think Kottke was saying the same thing as BrianB, more or less.
12 27 2003 6:12PM
Ok, that was a somewhat stupid post of mine, I'm sure kottke doesn't need others to back the kottke of three years ago. My point was that Kottke sounds like an idiot but, uh, when Kottke and Zeldman are both saying something I wouldn't dismiss it as idiotic out of hand. I doubt he sounded like an idiot. Again, a reactionary, the-world-cares-what-i-think post, but that was my point.
On the other hand, the 20/20 retrospective perspective does really add much to that discussion--the whole thing with wendell's comment (it was probably a joke, right?), and how google didn't need to change it's branding, etc.
42 27 2003 6:42PM
I still think Google's ugly. :)
29 27 2003 9:29PM
I agree with Kottke. Google's logo is horrible. Possibly the worst corporate brand ever. But since it started out as mostly programmers I don't think you can blame them too much for the logo. They just decided to stay with their old crappy one. On it's own I think it sucks, but since it represents a respected and useful resource you can give 'em a little slack. It's sort of like if a savvy business man wore only a thong to a meeting. He's still a business man, he just doesn't look like one. :-D
05 28 2003 1:05AM
Plus, while they were establishing the brand their logo only had to beat those of the direct competition. I mean, come on, Yahoo?
42 28 2003 1:42AM
People, logos don't matter. They don't.
35 28 2003 5:35AM
People, logos don't matter. They don't.
Branding doesn't matter?
40 28 2003 6:40AM
The Nike tick thing is terribly potent, you know, as well as the Mercedes 'emblem'.
27 28 2003 4:27PM
Maybe branding is what we do everyday. Maybe it's what we say, how we act - the process of accumulating social equity (read: whuffie). Maybe by claiming that everyone should have the best logos, names, and graphics standards manuals we are putting the cart before the horse.
Logos are powerful - they are the visual equivalent of words and as such they invoke meaning. The question then is where does the meaning come from - who we say we are or who we show we are? I think that Google captured our imaginations by doing what they said they would and doing it better than anyone else. I think they have continued to hold our loyalty by being attentive to their users and evolving to meet our needs.
We could look back in hindsight and say, "Wow was I wrong about that logo - look at how they've succeeded" but I think that would miss the point. Google didn't succeed because they have the best logo (in fact personally, I have to agree with Jason, it could use some TLC) - Google has succeeded because they did what they said they would: stay out of the way and provide good search results.
In 2000 we were still formulating an opinion about Google. Today, three years later, we have seen the company grow and stay true to their promises so far. In the future Google may change the way they act and if they do, that logo that looks quaint and charming today will loose it's luster. A logo has equity only because a company gives it meaning and because of this logos, like words, are alive. They change with time and culture.
14 18 2004 7:14PM
Please allow me to leave my links on your page
Married Women Cheating Wives
Swingers Clubs
Swingers Couples Swinging
Swinger Couples ads
Penis Growth Pills
Sorry for disturbing
Regards
This thread is closed to new comments. Thanks to everyone who responded.
viama51 27 200310:51AM
wendell's comment is very prescient.