Anonymous
I’d like to say somthin’n about logo.
“Have you ever asked yourselves the question, why the so-called world companies do not?”
“That logo has represented the antiX “brand” for a decade. It is what it is.”
“I agree that branding is what it is.”
That’s nonsense.
“Most organizations rarely, if ever, change a brand logo, but visual graphics change much more often …”
That’s nonsense too.
There are logos and logos and there are companies and companies. While Alexius Papadopulos is proud on his grandfathers logo for his wine or olive oil company, or while some “since 1765 … by appointment of her Majesty, the Queen of England and …” whisky or beer producer might be proud of some old fashioned logo for the “traditional” brand, the exact oposite is true in tech world where you don’t want the image as “being from yesterday”, but where you wanna be a “pathfinder” in the future.
Every respectful company changed their logo at lest once if not on regular basis, every couple of years.
And then, there is logo change and logo change. If you used a bird on your logo for the past 20 years, then you’ll not make a new logo consisting of one acronym or showing a kangaroo but, you’ll make that bird flatter, a bit more abstract or something in that way. So you can keep “your identity” and still show that you are up to date and go with time.
Take a look at Apple and Microsoft. Does Windows 10 uses the logo of Win 7, of Vista, of XP, of 2000, of 98 … Nope. Same with Apple. Or IBM, or … Windows’es changed over time and yet, they are still windows’es, or apples or whatever.
Logos are getting subtle changes over time and they evolve. Abrupt change or suddenly some completely different style are no-go’s.
Logo has to fit the brand and the product and it also has a symbolic meaning. If logo never changes, it suggests that product never changes, that the company philosophy never changes and so on. That’s negative in high-tech world where you must be in front of time or at least, go with time.
I’ll make some practical examples here …
Screenshot Nr. 1:
Can you imagine somthin’ like this? Me less so. That logo doesn’t fit the wallpaper and it suggests “1997”, Clearlooks-Phenix, Gnome-Colors … still the best combination from usability perspective, but “slightly dusty”.
Screenshot Nr. 2:
Would you ever use somethin’ like that? Me not.
It’s more modern on the plus side, but that’s also the only plus.
It’s amateurish made, it’s a copycat, bad executed copy of a good, high quality executed professional logo, it makes to abrupt change compared to original antiX logo, it doesn’t look good (“sharp feet”) and it’s “hurting” the eyes. That also suggest us unconsciously, that the company behind or the product itself will hurt us. (Which is throught for antiX as is.)
Screenshot Nr. 3:
How about this one? This is a high quality, highly professional, very well executed, abstract logo. There are only two reasons why this shouldn’t become official antiX logo:
1. The logo style would be a complete style change without any relation to the predecessor — that’s a no-go.
2. It’s already used by one company.
Screenshot Nr. 4:
And this one? Well, it depends very much on the product itself. As long as antiX is in it’s present state, it would be a very bad idea. On the other side, one day maybe, somebody might start caring about “the looks” and about the “image” and it maybe even decides to give antiX some “fresh paint” and make it look more modern. Then and only then, such logo (I didn’t say this exact one!) would make very much sense as it would fit better to the new product and to the “new thoughts direction” of the people behind it.
Technicaly seen, it’s a word replacing a word — no abrupt change of style. Just flatter and modern with slightly more modern font curvature. It would be completely different and still the same good, old antiX.
