looking beyond design, a lot of them are very impractical.
why?
because logos are not meant to be viewed on high resolution computer monitors.

It's going to be printed on business cards, newspapers, vehicles, uniforms, products, brochures, boxes, company stamps (or 'chops' not postage stamps), and may even be engraved on products.

1) Cost: it is cheaper to print monotone solids than multi colored gradient and the like. And IMO, majority the 'new' design 'textures' ( gel, plastic, metallic, translucent ... maybe with the exception of solid 3D ) are playing with gradients....multi colored gradients.

2) Visibility: un-solid design are less visible compared to solid design, and are harder to change color when applied to a media which is the same color as the logo. e.g. a solid white logo can be changed to black when you want to print on a white brochure, it is harder to 'adapt' when dealing with gradient-ish logos.

3) Limitation of media: As mentioned on point 1, the logo might even be engraved on products (e.g. computer casings). It is extremely hard to accomodate the newfangled designs in such situations especially when the logo has no main outlines.

4) Cost: Just want to state again the important of cost cutting for businesses. difference between 1 color print and 2 color print means a lot of money long term.

5) Quality: Again, you are not going to view the logo on your high-res monitors. The outcome of dithering colors or solidifying it is dependent on whether the logo you make 'degrades gracefully'.


realistically speaking, design concepts take a backseat when it comes to businesses. It is hard to find a good reason to implement gradient-ish logos over solid color logos.

@etsuko
aye cap'n, thankee fer ye kind werds

3 words
money money money


btw: i quite like sony ericsson's logo


This post has been edited by wantanseller: Nov 11 2005, 05:53 PM

my guess would be:
( I'm using Telekom's new logo as reference. )

a) to keep up with current perception and tastes.
e.g blue is a very corporate , professional and formal color. Introduction of orange into the color scheme reflects gone with constricting bureaucratic procedures replaced with flexible and user friendly service. Also could mean the inclusion of youths in as their target audience too

established companies may have ventured into other areas of the industry, and thus have to reflect their new corporate identity.
e.g. 'telekom' changing to 'tm', to break free of general impression that they are just a telco company. 'TM' is more memorable as well as 'cool' compared to the bland 'telekom' (rather unimaginative name). Given that majority of the services were prefixed with 'tm' (tmnet and tmtouch), the transition is quite smooth. Can't say the same for AOL Time Warner...ugh

c) to reinforce old company values and introduce new ones
the bird like shapes and curvy typeface may portray a more living breathing organic company as opposed to the squarish edgy dead company of the past. It shows they are more in touch with the general public. It also reinforces old values of a visionary, high flying company which was not incorporated into the old logo.

d) marketing strategy
to refresh and add to the publics' awareness their existence. This is normally not the main focus of the logo change.... more like a bonus.
e.g. come on, you just have to notice telekom's new logo.

e) save cost
in some rare cases, some companies actually changed logo to cut costs. Old logo might use up too much colors or be impractical (refer to my previous post on the matter). Note that the cost of implementing new logo is quite high especially if you are an established company, so most of the time it defeats the purpose intended.

most of the time it is part of a shift in corporate identity and not just for the sake of logo change itself. This means you will see a change in their approach to the market and advertisements....just FYI


ps: all the above examples are my wild speculations.