» Kodak Rebranding advertising/design goodness – advertising and design blog: The best ads & designs and sometimes the worst around the globe.

Kodak Rebranding

Feels like a lot of companies new years resolutions were to rebrand themselfs. Kodak is newest one that has done just that.

In another break with the past, Eastman Kodak Co. is introducing a new corporate logo designed to help the company forge a new image as a cutting-edge, 21st century innovator.

Kodak’s new corporate symbol retains the company’s distinctive red and yellow colors, but does away with the boxes that have contained the word “Kodak” for the past 70 years.

I think the new logo doesn’t say anything about the company. They left out the red box which was the the only original thing they had going for them. I don’t know about this one, what do you guys think?

Source: Chronicle

Click here for a look at the history of the kodak logo.

The Meat Market

Get your ad here for 30 days, for a ridiculous price.

31 responded to this post

Pierre / Citronjaune said on January 7th, 2006

I do think it’s too sober… 2 horizontal lines and a word, that’s not what I call a logo…
A lot of companies could use the same logo.
I don’t know what means the older logo, but this one does not mean anything.
Hope it does not cost them too much, because they will need another rebrand.

Anonymous said on January 7th, 2006

Every aspect of the business is nowadays too afraid to shock or offend anyone, so everything looks the same. Pityful.

Mike Rundle said on January 7th, 2006

The new typeface is pretty nice, I do like the lowercase ‘a’. Pretty cool.

I’m not sure about the horizontal lines though, you’d think that they’d take the existing (and extremely well-known) K graphic and incorporate it somehow. Odd.

Brian said on January 7th, 2006

I always thought that the breaks in the box which made up the “K” in the old logo were supposed to be a stylized interpretation of the shutter/aperature, showing Kodak’s connection to cameras.

In any case, I don’t like the new one. It feels far too generic. The old logo was instantly recognizable… the new one feels cheaply manufactured.

Just In said on January 7th, 2006

i thinks its awful. the horizontal lines seem to compete againt the roundness of the typeface. the old one was much more original and cohesive.

Carla said on January 7th, 2006

I like the typface as well. The logo itself is bland as porridge. For some reason I can see this logo being used for a sporting company, not a photography corporation.

Freddy said on January 7th, 2006

I think what they are trying to do with the yellow lines is make it seem like its a piece of film. Which is a little weired because most of today’s photography is all digital which doesnt have negatives.

The wordmark is better to the one from before, but i wish they would have somehow kept the red icon.

Absinth said on January 7th, 2006

i liked the old one a lot. it was original/easy ti recognise. the new typeface is nice, but it feels like getting way too far from photography. shameful.

Nina Kuriloff said on January 7th, 2006

I like their newest logo, since it makes a very bold statement.

red_fox said on January 8th, 2006

I prefer the old one.

Andrew Kaufmann said on January 8th, 2006

I disagree with the folks that dig the new font — it looks to me like something you’d see on a box of kids’ building blocks. And the logo itself says nothing to me, other than “we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars making and researching this thing, here it is!”

dannyFoo said on January 8th, 2006

I don’t find that a modern type logo. And between the new and old, i’d stick with the old but with the new fonts.

Maybe they should’ve just complimented the old logo with more curvier edges.

Anonymous said on January 9th, 2006

this new logo is very forgetable.

nice font – but i think that the company is in a bit of a state. They were once know for 35mm film but now they have thier fingers in all sorts of pies.

I wonder how long they’ll be around? looking at the share price of the company, sales and performance – things aren’t looking good them. Maybe thats why they chose a bad logo

indigo said on January 9th, 2006

You’re kidding me!!? They’re changing the logo to THAT!?!

Non-descript and wholly forgetful.

Which ever agency came up with that, should be shot.

Doug Hill said on January 9th, 2006

Does it seem to anyone else that this logo looks more European than the old one? Perhaps they feel that an image so much identified with the United States is limiting them in the digital market.

ElvisIsGod said on January 9th, 2006

From distinctive to bland. The new font does not work for me – try to imagine it where is will be used (from packaging to the web), and it just does not stand out.

Kenny Bania - The Freshmaker said on January 9th, 2006

big mistake made by kodak. the old one is a million times better. this was one of the most recognizable logos in the world.

but you have to expect that they probably made such a drastic change because they are planning to reinvent themselves and their product line soon.

Yorkie said on January 9th, 2006

I like the new typeface. The tight “d” and “a” combination reminds me of an old roll of film, perhaps hinting at their roots in film manufacturing/developing.

KillerQueen said on January 9th, 2006

Dudes and dudettes, before goin’ completely berserk on the new logo, don’t forget, we’re talking about Kodak. There’s not a single soul on this very planet who doesn’t know what it stands for. So who gives a crap if the logo is much more sober. More = Less. And in this case it’s a very nice face-lift. Sober but very up-to-date..thanks to the great typeface. Kodak is much younger and fresher now. I like it. And no I’m not the guy who made this new logo.

bdeth said on January 9th, 2006

I agree that the new logo is bland and forgettable. It also pays little homage to the old mark with the orange box.

Mike R. & Brian:
I believe you are both right about the intention of the orange box. It served both as a K and as a representation of how image information is received both by the eye and by the lens of a camera. That’s one thing that made the old graphic so greatâ€”clever thinking.

Kristen S. said on January 9th, 2006

The new logo doesn’t do much for me… the only thing that stuck out was the “a”, and I don’t know if that’s a good thing or not. Someone mentioned kids building blocks- I agree.
I keep seeing McDonald’s in the new logo.
I’m a fan of the old mark.

Anonymous said on January 9th, 2006

If you look from afar, it resembles a slice of tomato caught in a pair cheese.

Sandwich!

Von K said on January 10th, 2006

There is nothing bold about this, I think what some people are going for is “stark,” maybe “boring?” “Forgettable?”

The light ray/”K” mark has so much power. They only way they could have ditched it in good conscience for this blahb would be because they are completely changing everything anyway. If that’s not the case, they got hornswaggled.

This makes me want to buy Fuji film even more.

Anonymous said on January 10th, 2006

The new one looks like the old buger king logo…from the 70′s

Anonymous said on January 10th, 2006

Yeah right less is more, which the new logo best describe. But it’s too blunt, as if it was not yet finish and they have to present it to their client… Kodak should keep their logo, for BRAND EQUITY purposes… you already are a strong brand so why change???

Anonymous said on January 11th, 2006

Maybe they could’ve played up the “d” more since it looks like a roll of film viewed from the top. Dang, haven’t seen a roll of film in a loooong time! I guess that’s why it’s outdated~ *^^*

David Cheong said on January 12th, 2006

I would prefer the right side photo, looks clean and plain, thats what people want in their photo right?

Bill W. said on January 13th, 2006

A writer to the local Rochester, NY newpaper said it best…a group of 8th Grade Students could have come up with a better logo in one Computer class. This logo apparently took 8 months to develop.

Annonymous said on January 25th, 2006

Let’s face it – at least Kodak will bebefit from some buzz around the crap logo. Years ago, when Coca Cola re-branded their cans, the sales went down so that the firm had non choice but to swap back to the original packaging design. But despite the declining sales the publicity was world-wide. Perhaps Kodak will re-live this kind of moment.. The change to the new logo has certainly been a decision based on Kodak’s recent plans to adopt to film-free cameras. Though, who ever took 8 months to come up with this piece of crap has a damn good sales team

Bob said on May 7th, 2006

Well, I have worked for Eastman Kodak and have for 19 years now, I was very proud to be part of a organization, that held the employee and customer , as the basis for their success. To my, sad regret, through poor middle management and overpaid CEO’s , not to mention trying to create revenue , by buying up companies, will be their downfall. The logo is piss poor, and was probably done by some grad. student with a MBA, who wouldn’t know a good logo, if it bit him in the ass. Say goodbye, to another great american company, we have no one to blame , but ourselves, for the greedy corporate pigs, who run these companies nowdays, George Eastman is turning in his grave.