Found at: BrandNew.
Its better, the navy is really navy blue but what i dont like is that Y clinging onto the V
maybe that was their intention the Y raising the hands of the V
but that might be just me, i see letters as figures. maybe every typo geek has the same problem/gift
It changes nothing for there image, but loose their ‘original’ look.
font is nice, but does that qualify as a OVAL, look weird. not much of an update.
They smushed the circle and used an uncondensed version of the original font. Oh – and the blue is slightly more yellow.Do they really think this is going to have ANY difference on their brand identity or status one way or another?
Iâ€™m not advocating a total overhaul for the sake of extreme change â€“ but I wonder why they spent the money on it at all?
Looks much better, die wider typography is more consistent with the oval shape. It does strongly bring up an association with Nivea, however.
I agree with Jerome, I think the change is for the better.
The new, more rounded shape of the oval is more adequate to hold the text inside. And the uncondesed version of the font is consistent with the new shape of the oval as well.
The use of a darker blue also gives contrast to the image.
Not to say that the text on old one seems to be just put there, while in the new one there is some work on customizing how the letters look togheter. The shape of the ‘A’ and the ‘V’ interact, as well as the ‘V’ and the ‘Y’.
I think is a very slight change that produces a great impact.
The new one is definitely better. While some might scoff at how subtle the differences are, the new one really is much more refined. The typographic nuances are very nice (note the ligature of the V and Y).
I disagree. The typo for the new logo is weird. The inbetween-spaces of the letters are really inconsistend, leaving us with a wobbly image. The old one was more generic, but better spaced. Maybe it is time for a third?
I think…it’s rather poorly executed – graphically, and unnecessary to begin with. Considering the word shapes – condensed allows the type to breathe and avoids bad collisions between the “V” and the “Y”. Also – they didn’t even try to avoid the obvious problem in the original of optical de-centering caused by the anchoring shapes of the “O” and the “Y”. A true oval container is an ok device – as the new version is no improvement – and would actually work better with condensed type.
Of course – these unnecessary decisions were supported by a necessary brand review/audit, some unnecessary billing, and an unneccesary human desire to fix something that wasn’t broken in the first place.
The change is so insignificant that whether or not it’s better, it seems like a collosal waste of money to replace everything with this “new” logo. I’m sure most people will never even notice.
I like the new blue, but prefer the old type
IMO, it looks to me like the old logo was designed by a professional, while the new logo looks like it was a “freshening” by some two-bit poseur. The typography in the new logo is a heinous crime.
its a stepping stone evolution, setting the stage for the next more drammatic change.
if you ask me, it classes up the logo a touch without alienating anyone. I noticed it without really realizing it when I saw it in print recently.
I think its nice work of graduating the brand, and elevating it just a schootch. bravo. equity kids. it’s all about equity.
I dont see SUCH a big differences. Logos are starting to look old, is that the new look? seems like it nowadays.
everything looks wider and rounder… just like most of the people that shop there… have you noticed that their “small” is a medium. great for pajamas though…
Nobody that shops at Old Navy will care or notice.
Hope they didn’t waste too much money on the “rebranding”.
Is Old Navy now selling facial creames?
I love it. It’s so much hipper looking now. I’m buying all my clothes at Old Navy from now on!
Wow, Pete, thanks for the character judgement–I got a pair of shorts there once, yet I noticed this update like a mofo.
Like the new type and the new blue. But the type is set inexpertly at best, downright sloppy at worst. I could get past ligature-ifying the VY, but the (lack of) optical centering in the oval, the piss-poor kerning and the oval’s new, worserer shape make me dislike it. Good intentions, bad execution.
I’m having a hard time seeing the glitches in kerning that some people are criticizing. Perhaps someone could whip up a version of how they think it should be set? I’m very much into typography but still quite a beginner, so I’d love some insight into how this could be improved.
The new typography is much better, hey look they actually kerned the text! Its very subtle but a nice change.
Jerome: The one on this site is kind of small, so it doesn’t really look bad. Go to Brand New and look at the bigger, type-only version to see the lazy spacing.
Both logos look as if they came out of the same design stream/session. The new logo just came 30 minutes (and maybe a lunch break) later.
Joshua – yours is the best comment yet on this. Perfect :]
The “Gap” between the N and the A is driving my “Bananas”.
Thanks for that link, Vonk. I can see why people are complaining about the VY ligature, as it is a strange element that doesn’t really make any sense, and the space between OL is a bit large. Still, I think it has a much better reading flow than the old one, which had much worse kerning, in my humble opinion.
Well for one I don’t like the new look as much as the old which may be because I’m use to the old look.
Which brings me to my next point, why make such a insignificant change when all you are really accomplishing is making people think “what looks different” or worse “is that a knockoff or something” which would be kind of weird with such a cheap brand in the first place.
Your comment brings up an interesting point: I’ve never seen the logo, let alone ever heard of “Old Navy” (we don’t have them here in Germany). So you’re going to get completely different opinions from someone who is familiar with the logo, and one seeing it for the first time. And for me as a first-timer, the new logo leaves a much more professional impression. But yeah, the target group for this new logo is probably the same group as before, unless they are trying to appeal to a more “exclusive” group instead of staying with the “cheap brand” image that you attribute to them.
On a side note, it’s funny to see how such a seemingly subtle change can spawn so many comments. 🙂
And it also shows that Freddy’s blog is gaining in popularity, so congrats on that, it’s well deserved!
The original designers were obviously aware of the problems A-V-Y creates and did a fairly good job minimizing it by using a condensed face and generously open kerning. The new designers must be totally blind to negative space.
The blue shape on the original was an elipse (not an oval, which has straight sides and semi-circular ends). Elipses are pleasing because they have a mathematical purity to them. The new shape is an elipse that has been run through the Squash-O-Tron a few times. The result is a shape that looks like it was hand drawn by a not-very-adept high school drafting student.
For al the “Experts” or seasoned pros….Leaving typography aside…the original Oval or elipse was “weak” due to the narrowing of the side points. The reason they “puffed” up the oval/elipse was to add “strength” and more “permanance” to the shape. Visually, sort of a “size matters” thing without really getting any larger. A Victoria Secrets ploy.
As to the lettering….the original store concept was linked to Army Navy Surplus design…thus the original had to have a “retro” or World War I to W W II font. The new font is “meant” to be at close quarters because… 1. lessens the brand association with “old signage” as in or at a surplus store and 2. The font moves the label closer to an “intaglio” recognition…to the quick glance minded shopper.
We haven’t taken away the minds of the Old Navy customers yet…have we? And remember it’s all about “new” customers.
The transition is suspect and I think it will see some type of artisitc variations as it gets applied to their various products in terms of substrate used and dimensional emphasis in the construction of various versions of the label…as they, (Old Navy), associates their “New” Logo with various price points or product segments in their product lines.
Analizing the kerning misses the “new” design intent.
The change is so minor that not many will notice the change. I wonder who got paid the 6 figure salary to come up with this.
Does the company not think that the money spent on this could have been used for something more usefull, like…… customer service training, The service is terrible at any location and they think the logo change will help their image.
I got news for you, people care about service not the stupid logo.
And that’s my 2 cents.
If they were going to spend their money on something, it should have been on new fashion designers. The clothes look half decent on the commercials, but when you try them on, they don’t fit right.
As for the new logo I would have to say it stinks. Just like everyone else has said, the kerning is bad. Not like the original logo was all that impressive…
Props to the guy who came up with the new color – the only thing I like….Big Whop….
The new type and color are much more current. Subtle changes do make a difference.
Trackback and pingback from other blogger
Email Address (*private)
Spam protection: Sum of 3 + 4 ?
Please Note: Comment Moderation Maybe Active So There is No Need To Resubmit Your Comments