Share this!
What do you think about the new AOL brand?
AOL turns into Aol.
The company that used to be called AOL, and was recently spun off from Time Warner, is shrinking in size in order to survive…and now its name and logo are shrinking as well. Perhaps as a reflection of its intention to cut about 2,500 jobs, AOL has changed the UC treatment of the acronym to one that includes an upper case “A” and lower case “ol”. And, in an attempt to communicate that the company is in the internet space, it is adding a “.” after its moniker. “AOL” is now “Aol.”
Brand identities need to be refreshed every so often. This can be motivated by the fact that, over time, design aesthetics change and it may be necessary to refresh a design that starts to feel dated. However, changing a brand identity can also be symbolic of a change in the company’s focus or structure, or a change in the marketplace situation. In the case of AOL (oops, Aol.), the change seems to be motivated by the changes in the company’s structure and a desire to re-introduce itself to its audiences.
Is “uniquely dynamic” the same as trite and playful?
According to Tim Armstrong, the company’s CEO, “Our new identity is uniquely dynamic. Our business is focused on creating world-class experiences for consumers and AOL is centered on creative and talented people – employees, partners, and advertisers. We have a clear strategy that we are passionate about and we plan on standing behind the AOL brand as we take the company into the next decade.”
The new look was created by Wolff Olins, the same firm that also designed the much maligned 2012 London Olympics logo, and most recently the fairly unpopular NYC logo. So far, the new Aol. identity is not being embraced with much affection. Take a look at a recent article in Fast Company or read the story on CNet .
I think the new Aol. is awkward.
In my opinion, the new identity may very well be “dynamic”, but it seems to be trying too hard to look young and energetic. The playfulness seems out of line with the announcements about layoffs, and the seriousness of Aol.’s financial situation. Changing the font to lower case is a simplistic attempt to look friendlier and more accessible…while at the same time, the lower case “l” looks like an upper case “I” (which is visually confusing). In fact, I think the whole thing looks a bot awkward…and I find that the addition of the “dot” is trite – while at the same time it poses all sorts of problems when writing out the name of the company in text form – AOL simply looks and works much better than Aol. (Wait…at the end of a sentence should I add another period after the dot?). And this commentary has not even begun to take into account the backgrounds from which the letters Aol. are reversed out. What is that pink cloud? Perhaps a bit of cotton candy? And, what is the green scribble? I find that the is dot hard to read in that version. Do you? BTW: In Italy the hand image stands for “cuckold”…I think that’s pretty funny.
I don’t like it. Do you?
OK…it’s obvious, I don’t care for the new Aol. identity. I’d love to hear what any of you think of the new logo? Is this what you would do to help AOL change the way that people think about the brand?
I’d love to hear your opinion.
Ciao!
Alfredo Muccino
Chief Creative Officer
Liquid Agency
4 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Hi Alfredo,
I agree with your views on the new Aol logo. The Aol type treatment has a very poor retention factor to the viewer.
It is very awkward… being all things to all people never works with identity and branding designs. Where is the focus of this company?… are they a technology company?…This shotgun approach of visuals shows the lack of focus needed to communicate a company vision, products, and services.
The dot is not relevant to the design, hard to read in the scribble version and is almost an afterthought. They will have massive design headaches trying to translate this multi-image logo approach across different cultures.
I thought Wolf Olins would have learned from their lackluster 2012 Olympics logo.
Regards, Sal
I see this as an advertising campaign that has been repurposed as an identity. The concept also seemed a bit dated by hinting at all the wondrous things you can do on the web, as if the public at large didn’t know it already.
Funny comment about the Italian thing Alfred…in this day and age you can’t afford not to consider things like that. (That’s why they call it the “World Wide Web”…)
This whole thing seems desperate and not really thought out the right way. “Lets do something hip and trendy and hope it catches on..” I don’t care for it being lower case either and the period?(doing to be different for the sake of being different?) Too much of a change maybe and a disconnect from the old-yes that does create a dynamic scenario but again for the sake of what? The images they used are simple, almost “grade school” like and as the Jean said, its easy to find a goldfish picture on the web….don’t know where you’d find a picture of green scribble(although its a firm in AU, I googled it)
Cheers
really understated at last…even if they have substantially downsized their work force.
“A” as a Cap remain OK but the lower cases; “o” and then “l” seem foreign to the overal logo and even confuses the graphic perception as a potential “zero” and then a “one” with that font.
Also not sure about the hand message associated with the graphics.
I give it a D