When I first read the New York Times article about the new AOL logo on Monday, I thought to myself, “That company is still around? Who uses it?” Then I thought “That new logo looks like a dog poo.”
I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt as it is a very different kind of brand identity. It is described as “uniquely dynamic” and “a simple, confident logotype, revealed by ever-changing images. It’s one consistent logo with countless ways to reveal” on the AOL Corporate Site. It appears that the logotype will remain constant but the backgrounds behind the logo will always be changing in an effort to suggest the depth and extent of AOL’s content. Cool idea. Even kind of MTV like. But to me it falls short.
The logotype is boring, uninspired and does not make sense. Is it an acronym? Is it a sentence? It has a capital letter and a period. Is it a really a logo or is it just some keyed letters on top of a bunch of stock photos? Is it design or art? Is it’s purpose to generate a lot of attention and press because it is so bad?
At least there isn’t a drop shadow.
It doesn’t help that the logo is from Wolff Olins, the same folks who brought us the WTF-eliciting WACOM rebrand and seizure-inducing London 2010 identity.
That logo is so bad I thought it was a parody. I was wondering why you were just talking about how bad the logo was instead of showing it. I had to see that graphic on like three other sites before I realized that’s is the logo.
I have to say, Aol.Satan is my favorite.
I guess it is not clear which is the parody logo and which are the actual logos. I have updated the graphic to make this distinction (even though it may be funnier to keep them ambiguous).