Perhaps familiarity is in fact part of the definition of the "best "logo. After all, a logo serves no other purpose than recognition. Companies routinely spend a great deal of money ensuring that their logo, colors, interior decor, etc etc, all make people go "Oh yeah! That's [X]!"
> After all, a logo serves no other purpose than recognition.
If recognition was the sole purpose, Yahoo should have kept the logo exactly the same. I think logos (or styles in general) are also an expression of the attributes that a company wants consumers to associate with the brand.
The uneven baseline in Yahoo's logo express playfulness, as do the colors in Google's logo, for example. That's how Google and Yahoo contrast themselves with boring old business-oriented companies like Microsoft, IBM and SAP.
Like potatolicious pointed out, it is dubious how worthwhile it is to ask your existing customers for feedback if you want to change your image. After all, these are people that are already familiar with you, while the purpose of an updated image is, presumably, to attract a different/wider userbase.
True, but there is also potential for some re-branding here. Maybe one of them is more "hip" and "fun" but people don't associate it with the Yahoo! brand.
Ideally you would have different people use different logos and then you'd survey them after a year or 6 months; once they're more used to "their" new logo.
In which case the question would be the wrong one to ask. It doesn't really matter which logo people "prefer" - their personal aesthetic taste has nothing to do with an effective logo (well, assuming your logo isn't goatse).
It would be more effective to ask people what descriptors they'd use to describe the company behind the logo, using a fictional company name.
I think the overall idea of 30 logos, one per day, is terrible. It cheapens the brand, and the seriousness of the process of creating the focal point of a multi-billion dollar company's branding for the next decade and beyond. I understand they want to underline that they're making changes. But people want to be told a compelling story, not asked which of 30 stories they prefer.
This feels like a huge A/B test, and -- even if not true -- seems like an experiment in releasing the tiller to see where the wind takes the boat. They should make a strategic design decision and execute it consistently -- have a strong opinion. Given the paradox of choice, the fact that people ultimately prefer a logo similar to the current one isn't surprising.
They should make a strategic design decision and execute it consistently -- have a strong opinion.
Amen! Generally this disturbs me about a lot of web stuff (probably because it is the one area in which I'm exposed to it) - caring more about what people expect or want, rather what you wish they would want, because you like it yourself. The winning logo is so ugly, I'd use it as an glaring example why you can't poll the masses on style or taste, not as a guideline. Not that I think it matters that much; the world is full of ugly logos, but as long as they stand for something want/need, we tend to accept or even like them. But still. Yech.
Not only that, but in the breakdowns by attribute, users actually preferred serif logos in general over non-serifs, which suggests that they would actually have preferred the current logo over any of the new ones.
It's because the old logo was properly created by some ad agency to pass the idea of the "Yahooooo" sound.
Hence the best logo chosen by the people (which i think is not the official word by yahoo inc) also has that "feeling".
All the logos with a fixed baseline, or jagged baseline that goes against how western read the "yahoooo" sound, just feel like you changed the font in MS Word and typed Yahoo!. Which is all most of those are...
I wonder if the proper conclusion is that this is the best new logo, or that this is simply the most familiar.