http://www.rebirthstudios.com/articles/xerox-logo-rebranding/ Exploring and Revisiting the Ubiquitous World of Design Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:17:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 http://www.rebirthstudios.com/articles/xerox-logo-rebranding/#comment-1594 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:30:16 +0000 http://www.rebirthstudios.com/articles/xerox-logo-rebranding/#comment-1594 I was just wondering what the logo font that is used in the new xerox logo, thanks for the help I was just wondering what the logo font that is used in the new xerox logo, thanks for the help

]]> http://www.rebirthstudios.com/articles/xerox-logo-rebranding/#comment-1486 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:05:54 +0000 http://www.rebirthstudios.com/articles/xerox-logo-rebranding/#comment-1486 I have mixed feelings about new logo. The typography of the wordmark is excellent. It has much less edginess and tension then the previous one. Slightly curved X's add to the originality of the font. And the accusations of plagiarizing the new Kodak logo are far-fetched. But the ball... it is useless and ugly. How does the ball with a cross conveys a message that Xerox is not a document company anymore? The only thing it conveys is that the logo was made by Interbrand, the branding company strangely addicted to balls in logos (e.g. the AT&T redesign). Do they think that wrapping an old mark around the ball makes a new contemporary mark? And by the way, the wrapping seems to be wrong geometrically, as if the ball has some angles on its surface. I have mixed feelings about new logo. The typography of the wordmark is excellent. It has much less edginess and tension then the previous one. Slightly curved X’s add to the originality of the font. And the accusations of plagiarizing the new Kodak logo are far-fetched.
But the ball… it is useless and ugly. How does the ball with a cross conveys a message that Xerox is not a document company anymore? The only thing it conveys is that the logo was made by Interbrand, the branding company strangely addicted to balls in logos (e.g. the AT&T redesign). Do they think that wrapping an old mark around the ball makes a new contemporary mark? And by the way, the wrapping seems to be wrong geometrically, as if the ball has some angles on its surface.

]]>