Last week Alex Faaborg, Principal Designer at Firefox, in charge of its interactive design, visual design, and overall vision posted the most recent in a long series of articles on the refresh of the Firefox icon.
Firefox has finally settled on a final version of the updated icon, originally rendered by Jon Hicks based on initial sketches by Daniel Burka and Stephen Desroches.
The response on Alex’s blog is mixed. The overall feeling seems to be that the refreshed icon is nice, but looks dreadful at small dimensions. However, my interest in this icon is not so much linked to the visual degree of attractiveness of this icon but to another, more important question: was there a branding strategy, some logic behind this refresh, beyond a mere whim?
Rebranding and Strategy
Too often I get to see or hear stories of companies rebranding just because some executive got bored of the old logo or because some Marketing guy has to justify his salary. A brand is not something to take lightly. A brand can be just a minor element of the marketing mix for some companies – for for others, if done right, it has the potential of becoming a major purchase and loyalty driver. The examples abound, and anybody can name at least a few cases where the brand message, or the logo, or both have made history and driven sales up to levels previously unimaginable.
Personally, I would have said Firefox was one of these cases, where there was an attachment of the end user to the brand and its famous logo. As such, I would have thought that the Firefox executive team would tread carefully around the issue of rebranding and would only touch the logo with a very clear branding strategy in mind.
The Brief
So I go read the creative brief (click to download the png file, it’s quite interesting).
Surprise, surprise, the only clue of branding strategy I can find is:
“We would like to scale back the level of detail (…) so that overall the icon in comparison to previous versions carries a connotation of streamlined, or simplified” (…) to personify the fact that the application is not becoming bloated”.
Right. So the main concern was, presumably, that the update may make the new Firefox release seem too large, bloated, slow.
Changing the logo would not necessarily be the path I’d take for addressing this perception; there are less traumatic ways of achieving that. Still, Firefox decided to change the icon – and made a mess of it. They requested, specifically, more detail to be included in the new icon. More detail on the fur, more detail in the globe. The purpose is unclear – because how is introducing more detail signifying simplification?
If you really want to use the product logo to affect the product perception, a good example of how you portray simplification is the way Adobe (who struggles with the same perception of its apps becoming too large and sophisticated for their own good) scales back the level of complexity of their product icons to almost basic squares of colour.
Firefox on the other hand seems to be going the other way, with traditional illustration (high levels of detail) and the garish glossy orbs very popular some 3 years ago.
Are we losing the Art of Branding?
The Firefox “refresh” is the latest illustration of how insufficient thinking and a lack of branding understanding can mess up even some of the world’s most famous brands. But it is not the only example we’ve had recently – think Pepsi, think Xerox.
So my question to you is: is the art of branding being threatened by the increasing number of marketers thinking they know what a brand is and how it works and missing the point entirely? Are companies getting desperate and attempting to address tough economic conditions with “rebrands”? Or is it the era where logos are mass-produced or auctioned on 99designs.com, following design trends is a compulsion and the fight for mind share and shelf visibility driving marketers careless?
I would love to hear what people think.
Further reading:
- Alex Faaberg’s blog
- Design Talk – Does Pepsi’s new logo work?
- Adland – The new Xerox logo looks like a beach ball
- underconsideration.com – Xerox, The Very, Very, Very Shiny Company
Loading ...
June 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 am
I’m not crazy about the changes that they made with the Firefox logo. I prefer the old one, but I’m not saying that the new logo is so bad.
I think branding works most of the time. Like the new Adobe logos. I think they are effective because it gave a sense of harmony among their products.
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am
i prefer the way it looked before
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 pm
wow… i think more smooth than old design
June 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Yeah I’d have to agree. I know changes are minimal really, but the older one just looks slightly more polished.
June 23rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
You actually raise a great question, what in the world is going on with the world of branding?
Part of me feels like the internet is kind of destroying branding due to the fact that advertising on the internet has changed. The sad truth is that for huge internet companies they don’t even really need branding. Is facebook going to die without their little F logo?
What about twitter?
While it’s nice that both of these companies do have some nice branding approaches, are they going to die without them? Or has the internet made things more about function than branding?
I don’t know. It’s going to take a few more years to sort that out.
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I agree with the above, this logo looks somewhat dumbed down and aimed at a calmer audience, probably younger people.
June 24th, 2009 at 7:05 am
Younger people a calmer audience? You think?
June 24th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Not sure about facebook, their case was more one of functionality that appealed to a very large audience and less of branding. But Twitter owes a lot of their cult-like following to cute branding (fail whale, the Twitter bird and the like). These elements are part of the user experience.
Same way Apple is cool because their packaging is cool, the colour of their computers is cool and they stand for coolness supreme. This is all branding. It’s not only about the logo, that is only a part of the equation, but it’s an important part. Can you imagine Apple without their apple logo (although that has been revised a few times already)? Or Nike without the swoosh?
June 26th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Didn’t even notice the change in the logo only after reading this article. Any logo will do as long as the performance and quality is good.
June 29th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Subtle change i the FF logo, but i like the old one better.
Speaking Adobe, i think they’ve obtained a nice, stylish look over the last few years. A few years ago their logo’s and icons were a mess imo.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Honestly I do not see much difference between the new logo and the old logo. An average Fire Fox user like me, is not going to notice these differences.
To be a highly brand able logo it needs to be simple. The Firefox logo looks too complicated to me. Imagine printing this logo in black and white.
I still remember the simple Netscape logo (“N” over the horizon) even now and I haven’t used Netscape for more than a decade!
.-= Aja´s last blog ..Home Storage Solutions for your Living Room =-.
June 30th, 2009 at 7:20 am
Very interesing topic. I like the rebrand of Firefox, but as a designer, even I admit that it’s pretty hard to tell what they have done as it’s so subtle. As for Adobe, these guys have a simple brilliance to everything they do, it seems understated but honestly it’s just brilliant branding imho.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:16 am
I am more of a fan of the simplified black and white logo as you wrote about in the Nike post. However, I do like this new Firefox logo. For me, it appeals to the eye and maintains the brand imaging.
.-= Richard Cummings´s last blog ..Why Your Amazon Affiliate Store Makes No Money…and Others Do =-.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:30 am
I prefer the old one too, the colors are more appealing.
.-= BB Cream´s last blog ..Missha M BB Cream =-.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:17 am
Sure the change wasn’t necessary but its so subtle who really cares?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 am
I was happy with the old Fox.
Cheers
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I think I like the old one better, much beautiful if you ask me ;)
.-= Norhafidz@Fast Cars´s last blog ..Audi TT Quattro Sport =-.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Well, if I hadn’t of read this article then I’d never of known it had changed. Looking at the images above was a little like a spot-the-difference competition. I feel this was a re-branding exercise for the sake of it as the end result hasn’t really changed anything. The Firefox logo is a major asset for the brand and there obviously is a fine line between improvements and making a mess. The changes here are so small here I don’t think they’ve done any of the above, except waste resources on it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I totally see the lack of branding understanding messing up what Firefox has already built, and it would make sense that so many companies are going with rebranding because of the financial crunch in a desperate attempt to generate more income.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
You are so right.. we couldn’t have done without.. I think it’s a little more 3D now, isn’t it?
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:16 am
I consider this “rebrand”, if you could even call it that, minor. If a company rebranded and the new image was significantly different that it was before, then they would need to justify the change or at least give reason. This, lets just say, nobody will be confused by the new design.
.-= Josiah@Youtube Backgrounds´s last blog ..Michael Jackson =-.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I’m ok with both the new and the old. But I thought it was a rather unnecessary change.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I like the former fox but changes are always made with a hope to some new opportunities or there will be more partners, willing to cooperate with the refreshed image. It just says that the company does not stay at the same point but wants to develop and makes steps forward. We do not have to be so pessimistic about the new logo.
July 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I don’t even really notice much difference between the two and had I not read about the changes I probably never would have. Talk about a waste of time and resources.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
I personally don’t really care what the icon looks like, however i would choose the old over the new. I think some other people above have mentioned already, it looks a little dumbed down. Almost “cartoony” looking now.
July 8th, 2009 at 12:16 am
New colours are muddy and and unclear and the whole approach is unnecessarily fussy. If they wanted to appear more streamlined I’m afraid they lose. As far as the end user is concerned, I doubt it’ll even be noticed unless it’s specifically pointed out. However, anything that makes more work for designers right now is a good thing, amirite???
July 8th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Oh, the old Netscape…Makes me all nostalgic to think about it.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Fair point – they were going a bit in the unnecessarily fussy direction a few years back.
July 8th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
i agree with josiah, rebranding has more to do with core strategy and how you communicate that to the public rather than a minor logo change. that being said, i think its interesting they bothered to change the globe image to something that could look a little like great brittain or new zealand or Japan to something that couldn’t look like anything…
July 8th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
From purely mechanical perspective on the logo design, you have two many layers in the tail to show depth but a prefer a great reduction in shape and form with logos. A silhouette of a fox or its tail could have done the trick. But it’s all subjective, too.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
This all just seems a little fussy. I mean, how much did that bit of tweaking of the logo cost them. I hope it wasn’t too much, because personally, I don’t think it was worth it.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Fussy is a very good word, I think.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:18 am
i like the new one, it felt more 3D. But I do agree with you it’s unnecessary. IMHO, there are more important logo that need an update, like Ford for example.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I don’t even understand why they would make the changes that they made given their objective. As I matter of fact, I’m not too sure about why they bothered making any changes at all. First of all, it’s not a noticeable difference except when viewed large and in comparison to the old logo. 2nd off, if the objective was to simplify and portray a simpler image, then adding more detail to the logo just doesn’t make any sense.
Very strange.
July 21st, 2009 at 6:47 pm
I think while the changes are minor, i think it is more geared towards their long term branding strategy. I can see why they would take the time and the resources to complete these changes now instead of later on down the road.
July 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Quite Sub really i can see why they are making small changes this way the brand is still recognisable but is evovling to look up to date
.-= Graham Gunningham´s last blog ..Recycled Promotional Products the green alternative =-.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Whether audiences like the new design or not, there weren’t enough changes made to the original to make that big of an impact– good or bad. This case brings to mind Tropicana’s recent fiasco of a rebranding attempt. Sales fell drastically after the company tried to make their image more modern and up-to-date. Tropicana has since reverted to the well-loved and original design, but left consumers questioning why they tried to change a good thing in the first place. So, unless Firefox wants to confuse its users, they need to realize “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
.-= Kourtney´s last blog ..When Abby’s Away, Her Dog Will Play! =-.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Hehe, smooth logo without real change. I guess they didn’t want to change the logo at all but just create some media buzz – hey FF changed their logo… big deal :)
August 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Just the added color and emphasis. I hope they can build a different color. But yeah this is a cool change.