

Warmer, Fuzzier: The Refreshed Logo - dbul
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/weekinreview/31marsh.html?_r=1&hp

======
Elcho
Companies rebrand/change their logo all the time, where in the article does it
provide data comparing the rate of change of company names in down times vs
the good times?

This is just fitting a convenient 'depression 2.0' story to some logo
redesigns; if this happened two years ago, the same redesigns would be
interpreted entirely differently, perhaps it would be about 'increasing market
share in a more globalized world'.

------
bingaman_
Lipstick on pigs. The most interesting one is the last one in the slideshow,
Blackwater changed their name to Xe. It doesn't change the fact that they are
mercenary soldiers.

------
tptacek
If you liked this article, the Brand New blog at

    
    
       http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/
    

is more insightful on a typical day, and tries less hard to fit into the NYT's
trend stories about the economy and the environment.

------
J_McQuade
Given the title, I was almost certain that this would be an article about
Haskell!

------
philwelch
They can spend millions of dollars making Wal-Mart's logo look friendlier, but
when you walk in the store, it's plain to see that the actual company is just
the same. This reminds me of Joel's "how many lies can you find a direct mail
piece?"

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000019.html>

The logo might claim Wal-Mart is friendly and likable but unless Wal-Mart
actually becomes friendly and likable it's just wasted money.

~~~
natrius
The redesigned Walmarts are actually far more pleasant to shop in. It's been a
while since I've been in one, so I forgot exactly what they changed. It was
definitely less suffocating and the signs were prettier. Who needs good
business practices when you have good _typography_?

In any case, I don't really buy into the whole "Walmart is pure evil" thing.
It's cute how some enlightened cities do everything they can to prevent them
from moving in so small businesses aren't hurt, then they wonder why their
lower income residents are doing so poorly. I think independent retailers are
great and I support them whenever I can, but they're clearly more expensive,
and it's silly for the people who can afford to have a conscience to force
that choice on those who can't.

~~~
tripngroove
Anyone who is interested in the debate surrounding Walmart and how it impacts
local and global economies should check out this PBS documentary.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/>

Of particular interest is the section called "Muscling Manufacturers", which
shows how the sheer scale of their operation gives them the power to force
local manufacturing jobs overseas, effectively creating these "lower income
residents" that natrius mentions above.

Scale is often a topic of discussion for hackers; to see how some of the same
principles apply to a huge retail corporation is mind-blowing. Definitely
worth a watch, imo.

~~~
natrius
I don't believe that the imaginary lines that humans tend to draw in the sand
to separate people make a Chinese person less worthy of a job than an
American.

It _is_ in my best interest to keep jobs from leaving the country. Money tends
to circulate locally, so we're decreasing the amount of wealth available here
when we buy foreign goods. Losing American jobs also increases the costs of
our social welfare programs.

However, since our social welfare programs are presumably better than China's,
creating a Chinese job at the cost of an American job likely leaves the world
better off if we assume that the increased taxes and decreased American income
would result in a negligible decrease in well-being in comparison. I think
that's a fair assumption.

Shop at Walmart, save the world.

