
The Rolodex Logo Shock - imjustcreative
http://imjustcreative.com/the-rolodex-logo-shock/2011/03/15/
======
danilocampos
When a company's reason for being becomes irrelevant, first order of business
is a rebrand. Logos are much more malleable than business plans.

I think the best such rebrand in recent history has to be AOL:

Old: <http://nuzumcl.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/aol-logo.jpg>

New: [http://www.bizmology.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/AOL-L...](http://www.bizmology.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/AOL-Logo.jpg)

Look how strikingly bland and empty that new one is. It means nothing, says
nothing, commands no lasting memory. The perfect representation of the world's
largest, most soulless content farm.

Truly: perfect.

~~~
trafficlight
What's the purpose of the period supposed to be?

~~~
akkartik
I think you mean the colon.

~~~
makmanalp
No, he means the period in the 2nd AOL logo.

~~~
metageek
Actually, it's present in both of them.

------
bradleyland
I don't have a source for this, but I read an article some time back that
mentioned Rolodex in a long-ish list of other companies. The topic of the
article was something along the lines of, "What do you do when your primary
product becomes irrelevant?" Rolodex is a company founded on a product that is
made obsolete by new technology. Their re-branding efforts extend beyond their
logo. They've re-focused to offer more general office organizational and
utility products as a means to survive.

Having said that, I like their old logo much better, even if doesn't represent
their entire brand.

Tangent: I'm sure my comment regarding obsolescence will garner replies from
people who will proclaim to prefer a Rolodex to a computerized address book or
smartphone, but let's be straight about something. A computer address book
whereby you key in the addresses and phone numbers of people you know is
quickly becoming a thing of the past. With the growth of social networks like
Facebook and LinkedIn, those who opt-out will be the exception, not the norm.
My 10 year-old cousin thinks it's odd that I spend so much time on the phone,
and I think it's odd that my business partners spend even more time on the
phone (I prefer text-based communication like SMS and Skype chat). What will
my kids-kids use? The notion that we rely on explicit exchange of information
to remain up-to-date will be foreign to them as well.

~~~
jordan0day
Well done with the preemptive strike on the "Well, actually..."'s you were
about to get.

But yes, I agree, the old logo was superior. Since the product they are most
famous for is obsolete, it makes sense that they would try to make themselves
stand out in some other area. I just don't understand how leveraging the
nostalgia and brand identity would be a bad thing. I mean, if your brand
identity is associated with something distasteful or negative, sure, go for
the complete re-brand. I'm pretty sure a rolodex is one of those cute
anachronisms that people view in a positive light, though.

------
muhfuhkuh
The more egregious logo change to my mind has to be UPS.

1961 logo = <http://i.imgur.com/ZibIo.gif>

2003 logo = <http://i.imgur.com/fG9KT.jpg>

I know, they went into logistics and such, but you can't ignore your heart and
soul.

~~~
pak
I will call your UPS logo and raise you a Xerox:

the timeless <http://bit.ly/h7p2hX>

vs. the new <http://bit.ly/4YBIew>

While we're at it, let's toss in MySpace:

the meh <http://bit.ly/dWqJFi>

vs. the WTF-worthy <http://bit.ly/eRmxK1>

~~~
zach
We had a Ruby user group meeting at MySpace HQ here in LA after the redesign
but before the troubles. The reception desk, the signs, everywhere I was
confronted by their new logo. And I literally couldn't believe it.

My mind was blown and refused to believe this was their actual identity. So
every time I saw it, I said to myself, "Really?!" I just had to visit their
website again just now to make sure. This should not be anyone's reaction to a
logo.

I still don't understand how such a mistake happened. "You know, we've seen
lots of logos but we really love the one where you literally rip off the 'my'
from the MyNetworkTV logo and put a sideways brace next to it. It makes us
feel like crazy madmen that can do anything we want." I mean, that's my best-
case scenario.

~~~
Dramatize
I like it better than the old one.

------
arepb
I have been wincing looking at new logos for as long as I knew what a logo was
and I've come up with two reasons why it's always so painful:

\- the old logos were usually hand drawn and done by a very small creative
team. More often than not this just makes them better

\- any new logo today by a major company is usually being done by a rather
large design firm and they are following a zeitgeist. Designers run in packs
and themes are seasonal. That limp wristed font you see in the Rolodex logo is
probably the same one you see in (_________).

So, in the case of Rolodex, it looks fairly commonplace and has a whif of
groupthink added in. It's okay to throw up a little bit.

------
Joakal
Looking at the new logo reminded me of Aperture Science [0][1]. I guess they
hummed "We do what we must, because we can."

[0] [http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091201202611/half-
li...](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091201202611/half-
life/en/images/thumb/4/4f/Aperture_Labs_elevator.svg/800px-
Aperture_Labs_elevator.svg.png)

[1] <http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Aperture_Science>

------
jedsmith
Fedex has really tainted me to always see an arrow between _E_ and _X_.
There's one on Rolodex's old logo, but it's a little bit different of a form.
And I just can't take my eyes off it, damn it.

~~~
romland
Fun read, interview with the guy who came up with that arrow:
[http://www.articlesandtexticles.co.uk/2006/09/02/the-
fedex-l...](http://www.articlesandtexticles.co.uk/2006/09/02/the-fedex-logo-
and-its-designer/)

PS: The original article is apparently here: <http://www.thesneeze.com/mt-
archives/000273.php> \- I get some encoding errors, though.

------
ja2ke
This reeks of insider fear based-decision making. Within the walls of Rolodex
headquarters, you figure (probably correctly) that a lot of today's young
people don't know what an actual Rolodex looks like, and therefore that they
won't understand what the little icon in the logo means. Besides that though,
the company isn't even about those old Rolodex address index holders anyway!
So much breadth and depth in today's Rolodex, who cares about the core
product. Fear, and inside thinking like that end up getting you into "Rolodex:
We're more than just the Rolodex!" territory, or worse, the land of "Rolodex:
Forget the Rolodex!"

IANAM (I am not a marketer) but the history of a company, especially companies
around long enough to have a history, is as important to me as their present
when it comes to marketing and how they position themselves. Rebranding to try
and move past your history is very frustrating to me as a customer when it's a
negative history (eg Philip Morris renaming and refocusing a ton of itself
over to the name "Altria") but it's just straight up baffling when its a
positive history!

Rolodex made a product which filled a need so successfully that their brand
name became a generic noun! And their solution to confidently presenting
themselves in the modern world is to erase all record of that success from
their branding?

I'd love to know why that is considered a good idea, where the thinking comes
from, that genericizing is the solution to your specific success becoming
outdated. Specifically for companies who have moved beyond the image in their
logo representing a specific product to people.

If your problem as a company is that to MOST people your logo represents
something arbitrary (for instance: a Rolodex file, or a tied parcel package in
the case of UPS), why is the solution so frequently to start using a logo
which represents arbitrary nothingness to ALL people?

If you're going to have a logo made of arbitrary swirly shapes and imagery
which mean nothing, why not at least stick with some arbitrary swirly shapes
which -- for some people who have been around for a while -- represent a
specific past of innovation and cleverness? For the rest of their customers,
at least with the old logo they have a clever story of the history of the
company ready if asked. Instead, "Rolodex: We make nothing, we stand for
nothing. How did we get here? We don't even know." Baffling to me.

~~~
mkempe
Well stated. Or: someone still knows how our product became a common word, but
we'd rather have them forget about it.

------
cpeterso
I'm surprised no one has mentioned The Gap's 2010 logo change (which lasted
just one week):

[http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-
economy/2010/1012/New-...](http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-
economy/2010/1012/New-Gap-logo-withdrawn-The-blue-box-lives-on)

------
proee
Ran across this site today which looks to have some of the inspiration from
the original Rolodex.

<http://momentumdesignlab.com/themes/momentum/logo.png>

------
patrickgzill
It looks too much like the Samsonite luggage logo:

<http://www.samsonite.com/home/images/samsonite_logo.gif>

