Probably a matter of different viewpoints, but for me, a logo is rather like a ‘standard’ (as in flag) – something which acts as a symbol to represent a whole series of different things, be they emotions, perceptions or whatever. For this reason, changes should happen as often, and with as much consideration as to, say, a regimental badge. Logos accrue validity through duration and exposure until they reach the point that just sticking a picture on an object can significantly increases the perceived value (we’re back to watches here, as well as sports kit, cars, fashion items etc. etc.) Good ones become iconic.
Keep ‘tweaking’ it, or running different versions and that will only serve to dilute the value accrued by the original. I recently handled details of how the logo of the ‘Market Research Society’ can be used by members – they were very specific about how it can be reproduced, the proportions, use of colours etc. I don’t have the info now, but they explained fully concerns about how changes would ‘water down’ the overall perception of the society.
There will, of course, be times when a new image is required (B.A. & all three main English political parties (and I though about the ‘English’ rather than ‘UK’ there)), changing a logo gives the company/organisation/whatever an excellent opportunity to mark the change and start afresh in a different direction.
My confusion was that, with the decision taken to change, the implementation was fragmented in this way.
I was also surprised that the opportunity was not taken to use the new choice as part of the anniversary artwork. It would have been a perfect opportunity to transfer over some of the existing ‘schema’ from the past, as well as bringing in the ‘modern, looking forward’ perspective, ‘Looking forward to the next 100 years’ and so on..
Sorry if I’m not being clear enough, - for me, it’s about projecting a focused, clear and sequential image – that was us then, we changed because of (whatever), this is us now.....
