Check it out - got a bit of a cricket vibe if you ask me...
http://www.xerox.com/assets/sneak_peek/index.html
http://www.xerox.com/go/xrx/template/inv_rel_newsroom.jsp?app=Newsroom&e...
Check it out - got a bit of a cricket vibe if you ask me...
http://www.xerox.com/assets/sneak_peek/index.html
http://www.xerox.com/go/xrx/template/inv_rel_newsroom.jsp?app=Newsroom&e...
The ball is a bit too close to XBox, I think.
Right Zara--a rotated view.
They must have known, but figured this kind of thing is OK today, because, copyright is like, for losers.
Why do they need a logo to go with their wordmark anyway, with such a distinctive brand name?
I guess because they're not in the xerox business anymore, and are now providing customer-centric solutions.
"Why do they need a logo to go with their wordmark anyway, with such a distinctive brand name?"
that seems to be the trend today. Come up with a nicely modernized wordmark, but be sure to slap some sort of 3-d widget on the end just...because.
I like the new wordmark.
And agree the ball would be great for my summer bocce league.
that seems to be the trend today. Come up with a nicely modernized wordmark, but be sure to slap some sort of 3-d widget on the end just...because.
you mean like this?
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/24059.html
or this?
Just looking at the word mark, there is a problem in that xe and ox fit nicely, but the r has much more open space on both sides. Thus the middle has lighter 'color' making the r and the word mark overall look weak.
The old mark solves the problem by using all caps and a square look. It's a bit dated, but at least it looks good and strong throughout.
On the other hand, the lowercase allows the almost-palindromic character of the name to come through more easily, since e and o are more similar than E and O (even if you try to square up the O as in the old mark). Since "xerox" has come to copying (esp. by machines that go back and forth as they scan), that's a happy feature of their name that they do well to capitalize upon.
>We’ll look back at this era in 20 years and talk about how bad it was for identity design. The same way we talk about what the 70s-80s did to architecture.
Nice insight, Stephen. I just keep being amazed that one big company after another replaces their logo with a new one that is embarrassingly weak or cartoonish or both. This stuff must look good to a lot of designers now.
Back on type - BizWeek reports the logo font is "FS Albert" which seems to be the text face...
http://www.fontsmith.com/images/pdf/fs_albert.pdf
Si
We’ll look back at this era in 20 years and talk about how bad it was for identity design.
Absolutely. All these retooled logos are starting to look the same...
This stuff must look good to a lot of designers now.
I'm not sure graphic designers are doing this, William. It might be branding "experts" that are behind this trend... Who needs designers?
Okay, I found it myself. It was done at Interbrand.
Also check out the level of hyspheria (hey, a new word!) over here... http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/xerox_the_very_very_...
On the whole, I like it a lot. However, the e sticks out to me. Not only is it uncomfortably wide, comparatively, but it screams humanist face whilst the rest of the logotype is considerably more modern in its architecture.
I always liked the R in the previous version of the XEROX logo.

And I agree -- the ball does nothing for the integrity of the company.

Regards,
Ray
I thought it reminded me of something.
What is it with the mooshy branding these big guys are going for these days? Curvy lower case x's for Xerox (Or should it be "xerox") Next thing you know, "Big Blue" will be "poofy blue" with "IBM" in a powder blue stripy Cooper Black (BTW - I got dibs on that until I hear from IBM)
-=®=-
Check out the Xerox logo history all the way back to 1906.
I believe the esteemed Ray Cruz extended the old Xerox logo into a typeface for use in their ads. Perhaps now he can use his time-lapse light wands to swashbuckle a typeface to go with the sphere. If so, then this iteration is not only justified, but welcomed. (not holding my breath)
Back on type - BizWeek reports the logo font is “FS Albert” which seems to be the text face...
Is is supposed to be Xerox Sans; looks like a name change from FS Albert, and I hope that Jason was involved and not someone who just cloned his font. Still is the same style as GE Inspira for GE. And the same colour range.
Xerox trashed a great mark (the digital X) for disposable, hard-to-reproduce, garbage. Interbrand, why?
I don't mind the type, but the little widget is such an ugly little sphere. That x banding may be technically accurate (not sure) but who cares? It's so awkward. If this was student work, it would be destroyed at a critique. In my opinion, it fails in every way, except at aping trends.
::deep breathing::
But why would Xerox care? Put it on 1MM new copiers and it'll creep into the mass consciousness...right next to their digital X mark.
We need a crap logo dead pool.
But seriously, the current logo trends are going to make me rich. I’m going to plagiarize everything the Vignellis wrote about brand equity. Then in ten years when all the firms with cheesy 3D logos want to go back, they’ll need to hire an expert in brand equity to tell them go back to an old corporate identity. “That will be three-hundred thousand Euros please, now here’s your old logo I archived off brandsoftheworld.com back in 2008.“
A quote from this thread has been ripped from it’s context and Twitter’d here: http://www.twitter.com/typophile
Carry on.
Captured from web.archive.org on 23 Jan 2015. view this capture