Kodak Has New Logo

[SeyssInquart]

Kodak, Kodak, you'd better change name too, not just the logo, for you're no longer the same thing anyway. You don't really think we'll trust you after such a move? No, never. Your bold logo gone, everything is gone. Like it happened with Pioneer, Aiwa etc.

Well, guys, the heyday of western civilization is gone, and it won't ever come back. What comes is another story, that of rapid decadence in every respect, to a point where we'll yearn not for better digicams with bigger sensors, oh no, but for water to drink, food to eat and air to breathe.

What comes will be the complete destruction of all the accomplishments man has achieved on Earth, and, eventually, that of Earth itself.

 

[Ken W.]

I mean, all they did was to take one of the most identifiable logos in the industry and replace it with text and a couple of lines. Anyway, they had to do something. What would you have them do? Take the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on researching a new logo and do what, developing better cameras? Don't be silly.

On the other hand, they probably got this logo for free. I mean, clearly, it was someone's 10 year old niece that whipped it up in Illustrator.
--
Ken W.
http://www.quantumarts.com
http://www.quantumarts.com/photography

 

[dadybeef]

eric, i have to disagree with your comments. While film is still alive, film sales industry wide have been declining by 30% annually over the last few years. kodak currently holds the #1 share in consumer digital cameras @ 29% and continues to innovate. in 5 years, when film cameras make up

----------------------
olympic hopeful, shotput, 2008

v550, p880

 

[murkkor]

Maybe Western Civilization should have introduced a lovable cartoon character.

Sounds like it's too late now I guess.

--
I'll happily trade megapixels for a few well-placed photons.

 

[Eric R.]

dadbeef,

I completely agree that film sales are declining. We have all seen the reports and there is no argument to be made really.

However he said film is gone. Lets see Kodak's 4th quarter results and pay close attention to the amount of money brought in from film sales. Yes film sales. How much money does Kodak make every year off of film sales to the movie industry alone. But film is gone. So if the 4th quarter results do show any film sales, will you say Antonio lied or the 4th quarter results were fabricated.

If he really meant what he has said then why does Kodak still produce film? After all, film is gone. Do they produce it then throw it out or burn it? Or do they sell it and make money? Certainly not as much as before. But they still do make money from it.

Does Kodak hold the #1 sales in the world or just USA? Last I saw it was just the USA. But it is good to see americans showing loyalty to one of their own companies. Or maybe it is just brand recognition, you know, like they see the old logo and trust it and they buy the product. But that is really not the point.

He did not say film is going, he said film is gone. Those are two different things. Why insult what is currently a rather large market segment by telling the segment it doesn't exist. That is what he has done. Not a very good way to build trust for a new logo and pretty stupid if you ask me.

Kodak has been a great company and is responsible for much of the early r&d that created the dc market. I hope they continue with their innovation and drop the stupid hype that is coming from the CEO. Kodak should be better than that! Then again, maybe he was misquoted.
--
Eric R.

 

[JamesD200902]

ROFL....

Completely agree. It's pretty lame.
--
Happy Snappin'
James
DX7590

 

[Victor Engel]

Imagine upright letters spelling RICOH casting a shadow that spells SUAVE.
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/

 

[Victor Engel]

It strikes me that the most obvious difference is the aspect ratio. What if the original logo were kept essentially the same but changed to a 4/3 ratio?
--
http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/

 

[gail]

I think the new logo is uninspiring. Kodak used one of the most common fonts and the sickly "a" looks like an upside-down "e."

Saying this, every time I look at the Exxon logo I think of Esso. But, according to actuarial statistics, my generation should be gone naturally in about 20-25 years. So then, who will remember or care? ; )

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My digital camera BLOGs: Canon S2 IS & A510, Panasonic FZ3, Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/digital-camera-blogs/index.htm

 

[gail]

Actually, the more I look at the new logo, the more I like it from the standpoint that it's modern and sleek. Kodak's color combo of the red-orange and gold is rather unique for corporate logos so they didn't throw out the entire connection from their original. I think there are a few other ways they could have kept the connection but, hey, what do I know.
--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My digital camera BLOGs: Canon S2 IS & A510, Panasonic FZ3, Nikon 5400
http://www.digicamhelp.com/digital-camera-blogs/index.htm

 

[Bas Meijer]

...from a Kodak corporate perspective. I think he said it because there is no money to be made by investing in film technology... advertising film does not pay anymore... and I'm sure he has to close factories and get rid of people in the film production part of the company. Considering that, I think it wouldn't be fair to his employees to say that film is still doing well.

Bas

 

[Bas Meijer]

The old logo still works nicely on a roll of film, but I would want it on my camera. (Yeah, ok.... it is on both my cameras, but only a very small black/silver version on the bottom.)

The old logo is associated with film, not with cameras. Also, the type setting of the old Kodak logo is not distinctive/recognizable, something had to be done!

Bas

 

[efg40]

I agree a change could be a good thing. But change should make things BETTER. Here's what I'm seeing...

Doesn't it look fatter? It looks like it has gained weight.

The "d" and "a" look like they have missing parts and I worry they'll fall over, or just roll to one side, and they just look like someone is too lazy to finish the letters.

And really? You can just take away some letter tails and say you've invented a new font? Maybe I should go into font invention.

Just making light of it all Bas. I won't even notice it the next time I buy printer paper.

--
Elizabeth
efg40
DX7590

 

[Bas Meijer]

I agree a change could be a good thing. But change should make
things BETTER. Here's what I'm seeing...

Doesn't it look fatter? It looks like it has gained weight.

The "d" and "a" look like they have missing parts and I worry
they'll fall over, or just roll to one side, and they just look
like someone is too lazy to finish the letters.

And really? You can just take away some letter tails and say you've
invented a new font? Maybe I should go into font invention.

Just making light of it all Bas. I won't even notice it the next
time I buy printer paper.

I'll continue to bring darkness then Elizabeth My first thought was also quite negative, but now I already like it better than the old one.

I know that peoples sense of style has changed a lot over the years, looking back at old logos everybody understands why they changed them, but almost always people complain at the time of change. We'll see what you (and I) say in 10 years or so...

For example this is the one from 1935:



They kept that (by todays standards: ugly) font until 1987:



See more historic Kodak logos here:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressCenter/cpqkodaklogo.jhtml?pq-path=2/8/2509/8762

Bas

 

[SheltieDog]

Looking at that page of the history of Kodak logo's, the best logo was the one they just dumped.

And, the more I look at the new logo, the weirder the word "Kodak" looks! I just sat here and stared at the new logo for awhile, and it just looks strange with the weird "d" and "a".

 

[Bas Meijer]

Looking at that page of the history of Kodak logo's, the best logo
was the one they just dumped.

That's how people react to a logo change... the one that has just been dropped was the best ever.

Thanks for confirming...

Bas

 

[SheltieDog]

But isn't the new logo supposed to start to "grow on you" the more that you see it. So far, that is not the case. It still looks weird.

 

[KenJr]

But isn't the new logo supposed to start to "grow on you" the more
that you see it. So far, that is not the case. It still looks
weird.

I completely agree. No matter how much I look at it, it still looks like it was done by a pre-schooler, at the very least someone with little or no imagination. I like the old one better.

--
Ken - DX6490, P850
Johnstown, PA

 

[Joseph Lample]

Does anyone know who the original creators of the 1971 kodak design were?

 

[Chris Sandstrom]

Hi,

Thanks for sharing experience in this area. I agree, wasn't it Parkinson's law that stated 'the less important something is, the more energy and time will be spent on it'?. The reason for this is that everyone can have an opinion about trivial things, and trivial things do not create conflict either. So people will happily spend a lot of time on such issues, despite the desperate situation at the company.

I've looked into the Kodak story a bit, and tried to put it together into a slideshow:

http://www.slideshare.net/Christiansandstrom/kodak-destruction

Best,

--
Chris Sandstrom
http://www.christiansandstrom.org
PhD Student, focusing on disruptive innovation