Canon PowerShot logo: time for a redesign

[FrancoD]

Well, it isn't a camera brand, just an example of how people buy a logo.

The reason why so much fake TNF stuff is sold is because most buyers can't tell one fabric/cut/design from another, hence they just buy because they know the logo.





When I sold the same camera model with different brands on it people tended to buy the brand they knew.

(real comment : never heard of Minolta but I do know Samsung because I have one of their microwave ovens. So sometime it went the other way...)

Some brands are easier to remember/identify because of their logo.

 

[enemjii]

"a logo does not EVER make a product'

Put two fleece tops side by side , one with the TNF logo , the other plain.

See which one will sell first...

(I have sold the same camera under different brands . The famous brand (and I use the Canon name as a logo...) always outsold the rest even (and usually so) at a higher price)

and pray can you tell me what is the Canon logo that people recognize?

Further more, can you tell me did people put faith in Canon products years ago because their logo was nice?



fyi here is a short history of changes. Neither of them made or broke the company. the product however definitely made the word "Canon" famous.

--
http://www.zeusboutique.com | http://www.facebook.com/zeusboutique | http://www.instagram.com/zeusbtq | http://www.pinterest.com/zeusbtq

 

[gollywop]

Never thought about it...

Looks fine as is, what's to change?

Maybe a couple fine ladies in bikinis holding the words up might help?

Until the bikini styles get out-of-date. Betty Grable still looks fine, but her bathing suit doesn't.

Meanwhile, I think the OP's sentiments are subjective and misplaced. He's welcome to his opinion, but I can't see it warrants a thread.

--
gollywop

 

[FrancoD]

Yes , thanks for the Canon logos.

I worked in the industry for 30 years including for the Canon agents, so I think that I have that bit covered...

My comment on TNF was on the broader sense (that a logo can and does sell a product) however I am also very aware that most people (in the world not here in this thread...) would not have the faintest idea who or what Powershot is including most of the ones that would buy a Canon product because they know the name, yet not having a clue if the product itself is any good or not compared with the rest.

So in my view if Canon did change the Powershot logo or dropped that altogether only a few geeks would notice or care.

On the other hand if the Canon logo was drastically changed it would confuse and or annoy many.(note the gradual changes on the logo you posted , that is after Kwanon was dropped)

 

[Mark B.]

Ok, well I know The North Face - though truth be told my wardrobe is devoid of any of their products. I also said in another post that cameras are not fashion statements. Camera gear buyers don't care a whit what the logo looks like. Sorry.

Mark

 

[enemjii]

..
My comment on TNF was on the broader sense (that a logo can and does sell a product)

A logo sells only after the product has made it famous. That was my point. Which in turn means I do not know why there is a need to change the powershot logo. It certainly does not have a bad name in the market.

however I am also very aware that most people (in the world not here in this thread...) would not have the faintest idea who or what Powershot is including most of the ones that would buy a Canon product because they know the name, yet not having a clue if the product itself is any good or not compared with the rest.

AFAIK, all the powershot products have the "Canon" name prominently displayed. Does it really matter that nobody pays any attention to Powershot? Unless Canon wants to spin off Powershot as a separate company, there is utterly no need to establish it's own leading identity with its own logo.

So in my view if Canon did change the Powershot logo or dropped that altogether only a few geeks would notice or care.

Absolutely. See my comments above.

On the other hand if the Canon logo was drastically changed it would confuse and or annoy many.(note the gradual changes on the logo you posted , that is after Kwanon was dropped)

Once again, I agree.

On that note, I have no idea why we disagreed in the first place!!!

 

[FrancoD]

To you cameras are not a fashion statement, to others they are.

Ask a shop assistant how many times a customer has looked at where the camera was made before they bought it. (oddly particularly Chinese customers prefer to buy made in Japan cameras and yes those customers are very much into fashion)

A good example of a fashionable line of cameras is the Sony T series.

Casio would have disappeared withot fashion buyers.

But of course many others including Canon and Nikon do make an effort towards catering for those customers too...

(the Ixus line up is the Canon fashion line "stylish and superslim" )

 

[scorrpio]

Well, present your recommendation to Canon. As long as it is backed by an impressive portfolio of successful marketing campaigns and logo design, they will sure listen.

 

[FrancoD]

No disagreement, just presenting different points of view.

As I also pointed out to another member that although some are very serious about photography and see cameras only as a tool (he does) others buy a camera as a fashion statment/talking point.

(again who buys a Rolex just to tell the time?)

 

[jjoyce]

Sorry guys, when I evaluate a camera the logo is NOT my criteria.

Cool. But we're talking about the logo here, not the camera. You're off-topic.

Er no, the OP said the logo made him think less of the camera. That sure seems to me a evaluation criteria of the OP...

 

[OpticsEngineer]

"I think they are well overdue for a redesign. Anyone else?"

Interesting thought. So I did some searches on the Maria Sharapova Canon endorsement deal. Found a few links of business school analysis saying she is considered to have been a perfect match to the product. One of the best ever. As a champion tennis player she was known for speed/power/strength but also combined with control and precision. But then she herself was very photogenic. So in every way she was a perfect match for what Canon was trying to convey.

I think if you look at the P and the S in that light, you can see the speed/strength/precision qualities in there. The bold strokes seem to have been written very fast, but very accurately. So I don't see a reason for a redesign.

Maybe the font of the non PS letters is a bit dated. I do not have an informed opinion on that.

 

[Mark B.]

To you cameras are not a fashion statement, to others they are.

Ask a shop assistant how many times a customer has looked at where the camera was made before they bought it. (oddly particularly Chinese customers prefer to buy made in Japan cameras and yes those customers are very much into fashion)

A good example of a fashionable line of cameras is the Sony T series.

Casio would have disappeared withot fashion buyers.

But of course many others including Canon and Nikon do make an effort towards catering for those customers too...

(the Ixus line up is the Canon fashion line "stylish and superslim" )

Ok, so the low end where people don't care much about specs get colors. So how does this figure in to your logo argument?

 

[Pontoneer]

Well, it isn't a camera brand, just an example of how people buy a logo.

The reason why so much fake TNF stuff is sold is because most buyers can't tell one fabric/cut/design from another, hence they just buy because they know the logo.





When I sold the same camera model with different brands on it people tended to buy the brand they knew.

(real comment : never heard of Minolta but I do know Samsung because I have one of their microwave ovens. So sometime it went the other way...)

Some brands are easier to remember/identify because of their logo.

I would always have bought a Pentax over the Samsung version of the same camera , when they were clones of each other , only because the Pentax after sales and firmware support was better .

A bit like the difference between buying a Volkswagen , even though there might be a Seat or Skoda variation of the same vehicle .
--
With kind regards

Derek.

 

[Pontoneer]

It's the wording that needs a redo. PowerShot has always portrayed "amature" to me. Well, this product line is directed at the amature so perhaps it's fitting. I still feel it needs some work.

Actually , my impression is that 'Powershot' was always reserved for the 'enthusiast' level compact cameras , and 'Sureshot' was for the simple-to-use 'amateur' range of compact cameras , as championed years ago by Dudley Moore in a series of adverts in which he goofed around but never failed to get a good shot - hence the name .

When it comes to fashion , and making cameras available in a variety of colours , surely Pentax are the leaders with even their DSLR's available in a dazzling range of 120 colours .
--
With kind regards

Derek.

 

[Mahmoud Mousef]

A lot of photographers tape over their camera logos, some DPR threads on the topic:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=tape+over+camera+logo+site:www.dpreview.com

I can't think of anything on a camera less important to think (or write) about.

Although Pentax's *ist cameras were worth a few laughs.

I'm always interested in marketing and perception, so this kind of discussion appeals to me.

Tape, to me, is more crude and ugly than the 'problem' logo, and I don't think many people do that just because they don't think the logo is the best design; they have more practical considerations for taping up the logo, usually.

It doesn't really bother me enough to do that, I simply think the logo is one of the poorer ones in the camera industry and the design of the logo never fails to make me feel like it can be done so much better.

There are many other examples I can think of, and yeah, the old Pentax naming convention was a funny one.

One important logo redesign that comes to mind was NEC. Anyone remember the old logo? Their current logo has made a world of difference to their image - to me. That was a much-needed redesign. Unlike the Pioneer logo, which was changed for the worse, in my opinion.

Anyway, it seems I am in the minority in my thinking about the PowerShot logo judging by the responses here. I think it can be made so much better but I think the actual name itself is soooooo much better than CyberShot...which is a pretty bad name in my opinion (but then again I don't like the word cyber or anything with that word in it). The word cyberspace makes me equally repulsed.

So Canon has a good word, it's all about that presentation to me. Because I am a pretty much informed customer, I never let the logo bother me, but I just wondered how others felt about it. I'm definitely in the minority here

 

[Mahmoud Mousef]

Well, it isn't a camera brand, just an example of how people buy a logo.

The reason why so much fake TNF stuff is sold is because most buyers can't tell one fabric/cut/design from another, hence they just buy because they know the logo.

Hah! I'm glad you mentioned The North Face. About a year ago I remember looking through some of their stuff and I found the use of their logo on their products obnoxious. Way too visible and unnecessary. So I rejected their products based on that alone.

I'm not much of a 'brandist' when it comes to clothing. To me the brand must be understated and/or hidden. I don't like doing free advertising for the companies in question.

Goes to show you it can have the opposite effect. Which is a shame because I think some of their stuff is otherwise nice...if not for the obnoxious logos/branding.

 

[Mahmoud Mousef]

(the Ixus line up is the Canon fashion line "stylish and superslim" )

And, just for the record, I think the IXUS logo is done well! Thanks for mentioning that. To me the IXUS logo has a bit of flair but remains 'professional' looking and doesn't strike me as out-of-place or dated or out-of-place...or have any other negative-isms to me personally.

An example of a well-designed logo and unique name.

 

[Mahmoud Mousef]

Sorry guys, when I evaluate a camera the logo is NOT my criteria. If the camera is comfortable and the tool (camera) does what I need to do, great.

Of course a lot of enthusiasts on this site will have similar thinking.

Canon dominated the p-n-s market even with that old logo. We all know were that market is heading - maybe 25-30% of what it once was long term. Changing the logo is not going to make a difference...

I tend to agree. In my opinion, the redesign should have happened years ago if it was to make any sort of real impact. Though I still think some benefit could be had by changing it now since I am guessing Canon will still be selling PowerShots well into the future, even if they sell less of them.

I don't think changing the PowerShot logo will suddenly stem the tide of users abandoning some of the more basic compacts though.

 

[Mahmoud Mousef]

"I think they are well overdue for a redesign. Anyone else?"

Interesting thought. So I did some searches on the Maria Sharapova Canon endorsement deal. Found a few links of business school analysis saying she is considered to have been a perfect match to the product. One of the best ever. As a champion tennis player she was known for speed/power/strength but also combined with control and precision. But then she herself was very photogenic. So in every way she was a perfect match for what Canon was trying to convey.

Canon's marketing in general is quite good. Thanks for mentioning this.

I think if you look at the P and the S in that light, you can see the speed/strength/precision qualities in there. The bold strokes seem to have been written very fast, but very accurately. So I don't see a reason for a redesign.

Maybe the font of the non PS letters is a bit dated. I do not have an informed opinion on that.

I'm in the minority here for sure

 

[Mahmoud Mousef]

Anyway, despite the fact that I'm a graphic designer... the very sort of person who pays attention to things like logos and such, I never have given the PowerShot logo a second notice... even though I have one of the cameras (an A620). Since it's been brought to me attention though, I'd have to say that I agree, there's something a little bit awkward and crude about the style of the logo. One would think that a big brand name like Canon would have a little sicker design...

Thank you. The logo is a few notches below the standards of the actual cameras, in my opinion. It makes me feel somewhat more sane for bringing this up when I read your comment, so thanks