Ampers & Dot

I’ve been working on a fun CES post aiming to discuss the cool gadgetry flowing out of the Vegas Convention Center, but something caught my attention that I just had to write about immediately… Xerox’s new logo. So what is a Web 2.0 log? Is it an interactive logo? A logo that accepts comments? Or has its own RSS feed? The answer is that a Web 2.0 logo is a catchy term that some design person used to make an easy sale…

After 40+ years, Xerox retired it’s 8bit logo in favor of a sleeker looking version (read the corporate ra-ra here on the NYT). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Xerox changing their logo- I mean, the old one seemed to imply that using their copiers would result in some lossy version that would skew your image… that really need to die a long time ago. So first off, great job on getting rid of that, 38 years too late. But here’s what I think is funny about all this, wrapped up in a quote from the NYT article

Simon Williams, president of the consulting firm Sterling Brands, said he thought the new logo was a home run. “Xerox just isn’t an old, fusty copier company anymore, but I’ll bet it is often still seen that way,” he said. “The lower-case name will be less intimidating, more about dialog than about being authoritative. And the logoptic” — meaning the ball — “adds energy, youthfulness and dynamism.”

That’s just amazing. Doesn’t that rounded ball look youthful and dynamic!?

In all fairness though: that’s how marketing works. You’ve got execs who have spent so long working up to their senior position that they’ve become too far out of touch with their actual consumers. All it takes is one good ad guy (think of Mad Men) and your company has a new logo that gets described as “less intimidating”.

But here’s where this story gets fun: Mashable’s commentary on the new logo. First off, I’m not knocking Mashable- I think they do a great job of breaking down the story and explaining that Xerox is reinventing themselves to show they do much more than make copiers. That’s fine.

What’s less fine is their overuse of “Web 2.0″. Although it’s correctly used a few times in the article, the entire piece gives off the idea that a logo can be “web 2.0″. What is that? Curved edges? Or fewer vowels? How about pastels, or clean edges? You’ve heard me rant about this before: here and here.

(Un)fortunately, someone beat me to the punchline of all this - a commenter on the Mashable post linked this page of “Web2logos” which I find hilarious. There really are design companies making a killing right now because no one wants to be left behind in the old web, but the problem arises that a new logo does not mean new features.

And that’s the point. It seems to me that all companies are realizing that interactivity is the new “must-have”. But it seems more often than not, companies aren’t sure how to adapt to an interactive model (either through lack of resources, lack of understanding, or lack of an applicable product), so instead they put up this falsified image that they are in-touch, through means such as a new logo.

In short: I like new logos, I like Xerox (they make nice copies!) and I actually think they were due for a makeover. But I’d also like to see them use this as a spring-board to promote their new features and show people what really sets them apart from their competitors- not just rely on a logo to get Redbull-drinking teenagers interested in toner cartridges.

In the end thoguh, I just really hope we never see a social networking component to copy machines… (”Xerox is… jammed in section R36″ or “Current Mood: sad, low on ink.”).

**UPDATE** Thanks, Drew for the comment on the xbox 360 logo similarities…