I’ve been thinking about the 2012 logo. It’s pretty simple: you are all wrong (obviously I mean those of you who disagree with me). People have actually been phoning me up (well, Paul phoned me up and put his graphic designer wife on the phone) to tell me how wrong I was to defend it. Still, you are all wrong. To summarise: yes: it’s not an old-fashioned brand-as-unity. It’s not a condensed and perfected less-is-more logotype. It’s definitely not a jewel-like Paul Rand. It’s not a monolithic, multi-decade High Street fixture either.
What it is is a soft, rather provisional, half-finished identity. It’s an open and accepting form: designed to accept modification, addition, overlay, adjustment. It’s a kind of container (and, think about it, isn’t that what brands are turning into these days?). Your classical logo aims to refine and exclude – to perfect. The 2012 logo aims to accept and include. It’s a radical thing: a half-brand, an unfinished logo, an imperfect identity: something to play with. Get used to it you old-timers!