Additionally it isn't well composed. I learned graphics design from a guy who actually learned it by using his hands to pit down the letters. He had us move one black square around on a white page for 3 hours and explain why we put it where we did. Then we were allowed two squares of arbitrary size, later colors etc.
If you are learning it from that basic level you cannot unsee badly unbalanced design. You cannot just remove a black background with a white one and keep everything unchanged (which is why dark themes sometimes suck as they don't get the extra love they need.
This thing looks like it has been made by the CEOs daugther in Powerpoint.
> This thing looks like it has been made by the CEOs daugther in Powerpoint.
I love this. I know only a bit about graphic design, but this new logo just looks...cheap. My first thought was a high school student made it with whatever free software he could find while he was bored during class, and gave up after 30 minutes because class was over.
I'm not a big fan of the new flat VW logo either, although it's much better than this.
Compare the lettering on the two versions. The use of 3D-ish black and fake embossing on the original makes the letters pop.
The lack of both on the new version makes the letters look like they've been crammed into a tiny space at the top of a big empty ring.
This might have worked with new lettering with different proportions. But it's literally just a flat copy of the original letter shapes, without any of the original context.
The 3D effect on the original print/blueprint/engineering marker/quadrant feels dynamic. The impression changes as you move your eye over it. It conveys movement and substance. It works with the black to suggest a car tire, but also a sophisticated (black...) crafted object.
The new version looks like a printer reference mark. It's just... there. It doesn't do anything.
The grey is meaningless and neutral. Again, it's just there. It fills a space, and that's all. The transparent version doesn't even do that. There's literally nothing there.
Removing the 3D creates a uniform space inside the ring, which is why the letters now look as if they're squashed up at the top for no reason. There's poor alignment, and no metaphorical or literal highlight.
Overall it suggests that management don't care about engineering or about appearances.
I am quite sure it is just one square of the traditional white and blue bavarian checkers pattern, with Bavaria coincidentally standing for the "B" in BMW
Hate to break it to you, but all these "problems" with the logo were exactly the same in the old logo. You got distracted by the ham-fisted layer styles and fooled into thinking that made it good.
The fact that you said "makes the letters pop" would send shivers down any designer's spine.
Having the text as negative space on dark is still perceptually different to having it on a transparent background (which is perceived as negative space). This is enough to make it feel unbalanced.
There's no accounting for taste. This isn't the sort of thing you can really quantify, and if you do you'll lock yourself into a way of viewing things that prevents you from being a good designer. Design is mostly trying 100 things and picking the good one because you have taste, which is a thing you get through years of study, practice, and reminding yourself that you're a worthless hack at 4am in the morning.
Anyway as someone who's spent the requisite sleepless nights I've been granted the power of justifying my taste. It's not the same as "why" because the understanding comes from a felt sense, and then I just make up some bullshit to explain it.
In this case the design isn't well composed because the removal of the background has left the logo un-grounded. The outer ring is now dominated by the letters B M W, making the design top heavy. Also worth noting is that the letters themselves are no longer balanced. The M and W are no longer the full cap-height in the center, which further unbalances the design by making it lighter to the right. The "simplicity" reduces legibility. The design is now dependent on the color of the background rather than working anywhere. Though I can't imagine a color upon which this logo would work better than the previous one. There's also an unpleasant visual ringing that occurs at hard edged transitions like the center of the checkerboard which was previously mitigated by the dividing lines.
I made a flat version that keeps the black ring and put them side to side. Check this out and you might immidiately see the issue: https://i.imgur.com/uW4TGX2.png
The white letters without background are perceived to be placed in space – you don't see the ring so you assume it is empty. The bavarian checkers in the middle seem to float in midair with letters crammed in above it. And this combination of floating and cramming makes it look bad.
With a dark ring this works much better, because the floating part is removed and the letters are on the ring instead of in it.
Well, since you ask...keep in mind that these are only my opinions:
1. Lack of depth...yes, depth can be introduced in any 2D/flat design utilizing color and space illusions
2. The curve/arch that the letters follow is not fully concentric to the center circle
3. The letters appear to be transformed vertically to make their height such that it fits between the outer circle and the inner circle...this in-turn throws of the original aspect ratio of each letter of the given font
Minor inconsistencies as such are aggravating for graphic designers who generally tend to be OCD. I hope this helps.
IMO, it's because the black of the original logo takes up space, and keeps the BMW text and the inner circle grounded to a larger context.
Without the black, the text and the circle are just hanging out at the top of the outer circle, unbalanced against a large empty space at the bottom of the outer circle.
EDIT: Another way of putting it is that it looks like the text and inner circle could just bounce around inside the outer circle—they are "loose", and, as I said above, ungrounded.
I cannot shake the feeling that the inner emblem should be moved down just a tiny bit. Visual subjective balance is not the same as geometric balance. It just looks visually skewed in the vertical dimension.
Probably one of those cases where the designer creates something great and then when the customer views it they start “I like it but we want something more modern like those buttons on your phone, how do you call them? Apps right? What if we remove this and this and make these a bit larger”
Used to. These days, not so much. And they're misfiring quite a bit. For example, the new X3 xDrive30e gets a measly 18 miles of electric range (EPA; real-world likely less). All of that added complexity and weight for very little benefit (in 2020 -- 10 years ago it would have been alright). No 3er manuals in the US anymore. Have you seen the rear of the new 3er which looks like Lexus IS? Have you seen what the 5er looks like, heck even in M5 guise? And so on, and so on.
Sry, I used to be a BMW guy and that touched (touches?) a nerve. They had the right formula when the i3 originally came out, and then someone at the top decided to effectively kill the program and most of their top EV engineers left. They would have been way ahead of where they are today, and of most of their competition, had they not intentionally shot themselves in the foot.
With that logo, it's a done deal, I'll never buy their product again. BMW was something you could identify with.
Anecdotally I've known 5 BMW owners, one was an older car (early 2000's), the rest made after 2010. The older one wrecked unfortunately, and all but one of the rest had mechanical failures.
Statistically they may not be any better or worse than any other manufacturer, but I still can't convince myself that their craftsmanship is any better. The koreans pride themselves in their craftsmanship too, and their cars are a third of the price.
Anecdotal too but the only car that has left me stranded ever was a bmw.
I love the older bmws for the driving experience but they require so much more maintenance than say a Lexus. The newer bmws meanwhile seem to be geared much more to the luxury market than driving enthusiasts (eg very few manual choices).
Ironically the least solid, least reliable car I have ever owned was a Toyota. After 8 years it was very poor. Other, older, cars I have enjoyed more reliability with have included a Honda, a Kia, a Fiat and a Lada.
(more anecdote) I've known a few people with corollas and drove them for a long time. All of them have been in pretty bad shape after a while. Engines running rough, lots of physical damage, struts and springs busted, little bits and pieces missing / not working etc. In fact all of them were pretty scary to drive and ride in.
In general they were all beaters that barely ran, but they ran. One corolla went for 2 or 3 years without an oil change and had 2 cylinders with low compression. Friend never got it fixed, but the car was still running (although with very low power). I actually think the general reliability of these cars leads to them being in worse shape. They're running so why bother to fix it. The owners also had a drive it until it dies approach, just generally took a long time to die.
It obviously touches a nerve, because the "craftsmanship" mentioned is about making physical objects, not someone trying to claim they make the best automobiles in the world.
Fake shadows and fake light is not good craftsmanship. It makes sense for a logo on a flat piece of paper to look flat and look beveled and shadowed on a badge.
This evolution of the logo is bad, but not because it's flat.
yeah, they could have easily made the existing design flat[ter] but left the rest intact. the new look looks very cheap, but i bet they paid $200k for the redesign.
Only $200k? I'd guess at least double that. If an iconic logo is being revamped for the first time in decades, getting it right would be worth at least a million. Sadly, paying a lot doesn't guarantee a good result...
From reading about these redesigns in the past it sounds like most of that money goes to surveying and considering all of the places a logo is used; letterheads, physically on the cars, web graphics, sides of buildings, making sure it doesn't conflict in other markets, etc. Sure, Nike paid $35 to the designer of their logo, but that didn't include any of those things above or pay for all of the rejected designs.
Like you're saying, the client very well might be requesting and choose a design that looks like it was made by an amateur.
That's the thing. BMW is recognized as building cars, or as you say _real machines_.
Instead BMW tries to transform its business to provide mobility. Its a service provider and the service is mobility. It is not the cars. The cars are the vehicle to provide mobility, one form of mobility.
BMW has several brands to communicate this mobility, which are ShareNOW, FreeNOW, and ReachNOW. ShareNow is what used to be DriveNow, which is the free floating carsharing. FreeNOW is the Uber-like Taxi-App. ReachNow is the Google/Apple Maps which includes public transport, Carsharing, Taxi, eScooter Rental, Bike Rental so that you can reach your desired destination the most efficient way.
Even in apps you could argue if flat design is the best way to go.
Since Google maps changed their icon I have a hard time finding it instantly between the dozen other flat app logos on my screen.
> BMW builds _cars_, not Apps. They pride themselves in craftsmanship
Do they? You're commenting on a thread about their logo change which suggests they don't.
BMW has for very long time been primarily a brand. Take away the brand and they simply wouldn't compete in the market. They build real machines, but not very good ones. Look at Honda if you want an example of a company that is about the machines.
Very debatable. Depends on the model. That may be true for the X models, but if you want that is real wheel drive, practical and fun around corners, you don't have many options.
It's worth saying that due to taxing in USA they are a worse deal than in Europe.
On the other hand most other goods are much cheaper in the US than in Europe and also US consumers also have more disposable income than Europeans making the price difference of a BMW negligible.
And anyway, complaining that some luxury cars are a bit more expensive somewhere is a first world problem most people aren't lucky enough to have.
My point wasn't about purchasing power in general but about BMWs in particular (European cars actually) being a better deal in Europe than in USA. The same way American cars are a much better deal in USA:
A BMW 230i with M package is about 13200 USD than a mustang fastback with the 2.3 engine according to BMW and Ford websites using a sillicon valley zip code. My BMW 230i was around 2000EUR (2250 USD) cheaper than the mustang in Spain, and I added around 2k€ worth of extras (not including the m package which I was already counting).
Regarding the cost of the goods, cars in particular are still cheaper in USA (even European ones). Most American states will have cheaper taxes than most European countries.
Regarding the rest of the goods, I don't know America nearly enough to have a strong opinion, but checking median salaries by state and median salaries by country in the European union I'm quite skeptical to believe most goods are actually cheaper.
Regarding the purchasing power I don't know either.
How many BMW drivers care about rear wheel drive? That is a very small niche. People who really want those features would go for one of the more practical sports cars.
This probably varies a lot per region, here in Europe BMWs are a pretty affordable when compared to other real wheel drive cars.
As I said in another comment imported American cars aren't a good deal in Europe. Japanese are a good deal too, but there aren't really many options that are sporty AND practical.
They showed the flat logo as a badge on their new concept car, right when they announced it. Maybe they are backtracking now, but it seems pretty clear their original intent was to put it on the cars.
Flat, simple logo design has nothing to do with "going digital" - all the gradients and chrome shit layered on top of the existing logo are far more "digital" than anything that came before or after.
This article is just a guy whining about how he personally doesn't like a logo. This logo is just fine, and it's certainly better than the old one that tried to look like it was made of physical material. Obviously the logos that are applied to the cars will look metallic because, well, they will be made of metal. This is a better logo in general, especially for print and online purposes. No excessive fake gradients and material renders, simpler lines and colors that will reduce well, and it goes back to the original state of their logo before they piled a bunch of fake chrome on it in the last couple decades.
Here in New Zealand all the new Ford & Mazda trucks have the logo's painted black now so you can barely see it. Especially cause everyone buys matt black trucks.
Not a bad thing. The trend to put a brand logo on literally everything started probably with cars and it is beginning to irritate me more and more. Why would I want to tell world what the brand, type, etc of my car is? Surely that is something that only interests me, the person driving it?
I understand that there are people who want to impress others with their stuff, but if slapping a logo on it is what makes the car impressive... then the car is not impressive at all.
Instead of embracing that, they made it flat like an App icon. It will look shit on cars and it does not communicate that BMW builds _real machines_.
Everybody is going crazy about going digital and they forget what they are good at and what the customer likes them for.