NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
One of the bastions of Web 1.0, 13-year-old CNET is getting a significant makeover. While the workings under the hood of the new web site like a “new API that is helping to deliver pages 40 to 50 percent faster” means nothing to me, we can certainly focus on the front-end changes, specifically the logo. Originally named and written c/net (for Computer Network) it is now an all caps CNET, making the logo in all lowercase a little contradicting, but who can argue against the friendliness of lowercase? The new logo is being referred to as the “pipeless” logo, so I’m guessing that the vertical line in the old one was meant to signify a, um, pipe — but like no one should call New York “The Big Apple” I’m going out on a limb and say that no one refers to the internet delivery system as a “Pipe”. But I digress. [Update: See Patrick Foster’s comment]. The typography in the old logo was peculiar and quirky, with the weird “n” and tight letterspacing making it somewhat engaging and memorable, while the new one is painfully generic and forgettable. And while everybody knows that this is pronounced see-net, the lack of a visual divider certainly renders the new logo as knet. Oh, yes, it now has a shadow to make it look like a sphere. Yay.
Thanks to Moeed Mohammad, Fred Sotherland and Greg for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
TERRY’s comment is:
woefully predictable and forgettable, looks dated already
On Jul.10.2008 at 09:29 AM
thehappyhuskie’s comment is:
ugh... looks like xerox's red ball rolled into someone else's yard....
On Jul.10.2008 at 09:37 AM
patrick foster’s comment is:
Actually, a 'pipe' in computer programing is that vertical bar text character. Its used in database programming to delineate fields of data, so removing it, I assume, leads to what they mean by 'pipeless'.
Doesn't save the new logo, though. Pretty weak.
On Jul.10.2008 at 09:44 AM
john.q’s comment is:
looks like someone spent a whole 2 minutes on that.
On Jul.10.2008 at 09:46 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> Actually, a 'pipe' in computer programing is that vertical bar text character. Its used in database programming to delineate fields of data,
Ah! I stand corrected. Thank you Patrick.
On Jul.10.2008 at 09:50 AM
theProAmateur’s comment is:
This is by far the ugliest logo I've seen since that 50th European anniversary logo incident.
On Jul.10.2008 at 09:51 AM
theProAmateur’s comment is:
did they by chance have a 13 year old design it too?
On Jul.10.2008 at 09:54 AM
Joe Mason’s comment is:
More computer information nobody here wants:
The | symbol (it's Shift+\ on most keyboards if you've never had to use it) is called a "pipe" because in old text-based environments, most programs read a bunch of text from "standard input" (which is the keyboard by default) and write text to "standard output" (the screen). But you can chain programs together by making one program read directly from the output of another instead of from the keyboard, which is called "piping" them. For example, "program1 | program2 | program3" means the user types the input to program1, the output of that is piped to program2, the output of that is piped to program3, and then program3's output is printed to the screen.
Yahoo's Pipes service is named after the same concept.
I don't think c|net's bar was meant to have anything to do with a the concept of piping text, they just called it that because that's what computer people think the vertical-bar symbol is named.
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:00 AM
louis w’s comment is:
One word... BORING
The font has no character and looks like it came pre-installed on the designers computer. The shaded red ball is so over.
The website, also boring. You could change the logo on this page to CNN or NYT and you would not be able to tell the difference.
Has designing now become a job of following the herd?
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:13 AM
Daniel Campos’s comment is:
I hated it!
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:17 AM
reyarts.com’s comment is:
"painfully generic and forgettable"
that's true. so sad.
пламен’s comment is:
And how does the new thing there qualify as a "logo" at all?
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:23 AM
Davekos’s comment is:
a pitty. 2D version of the new logo would be a loser. nothing unique.
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:26 AM
PP’s comment is:
Oh, a red M&M!
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:27 AM
Tom’s comment is:
It seems that a once notable logo now stands for:
"seen it".
Darrel’s comment is:
That's a shame.
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:33 AM
Darrel’s comment is:
Oh! Didn't notice the image of the new site:
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/20080623/FD_062308_REV2.jpg
Wow...they stripped out the entirety of their branding elements. c|net, while maybe not a bastion of high-end reporting has always had a very strong visual brand going all the way back to the earliest days of the web boom. Green, yellow and a red dot.
The new web site matches the new logo...completely generic.
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:35 AM
Heather’s comment is:
Geez. I feel bad for the designers of the before logo. Nothing sucks more than seeing your design dumbed down with a barely modified system font. Even worse: the bevel/emboss. Atrocious.
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:44 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Looks like the Staples easy button.
Adam Western’s comment is:
@Armin
"Oh, yes, it now has a shadow to make it look like a sphere. Yay."
I'm not one for hyperbole, but this quote is a classic.
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:46 AM
drew kora’s comment is:
the original is way better.
...i was about to write that "i expected more from CNET" but then it occurred to me that, as much as I love that web site, they are all a bunch of gadget geeks over there. So I suppose that a lousy, forgettable, logo with a gradient like that is exactly what I expect.
On Jul.10.2008 at 10:46 AM
Alfonso’s comment is:
"Aw, shit." That was my first reaction upon seeing it in my Brand New feed.
The site design (as can be appreciated in Darrel's screenshot) looks like some generic CMS templatem contrary to the previous design, which was definitely very c|net.
But, is my cache playing tricks on me, or is cnet.com back to its previous design? It even sports the old logo. Does anybody know what's up with that?
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:08 AM
Miles’s comment is:
Man, I actually really liked the old logo. It was simple and memorable, and they'd even already web2.0'd it up in a decently subtle fashion (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/hdft/redball.gif).
WTF!
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:09 AM
Jw’s comment is:
drew got it right there... the typical CNET reader would not give a second thought to the logo. In fact, most of them are probably reading it via RSS feeder.
Still though, it's no reason to go with something so very generic. I never paid much attention to the old logo, but compared to the new, it's nice.
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:11 AM
Alfonso’s comment is:
Disregard that last question. I get it now: they're slowly introducing the new layout... like it's such a sweet delight it'd be too much to release the whole thing at once.
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:14 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
This reminds me of opening up an InDesign document whose fonts can't be located so are therefore substituted with Myriad.
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:37 AM
Sebhelyesfarku’s comment is:
What a p.o.s.
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:43 AM
R’s comment is:
This could have been made in Word by any teenager. That and the color scheme leaving make me wonder if CNet knows what it's doing...
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:51 AM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I want to take it and throw it at the chubby kid during recess.
On Jul.10.2008 at 11:58 AM
Harris’s comment is:
Yes, the new logo is stupid, ugly, and meaningless. The site, however, looks much cleaner and user-friendly. I know you all are thinking like designers, and are upset with a loss in "brand equity," but visitors to CNET don't care if it is generic, as long as the information is useful. It's not like this is a clothing brand or car.
On Jul.10.2008 at 12:00 PM
Andrew Meyer’s comment is:
"The typography in the old logo was peculiar and quirky, with the weird "n" and tight letterspacing making it somewhat engaging and memorable, while the new one is painfully generic and forgettable."
I couldn't agree with what you've written more!
On Jul.10.2008 at 12:08 PM
Barry Mazza’s comment is:
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
On Jul.10.2008 at 12:19 PM
Manfredi Pumo’s comment is:
This is very ugly, indeed.
On Jul.10.2008 at 12:25 PM
Chris Pace’s comment is:
It's funny how endeared I was to the old logo but never knew it until they went to this new, generic place. The pipe meant a lot to the tech side of me and made it instantly recognizable -- not stand-out awesome, but it spoke pretty clearly of its intentions and target.
I do agree with Harris about the site being tons better-looking, but it's not in the context of the site that the logo needs strong presence. It's outside, on sponsor pages, in TV bugs and advertising. It used to succeed. Now it's just another Xerox.
...speaking of have we started using Xerox to mean "carbon copy of any web 2.0 logo"? If not I am totally coining that.
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:05 PM
Jeff’s comment is:
@Harris
"Brand equity" is not tied to the site design, it's tied to their use of colors. The Green/Yellow/Red site design has always been associated with cnet. The new design is more functional, yes, but it still would have been just as functional using some elements of this color scheme. Instead, they have substituted a color scheme used by hundreds of thousands of other sites. A single dot at the top left is a poor way to differentiate yourselves from everyone else.
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:10 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I miss the pipe it made it unique, the pipe isn't outdated hell it's still around when I type this, let me freeze frame it. I
crap no sanserifs???? >:(
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:20 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I miss the pipe it made it unique, the pipe isn't outdated hell it's still around when I type this, let me freeze frame it.|
they're we go.
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:23 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I miss the pipe it made it unique, the pipe isn't outdated hell it's still around when I type this, let me freeze frame it.|
there we go.
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:23 PM
Matt’s comment is:
The entry would make more sense if the logos were reversed.
"This is an overdue refreshening of CNET's old, faux-3D ball with no personality (in regards to either visual impact or typography) whatsoever.
The new logotype is parts peculiar and quirky, with the weird "n" and tight letterspacing making it somewhat engaging and memorable. This is in marked contrast to the painfully generic and forgettable prior mark. On a practical note, the addition of a visual divider helps to emphasize that the company name is actually pronounced see-net."
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:44 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
It kinda reminds me of a penny, trying to indicate "cent". Is my brain playing tricks?
Is there any news about who designed this? I suspect it was in-house, but I'd be interested to hear how whatever agency approached this.
I feel like every time a controversial, or downright crappy, logo appears, we have to wait for someone to "take credit" as if it was some kind of cafe bombing.
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:46 PM
Rodrigo Müller’s comment is:
they had a really nice logo... now they have a red button... this looks lame and done in 2 minutes...
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:55 PM
Spencer Cross’s comment is:
If I may chime in with the rest of the peanut gallery... Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Or, to put it in terms the folks at CNET might find more familiar, "This new logo is teh sux0rs."
Also, if the name is now "CNET," in all caps, why is the new logo "cnet," all lowercase? Way to build consistency, chumps.
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:55 PM
Spencer Cross’s comment is:
p.s. No props for the pipe, Armin? Sounds like somebody needs to brush up on his Elements of Typographic Style! ;)
On Jul.10.2008 at 01:57 PM
Harris’s comment is:
@Jeff
What I'm saying is that people who view the site most likely couldn't care less if there's yellow or green. They might feel nostalgic for a bit, but I doubt it will affect their site usage.
Anyway, the logo is terrible, but I don't really care because it's meaningless to me. They could have no logo at all and there would be nearly no difference.
On Jul.10.2008 at 02:02 PM
Bendy’s comment is:
Just plain sucks. I wouldn't even call it a logo... it's just a button.
Worth no more than a 3/10, if that. They could have done better by humping the whole brand and doing something completely off the wall...
On Jul.10.2008 at 02:35 PM
Ben’s comment is:
I like it. The old one was boring and flat, at least this new one has some dimension to it. Also, the font choice is more universal, making it more useful in a broad use of applications. The highlight brightens it, making it stand out among the more boring web logos out there. Over all it looks much more tasty and juicy, like att and ups.
On Jul.10.2008 at 02:42 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Could not do anything worse than this.
On Jul.10.2008 at 02:46 PM
Richard’s comment is:
The change in type treatment was a mistake, but I think the shading is actually fine considering their audience and the fact that it is a web-based company. Sure, the shading would look dumb on a stationary set, but on the web it adds some sophistication in the eyes of people that aren't as big of design snobs as us.
On Jul.10.2008 at 03:11 PM
Arnold P’s comment is:
WTF / H?
Stupid shiny happy logo era.
On Jul.10.2008 at 03:33 PM
Derrick’s comment is:
Use the new font, but bring back the pipe and ditch the shine effects and there's a subtle update.
On Jul.10.2008 at 03:54 PM
Unit B’s comment is:
I LIKE IT! OK, not really, but it had been unanimous till then... They could have simply made a 3D (spherical) version of the original and been ahead of the game. The quirky typeface was part—nay, all—of its charm. And they flushed it! The Website seems to have been cleaned up a lot, though.
On Jul.10.2008 at 04:20 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
BLAH! BOO!
On Jul.10.2008 at 04:39 PM
Joachim’s comment is:
It looks like the 't' is loose and you could peel the text off the ball, especially at smaller sizes.
On Jul.10.2008 at 04:53 PM
killorn’s comment is:
I don't mind the treatment (as far as 2.0 identities go), and the bump in color is nice, but it was a mistake to lose that typeface.
VERDANA 2.0
On Jul.10.2008 at 05:27 PM
SP’s comment is:
Looks like crap. The old logo has a cyber-geek charm; it looks fresh out of 1996, but in the world of the Internet it looks timeless. Also, the newer logo looks like the Circuit City logo (even more so than the last one).
On Jul.10.2008 at 05:52 PM
MADPHILL’s comment is:
Good call Patrick. What you have just revealed is that the ONE item of concept has been removed and replaced with generic, 2.0, photoshop filters. (i.e. debossing and shadow) lame.
Besides, all they did was change the color of Planet Green's new logo and stamp their name on it.
;)
On Jul.10.2008 at 06:33 PM
WM’s comment is:
Absolutely horrid.
"Could not do anything worse than this."
I couldn't agree more.
On Jul.10.2008 at 07:40 PM
Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:
The original logo had more visual "stickiness." It was unique, memorable, and had some visual texture. The new one is bland, boring, and just plain forgettable. Sad.
On Jul.10.2008 at 07:45 PM
Wünderwoman’s comment is:
blecho.
On Jul.10.2008 at 07:45 PM
Dale Harris’s comment is:
Wow, I love how they have completely stripped out any semblance of design and replaced it with a gradient - the bastion of the lazy.
On Jul.10.2008 at 07:58 PM
James Kurtz III’s comment is:
Ugh... Why do so many companies think that by stripping their logo of it's unique elements and adding a gradient to make it look 3D they are being fresh. This is redesign at it's worst.
On Jul.10.2008 at 08:13 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
"did they by chance have a 13 year old design it too?"
"This could have been made in Word by any teenager"
All children are born artists, the problem is to remain an artist as we grow up.
- Picasso
Drywall’s comment is:
This is so bad I had to double-check my calendar to make sure it wasn't April Fools Day.
I hope whoever designed the new logo conducted an extensive brand audit, did a competitive analysis, wrote several pages about how the new mark better captures the brand, and charged a ridiculous fee for it all. C|Net, er, CNET, deserves to be stripped of that money.
On Jul.11.2008 at 12:53 AM
Stuart McCoy’s comment is:
The new site looka a lot like CNN.com now. It's sad to not only see the loss of the rather iconic c|net (one more boring sans serif rendering out the door - hooray for web 2.0) logo but also the yellow and green which were every bit a part of the branding package.
On Jul.11.2008 at 01:10 AM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Jonathan’s comment is:
Hate the gradient. The new logo is as ugly as it is generic. How I miss the old one...
On Jul.11.2008 at 02:58 AM
Jesper’s comment is:
LOL Von Glitschka!
- and did you notice, they also have the reflection effect on "reviews" in the logo of that section... thats reeeally brilliant. Is there a firefox extension for hiding these logos?
On Jul.11.2008 at 03:49 AM
Thinker’s comment is:
ouch! It really hurt my eyes... The old one was one hundred times better... what am I saying? it was perfect. Just can't believe they traded it for this piece of junk!
On Jul.11.2008 at 04:19 AM
Gary Wales’s comment is:
It looks as though whomever designed it has not been introduced to brand equity...what is it with throwing all recognition out of the window these days?
Is it just so agencies can say "we did that - you won't forget it!"?
On Jul.11.2008 at 05:09 AM
stefano picco’s comment is:
Sorry, but I don't like this kind of new logos.
I don't understand why the hell on a 2D media, they must use 3D Logos Oo
Tell me!
On Jul.11.2008 at 05:34 AM
Mondayne’s comment is:
cnut
On Jul.11.2008 at 06:54 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
On Jul.11.2008 at 08:33 AM
C.R. Brown’s comment is:
"it is now an all caps CNET, making the logo in all lowercase a little contradicting,"
Is it just me that both old and new are lowercase?
On Jul.11.2008 at 08:47 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
great website for resourcing stuff...at least its got that intact
On Jul.11.2008 at 09:25 AM
Aron Rubin’s comment is:
Pipe is not an old text based world concept. It simply means stream data from one program to another. In this case I think was indicating interactive (streaming) computer network interface. Most programs operated this way due to very smart people with insight and the limited resources in the past (not enough memory). Then a bunch of unskilled labor entered the market and every thing became a "document". Streaming was rediscovered by the untrained masses recently but only if it has 50 levels of indirection first. It is likely the pipe was removed to indicate that the talent that understood what it meant has been removed. The pipe was a distinguishing factor from for example "Computer World" or "Network World". Its like saying Driver versus Car and Road.
On Jul.11.2008 at 09:25 AM
Aron Rubin’s comment is:
By the way is Brand New reporting on only the bad and the ugly or has identity graphic design really gone to pot? Its getting depressing.
On Jul.11.2008 at 09:27 AM
colormist’s comment is:
I didn't realize how much I loved that site design until now. In my designer heart, it's one step away from G4 taking over techTV. It hurts.
On Jul.11.2008 at 09:33 AM
Carl’s comment is:
As much as I love reading these reviews and comments, my favorite part is always how Von Glitschka interprets them. Your wit is appreciated.
On Jul.11.2008 at 10:01 AM
ray’s comment is:
why didn't they use the old logo in the new site design? i don't get it.
On Jul.11.2008 at 10:35 AM
LimitedTimeOffer’s comment is:
This is the version on their site today, so I assume they abandoned the half-assed rebrand:
LimitedTimeOffer’s comment is:
Never mind I didn't see the link to the beta site.
On Jul.11.2008 at 10:38 AM
Gentleman Agitator’s comment is:
Are bad logo re-designs a spreading virus these days or what?
On Jul.11.2008 at 10:48 AM
Diogo’s comment is:
:S... crazy people!
On Jul.11.2008 at 01:24 PM
BJN’s comment is:
Spot-on analysis. c|net must have a new marketing executive out to make a mark by throwing away equity in a memorable logo.
On Jul.11.2008 at 01:51 PM
Matheus’s comment is:
4W3S0M3 PH0+OSHoP SK1LLZ DOOD3!11!!1!
Terrible.
It's a ball.
It's arial.
Isn't a logotype.
liam’s comment is:
Well its about time!
On Jul.11.2008 at 06:39 PM
dave’s comment is:
Do you think the new design will get them in the coper hewitt?
http://www.cooperhewitt.org/EXHIBITIONS/archive/mixingmessages/dialogue/c7.html
On Jul.11.2008 at 09:05 PM
ZedZedEye’s comment is:
does it turn magenta when the light hits it? check out the highlight.
On Jul.11.2008 at 11:46 PM
Guido’s comment is:
Pipes are for shell users. Everybody knows the internet is made of a series of tubes.
On Jul.12.2008 at 07:11 AM
Amanda’s comment is:
I personally think the old one is stronger.
On Jul.14.2008 at 10:00 AM
sean’s comment is:
yawn
On Jul.15.2008 at 02:34 AM
rvr’s comment is:
just awful. hard to do worse if they had tried. as a designer, this is an early concept that i have in my head and dispose of before even getting it onto paper or screen. frankly, i'm embarrassed for them.
On Jul.15.2008 at 09:15 AM
Edward’s comment is:
Glad they ditched the new one. Don't see it used.
On Jul.15.2008 at 11:28 AM
XK9’s comment is:
Bravo Herr Von Glitschka.
Dear CEO responsible for approving this:
Change is good when it's change for the better. Anyone worthy of a commission as logo designer would tell you that this is no improvement over your old logotype. In fact it's a giant step backward.
The old logo was fresh and unique when it was launched and it's still a solid mark of identity. I look forward to reading the press release when you quote the line of b.s. your branding agency used to peddle this woefully bad design.
Boo the designer who created this and shame on you for not knowing better and accepting it.
Sincerely,
a 20 year professional designer who is saddened by inferior design solutions
XK9’s comment is:
Fred Sotherland, what do you think? Weren't you once the Creative Director at CNET? Permission to speak freely!
On Jul.15.2008 at 06:44 PM
rickyaustin’s comment is:
The logo itself is a step backwards for sure. Another 'me-too' design solution to something that wasn't an actual problem. The tried to fix something that wasn't broken... and broke it.
'c|net' reads a little differently than 'cnet'
The web site redesign is an improvement (from linked article) even if the colors lose some of the old site's personality. I got used to c|net... err umm... cnet's yellow site.
At the end of the day, their content is king - but it would be nice if their identity had the royal treatment. Hey-O!
On Jul.16.2008 at 10:34 AM
guybbored’s comment is:
It's funny that no one has mentioned that cnet was recently purchased by cbs. Perhaps that has something to do with this branding atrocity?
On Jul.17.2008 at 04:13 PM
amerhadiazmi’s comment is:
The new site looks like a Ning.
On Jul.19.2008 at 11:34 PM
Tom’s comment is:
Wow HORRIBLE...that looks just like the SunTV logo:
Mongoose’s comment is:
It lost all the charm. All of it. just.. boring font with right-bar-t; sphere shadows; no pipe for distinctiveness; just.. no, no, no.
F.
On Aug.17.2008 at 11:27 AM
Brian’s comment is:
Von Glitschka’s response is perfect!
Anyhow, the new logo is so unbelievably boring I just forgot about what I was commenting about. zzzzzzzzzz.
On Aug.27.2008 at 04:01 PM
Chris Mills’s comment is:
I like the old one.
On Sep.01.2008 at 11:38 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
