NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
In a world of streamlining, it seems like a lot of companies have gone to the so-called “web 2.0” look. See: xerox, at&t, Holiday Inn, wacom, etc. However, some identities have stuck to the traditional flat color look. Sodexo, one of the largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, recently updated their name and image and is one of the companies to evolve with a more traditional logo, designed by W & Cie in Paris.
Sodexo changed the spelling from Sodexho, noting that “in certain languages an ‘x’ followed by an ‘h’ is difficult to pronounce”. There seems to be a good strategy behind the redesign, however, the execution falls short. It was obvious the old mark needed to be updated as it didn’t seem refined. How many stars do you really need? Is that ligature really necessary? Does that red bar really add value to the logo?
Condensing the mark seems to be a natural step in evolving the logo. A nice hue change makes it bolder. Incorporating the red from the prior logo makes sense. Keeping the notion of the “ex” ligature… okay, I see where they are coming from, but it is still awkward. And the red stroke of the “x” is supposed to represent a smile. Sodexo has fallen into the trap of thinking lowercase makes for a friendlier logo. I don’t see a rational reason behind this change. Speaking of the lettering, the type does not look fully developed or refined. Perhaps it is because the ligature creates points while the rest of the type seems a little more unified. While I have some issues with the refinement of the mark, I think the overall concept of the mark enhances Sodexo’s image.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Ch’s comment is:
The 's' looks far more slanted than the other letters... And it's true that they should have kept it uppercase.
On Feb.27.2008 at 08:26 AM
Armin’s comment is:
The "s" is very weird, it really doesn't work well with the rest of the letters. Keeping it uppercase as Ch also notes, would have provided a better balance to the logo, so that not all the weight completely shifts towards the "x" and the star.
The "ex" ligature, I almost like, it's *this* close to working well. And if the idea was to make a smile, I don't know anyone that can smile that high and to the side.
On Feb.27.2008 at 08:33 AM
Stringer Bell’s comment is:
I think I might prefer the old logo a little bit. The new one looks a little too "toothpastey" - like it's some kind of dental cream for old folks. Not to say the old one's really great or anything but I think the stars work better there than in the new mark.
The star in the second one looks a little skewed.
I know it's not place, and by no means do I think I could do a better job than W & Cie but I was tooling around with the logo for a couple of minutes and I think they could really lose that star on the second one...
...but then again, that makes it look kind of like a shipping company.
On Feb.27.2008 at 09:25 AM
Chris Wilson’s comment is:
Sodexo provides us with a great example of a company that needs to do some serious work on the inside before they start worrying about what's on the outside. They could have updated their identity with a the best mark of this century and it wouldn't do much for the overall brand.
I spent 4 years of my life dealing directly with this organization and never had a good experience. It takes more than a new logo to fix a pathetic brand.
On Feb.27.2008 at 09:42 AM
Chris’s comment is:
Biggest improvement would be they took out that "h" in the brand name. Take the "od" out of "Sodexho" and you'll get what we called them in college. It's never good to potentially put you brand in that court.
Logo is maybe an improvement, but that "ex" is really clunky and i don't see the smile that was mentioned.
I agree with Chris Wilson's comments completely. They need more than just a logo.
On Feb.27.2008 at 11:04 AM
brandy’s comment is:
Kickin' the "ho" to the curb!
On Feb.27.2008 at 11:10 AM
brandy’s comment is:
OK, now that I've shared that little piece of slang…I will get serious and say that neither of these "solutions" are worth dignifying by commenting on…They actually look like they were created at roughly the same time…you might even imagine them as to sketches on a wall of exploration…this reminds me of the kind of stuff that we were doing in the mid to late 90's! Come on guys!
The new type is badly drawn, unbalanced and dated! Are we going backwards or is it just me?
Kim Siever’s comment is:
The redesign was a great opportunity to introduce a logo that actually had something to do with their business. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. I prefer the new logo, but I don't like it.
On Feb.27.2008 at 11:41 AM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
John Feldhouse wrote.
"However, some identities have stuck to the traditional flat color look."
Can you call 'flat color' traditional?
John McCollum’s comment is:
"I prefer the new logo, but I don't like it."
That's how I'd put it.
On Feb.27.2008 at 12:16 PM
John’s comment is:
Can you call 'flat color' traditional?
Yes, in the sense of identity design flat color is a traditional look. Go back to look at some "classic logos" — KMart, Gillette, Saul Bass' AT&T, GE, NBC, Chase Bank and many more.
Maybe a clarification is that this logo doesn't use gradient's which seem to be the new craze and are dubbed "web 2.0".
On Feb.27.2008 at 12:31 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I second (third?) the notion that that 's' is in some real trouble. It's slant is too steep, which is also creating some odd tension in the way it's kerned with the 'o.'
The 'o' and the 'd', which should have at least similar construction of the bowls, are notedly different, and the x-height of the 'e' seems lower than any other character. The way its tail interacts with the "smile" is so problematic that it gives me fits. There is little about this mark that is cohesive or refined, and that makes me sad all day.
Anybody know what the star(s) are supposed to represent? Is it an Australian company?
On Feb.27.2008 at 01:16 PM
Michael’s comment is:
The new X calls to mind Russian propaganda imagery, specifically the hammer and sickle. The left side of the X not touching the baseline looks awkward as well, along with its relation to the E.
On Feb.27.2008 at 01:22 PM
Paul Riehle’s comment is:
old and new logos are both a mess.
On Feb.27.2008 at 01:58 PM
Klaman’s comment is:
the red stroke of the X looks awful. It shouts "i was done with a pen tool in illustrator with no consideration"
at least to me. both are bad.
On Feb.27.2008 at 02:08 PM
marco’s comment is:
A agree with most what has been said about the execution of this 'rebrand'... Especially the weird 's', chunky type, and non-existing smile.
The smile thing also creates a very unpleasant 'trail' of the star, which doesn't seem to follow the movement of the 'smile'.
However a rebrand is more than a logo, so i took a look at their website: the animation is really ridiculous...(as in: who are they trying to convince) And i think that instead of a real rebrand (with a strategy to back it up) they just got 'a new suit'. W & Cie looks like a company that does realize this, so 'guess the client got what they deserved.
(by the way, lloks they need some serieous help on http://www.sodexho.co.uk/)
On Feb.27.2008 at 03:25 PM
marco’s comment is:
--- apologies on the spelling mistakes, been working late ---
On Feb.27.2008 at 03:27 PM
C-Lo’s comment is:
I wouldn't say more web 2.0, but I would say it's been cleaned up and updated to somewhere close to today's trends. I know the old logo needs an update, but this is just eh. It's hard to comment on a logo which you feel nothing for. There is nothign wrong with it so I can't bash it, and there is not a whole lot to praise
On Feb.27.2008 at 03:42 PM
Jay’s comment is:
Makes me think of toothpaste...
Which would make the smile make sense.
Zinni’s comment is:
Is it just me or does the baseline on the new mark seem very odd around "dex"? It may the the reduction of the mark to web resolution but there is a lot of vibration in the baseline in that section.
It just makes the whole thing appear rather sloppy to me.
On Feb.27.2008 at 08:41 PM
atomo’s comment is:
I agree, Zinni. The curve at the base of 'd' feels like its lifting it up. I think they spent most of their time at dafont
On Feb.27.2008 at 10:34 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
The new one is an improvement — it's clearer, simpler, easier to reproduce and understand, etc. Also, I'm glad they dropped the H, making it more anglo-friendly and less offensive to Hos. However:
red + blue + random shwooshes = corporate blah.
On Feb.27.2008 at 11:22 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
John’s comment is:
Can you call 'flat color' traditional?
Yes, in the sense of identity design flat color is a traditional look. Go back to look at some "classic logos" — KMart, Gillette, Saul Bass' AT&T, GE, NBC, Chase Bank and many more.
Maybe a clarification is that this logo doesn't use gradient's which seem to be the new craze and are dubbed "web 2.0".
I disagree John.
Flat color is a core design element, not comparable with a web 2.0 trend. Yes flat color was primarily used in the past, and it is used today, and will be used long after Xerox shiny balls are just a distant memory.
Andrew’s comment is:
The new logo is an improvement.
...But that's not saying much.
Tephlon’s comment is:
Agreed: Improved but still not good.
My issues:
1) The S looks like it was upper case, someone said it should be lowercase and they just resized it.
2) The skewed star.
3) The kerning between the o and the d.
4) The "smile" (but that is because the "smile" part is pure marketing b.s.)
5) blannnnnnnnnnnnnnnd (*zzzzzzzzzzz*)
On Feb.28.2008 at 05:37 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
HA HA. That is NO smile.
Agree with above, just an attempt to sell the concept.
The star looks awful, the points on the E and X are awkward ... This is just a mess.
On Feb.28.2008 at 10:11 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
I wonder what kind of side effects are included?
On Feb.28.2008 at 04:01 PM
zz’s comment is:
The part that bothers me most (outside of the fact that it's a bad logo overall,) is the indention right where the e and x meet. The top part of the ligature is pretty smooth and flows nicely, but the bottom just ruins it. I guess they were trying too hard for the smile, which didn't work out so well either.
On Feb.29.2008 at 09:33 AM
Josh B’s comment is:
Why does everyone keep talking about the ligature in this new logo? It has no ligature. The E and the X sort of look like they're supposed to meet, as if it's a twisting ribbon, but they don't.
Overall, this isn't really such a terrible mark. Granted, it needs some fine-tuning, but compared to their last one it's much better. It's much clearer and more confident looking. It's just not entirely finished looking. And I'd rather have something like this that's clean and simple, but unfinished, than to have something like the new xerox logo that looks finished, but is still a big, glossy dog turd.
On Feb.29.2008 at 03:49 PM
smr’s comment is:
I agree with the above statements that the new mark is better but still needs more development. A major issue with this design is the "almost but not" "e" "x" ligature. The fact that they are barely kissing but not really joined together creates a visual tension that many people may be drawn back by, whether they realize it or not. My philosophy is to make it obvious that I wanted to achieve something with a design, otherwise certain characteristics may appear to be a product of happenstance as opposed to a calculated choice. I also think that this logo is potentially a reflection of a business with limited vision from those who have the final say in the logo development process. All too often our vision as designers is limited by that of our clients.
On Mar.01.2008 at 01:40 AM
Char Alfonzo’s comment is:
John B said: "...glossy dog turd."
Hahaha, I swear I tried writing something about this entry. I just can't get over this.
On Mar.02.2008 at 04:15 PM
macserv’s comment is:
"in certain languages an 'x' followed by an 'h' is difficult to pronounce"...
... like ENGLISH. Man, that was an annoying word to look at.
On Mar.17.2008 at 10:33 PM
timmyd’s comment is:
"Anybody know what the star(s) are supposed to represent? Is it an Australian company?"
It is not an austrailian company, it is french, and as for the star, the 7 points on the star represents the 7 continents(all of which sodexo has ops in)
On Apr.02.2008 at 09:52 PM
Jerre C. ’s comment is:
smr's comment is dead on. I get the impression from the old logo that the intent of the ligature was to create the impression of an outward vortex, starting at the interior of the 'e', hurling those stars into space. Not a bad concept, one I think might have been conceived by an engineer. Had they kept the "ligature concept" in the new logo, it might have helped to have it thicken as it reached the star. (Or maybe not ... I'm an engineer, not a graphic artist!) As it is, the elements seem unrelated and piecemeal.
On Apr.14.2008 at 10:55 AM
SP’s comment is:
That earlier post about the "smile" being BS is right. What's with all the smiles in graphic design nowadays?
Sodexo's not the only one guilty of this; Dannon changed the "wave" in their logo to a smile a couple years ago. Logos are supposed to be a memorable brand image, not make you feel good in a subjective manner.
On Apr.19.2008 at 01:00 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
