NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Despite 29 million monthly visits (with “one out of every five people on the Internet” using it), 57,000-plus topics and more than 1.2 million “pieces of original content” I have never had a friend, designer or otherwise, refer me to About.com — or, if so, I can’t remember. I may have followed a sangria recipe once — or, if not, I can’t remember either. This is not a knock on their vast content as, clearly, there are those who consume it but maybe it’s more a reflection of their lack of brand impact. One reason could be that when you stand for everything, you stand for nothing. And with volume being the biggest attraction, it’s no surprise that About.com’s identity is non-existent, despite their commitment to the color red. With little fanfare and no press releasing, the web Goliath has introduced a new cleaner logo that brings the site out of its Web 1.0 roots (it was launched in 1996) and sheds the crazy horizontal scaling of a Humanist sans serif font that I can’t recognize with a new Geometric sans serif font that I can’t recognize either. (I think there is some mixing and matching going on). The old About.com logo had the overstayed welcome quirkiness as the Google logo has now so, to me, it’s nice to see the site grow up. Even if I won’t remember.
Thanks to Tim Hettler for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Paul Riehle’s comment is:
well atleast they didnt destroy the letterforms this time around. Not really that dramatic of a change, but it went in a good direction.
On Jun.01.2007 at 01:47 PM
Josh P’s comment is:
I'm not sure what the typeface is of the new one either...though I'd like to know.
On Jun.01.2007 at 02:18 PM
C-Lo’s comment is:
Yes it's quite easier on the eyes now that they didn't break apart every letter and stretch them out like old pieces of gum. Why did the dot get darker? I would prefer the contrast of the lighter color. Other then that I would call it a "clean up" rather then a new logo. As my old teacher said "Always give "it" a second look, you'll spend half the time making it look twice as good".
On Jun.01.2007 at 02:23 PM
Joosse’s comment is:
Sure, the new one's a lot nicer. There's no unnecessary early-'90s-computer-animation-stretching of the letters (gumbification). But I've never once used or thought about using About.com, so I don't feel any connection to the bouncy red ball, and therefore feel their idea that it contributes to the brand is a little dumb. Anyone else see the old Bloomberg in there somewhere?
On Jun.01.2007 at 04:51 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
About.com is a surfer's NIGHTMARE! I HATE it when I click on a Google search result that takes me there.
I'll click on the back button as fast as possible because once you're inside it's like a hall of mirrors and you can't get out.
The web would be a much better place without About.com
Wikipedia is the opposite. clean, consice, informative.
On Jun.01.2007 at 05:37 PM
HeadOrange’s comment is:
Good direction.
Should have left the peroid black.
joel’s comment is:
I have to agree with Andrew's comment. About.com is terminally forgettable because 90% of the time it is nothing but a link farm.
But yeah, as consenses dictates, a step in the right direction with the logo.
Mark’s comment is:
I find myself fascinated in this new logo.
While the quirkiness is gone, the new lettering is certainly modern and in a sense reminds me of an mid-20th century font,in a good way.
What irks me though is the addition of ".com" to the name, I don't now but to me that sort of distills the identity's value, and sort of alludes to that early internet age where every new website had ".com" included in their company names.
Like Buy.com for example a little known competitor with Ebay.
or
Edmunds.com or pets.com or cars.com etc. etc.
It just makes the company seem more smaller than it actually is or like it's not a really solidly established company in a sense.
Something like a startup company.
On Jun.01.2007 at 06:24 PM
Kaz’s comment is:
The new darker red "ball" in the logo makes me think of a clown nose, I can't help it, it seems so lame.
And yes, I also agree with Andrew, about.com is a true nightmare for navigation...
On Jun.01.2007 at 06:38 PM
Vectr’s comment is:
They could have at least updated the sites favicon at the same time! It's not like this would have been an expensive branding update to deploy.
About.com shares a lot of the same DNA as email spam.
On Jun.01.2007 at 06:49 PM
Bjorn’s comment is:
A nice change away from a logo that gives me a feeling that its falling apart. Somehow reminds me of this Kotex range of adverts that featured a red ball with black words. The red ball being the "spot of blood" I gathered. Eeeks! Cannot find the advert though.. anyone has any links?
On Jun.02.2007 at 12:43 PM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
…kerning.
On Jun.02.2007 at 04:09 PM
Tony Goff’s comment is:
I like it, still not sure why you have to have .com in logos but it’s a welcome improvement. Tighter kerning (maybe too tight on the t), straighter letters, nicer dot, calmer red...for a refinement it’s a good one.
On Jun.04.2007 at 05:13 AM
Paul D’s comment is:
There seems to be some tension between the u and the t ... they appear to be touching, but they're not quite (and there's a very faint line between them). The forms should just be joined.
On Jun.04.2007 at 08:28 AM
Bruce’s comment is:
The "o" and the "m" are vibrating a little too much for my taste. Anyone else bother by the lump growing off the "m"?
A big improvement, but could use some more refinement. I agree with the comments that the "." should have been black or loose the ".com" all together.
On Jun.04.2007 at 11:29 AM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
I think they should have kept the ball the brighter red...it's kind of receding into the type too much for my eye. Better than the old one, though.
On Jun.04.2007 at 11:51 AM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
I think they should have kept the ball the brighter red...it's kind of receding into the type too much for my eye. Better than the old one, though.
On Jun.04.2007 at 12:49 PM
Mark’s comment is:
About, in it's early years was a whole lot more informative, and had slightly easier navigation.
Now? it looks like a bunch of ads and random links vaguely related to what you are searching for.
It used to be about information on topics, now it's about just showing and advertising topics, shame.
Whats with the bare bones template?
At least the logo reflects the website now, plain and dull.
On Jun.05.2007 at 01:31 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
Despite 29 million monthly visits (with "one out of every five people on the Internet" using it)
Yeah right, more like one out of five users being unknowingly redirected to it just to quickly rush back to Google.
This site is a big waste of space!
On Jun.06.2007 at 10:55 AM
Vectr’s comment is:
Complete failure.
To elucidate my criticism above:
The 're-branding' has resulted in the online equivalent of using Pantone Warm Red and Pantone 485 in the one branded document. "Welcome"?
Jarring and unsightly, just like the site.
On Jun.07.2007 at 06:14 AM
sprint ringtones’s comment is:
Hello good design. Very nice. 0n79p7 Enjoy. Goodbay.
On Jul.02.2007 at 11:43 PM
Nuno Coelho’s comment is:
odd thing is, that i never fully understood what was About.com all about. It's like you said, if you stand for everything, you stand for nothing. About.com isn't attractive, its confusing and noisy. the only times i went there was via google, by mistake, and i stayed there for like 2 seconds. I prefer wikipedia for my answers
On Jul.16.2007 at 06:11 AM
Jason Warth’s comment is:
Love this site. I think this is my first comment ever.
Just thought I'd mention that the typeface used in the new logo is Avant Garde (Bold), with a modified "t." Love that typeface. So clean, and the fact that it can be unrecognizable is one of its strongest traits IMHO.
Cheers,
-J
On Jul.30.2007 at 01:14 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
