ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
This all happened to Ilford a few years back.
Kodak should have learnt something from that.
Kodak should have learnt something from that.
aad
Not so new now.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
actually, Coca-Cola, and most other large corporations, have changed their logo at regular intervals.. it's just done on a very subtle level that most people don't notice itRDW said:
I think the same is being done here.. how many non-obsessive photography people will notice the logo change? I bet not very many.. any of those that do, they'll probably think it's "a fresh look"
as GeneW pointed out, the products you buy in grocery stores have their packaging changed constantly.. well, it's not really constantly.. but it's on a 3 to 5 year cycle.. it's no different than cars.. I personally hated the latest BMW style when it hit the streets about a year ago.. I'm still not a huge fan of it, but I'm starting to accept it as normal.. in a couple years I'll probably look at the previous style and think "that's old"
Kodak are doing what they need to do.. their industry is changing dramatically, and their image is so entrenched in the 'old school' way of doing things that even their previous logo was a part of that dwindling market.. I see nothing wrong with what they are doing.. they kept the same color scheme and overall style.. if anything, I think they could have been bolder with the new logo.. after all, they need to attach themselves to the hearts and minds of a world of consumers that are two generations younger than many of us here
ZeissFan
Veteran
Many companies redesign their corporate logos now and then. Dow Jones did it a few years ago, supposedly paying big money to a design company to come up with that little swoosh under the name.
On the Signet 35, Kodak used a red circle with their name in the center -- rather Leica-like.
Rollei has used different typefaces at various times for its name -- of course, they've gone through several ownerships so maybe that's not the best example.
But it's not as if they're changing their name and completely baffling people. An interesting note on the name Kodak. Supposedly, George Eastmen chose it because it could only be pronounced one way and couldn't be confused with anything else.
On the Signet 35, Kodak used a red circle with their name in the center -- rather Leica-like.
Rollei has used different typefaces at various times for its name -- of course, they've gone through several ownerships so maybe that's not the best example.
But it's not as if they're changing their name and completely baffling people. An interesting note on the name Kodak. Supposedly, George Eastmen chose it because it could only be pronounced one way and couldn't be confused with anything else.
P
plexi
Guest
The "less silver in Tri-X" is a myth that refuses to die... 
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
I don't think the logo change will mean much to Kodak in the long run, they have changed their logo before. Only in a photography forum would it draw more than a passing comment and not from the average consumer.
Bob
Bob
GeneW
Veteran
I don't know how much silver is in the new Tri-X, but I do know that it's finer grained than before and looks terrific souped in Rodinal -- a developer that used to take it over the top. Noticeably improved.plexi said:The "less silver in Tri-X" is a myth that refuses to die...
So, logo assessment aside, kudos to Kodak!
Gene
paulfitz
Established
My son said the logo looks like something that belongs on a toddler's toy. Perhaps that is in reference to their digital cameras?
Actually I think their camera are not so bad and the P880 looks good. But I am sticking with compact flash.
Actually I think their camera are not so bad and the P880 looks good. But I am sticking with compact flash.
paulfitz
Established
it will make it easier to identify the really old film from the old film sold on ebay in a few years! My avatar is circa 1956.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm not surprised. Perhaps they got a new CEO and Marketing VP fresh from the Dilbert School of Business. Many companies would kill for name and/or logo household recognition.
This move is along the lines of the quality of their digital products: half-assed.
Only time will tell. It's their logo; they could put a moustache on it, for all I care, just as long as they don't discontinue Tri-X.
This move is along the lines of the quality of their digital products: half-assed.
Only time will tell. It's their logo; they could put a moustache on it, for all I care, just as long as they don't discontinue Tri-X.
Uncle Bill
Well-known
At some point the marketing team will be taken out and publicly lynched in the streets of Rochester for doing something this pointless. As it stands Kodak is as outlined by other posters going from film manufacturer of note to third tier digital camera manufacturer or marketer. I shake my head when people are out to muck around with a brand,
If I was in control of this whole enterpise. I would have not even bothered with digital cameras as it is a suckers game. I would have focused the film business to hold onto what is left of my loyal film consumer base, and concentrat on making a line of consumer and pro quality printers for re-producing digitally generated images and focus on the consumable part. Cartridges, that is where the money is being made in all this. Not the camera, HP is probably losing money on every digital camera but making it back and then some with the print cartridges.
Bill
If I was in control of this whole enterpise. I would have not even bothered with digital cameras as it is a suckers game. I would have focused the film business to hold onto what is left of my loyal film consumer base, and concentrat on making a line of consumer and pro quality printers for re-producing digitally generated images and focus on the consumable part. Cartridges, that is where the money is being made in all this. Not the camera, HP is probably losing money on every digital camera but making it back and then some with the print cartridges.
Bill
Alec
Amateur
peterc said:
Yes, I remember my father shooting old b&w film contained in such boxes. I guess that dates me.
I can't comment on the new logo (too bland for comment), but 'planned obsolescence' is the new motto.
Anyhow, I guess better results easier from scanning Kodak colour negatives than Fuji... so I wish them a long life!
aizan
Veteran
i do not like marketing departments and graphic designers. now i have to look at this stupid thing when i get kodak products? ugh.
they should have hired jim parkinson to refine their logotype, if anything.
they should have hired jim parkinson to refine their logotype, if anything.
Last edited:
Fedzilla_Bob
man with cat
I prefer the older logo. But, change happens. I recall Kodak having toyed with logo changes before.
As for a change in brand- that's another story. Logos do not make a brand. A logo is just a component of a complete brand.
Kodak's brand has been in flux for a very long time. Largely due to market pressures, changes in consumer interests, trends and fashion.
I think that photography isn't as popular as it was in the 60's or 70's as either a profession or a hobby. Mind you this is an opinion, I can't really offer data to back it up.
A lot of digital cameras are sold, but I don't believe it is an indication that photography is a fashionable pastime as it had been decades ago. It seems digital photography has become more of an expectation, a convenience much the same as cell phones. To me it looks like it is just one more effect resulting from pervasive and comparatively inexpensive technology. I'm sure this is the pressure that drives Kodak to toy with it's image.
Brands are about corporations or their products having identities, or better yet - personas. Kodak's persona is in flux - very similar to what might happen to you or me if we begin questioning or evaluating who we are and what we do.
As for the logo - It is bland. I take that as a signal that Kodak's corporate officers are unsure of Kodak's identity.
Reminds of a famous case in the early 80's (I think). NBC television network here in the U.S. had changed their logo from the classic peacock (which was changed in the 50s from a typographic treatment) to a single upper case "N" with just a little graphic treatment. Turned out the "N" was extremely similar to the logo for the University of Nebraska. It cost tens of millions for the change. Every college football fan at the time recognized it. "Saturday Night Live," an NBC show parodied the choice, using Gilda Radner as a dancing "N" in an absurd oversized mascot costume. I think David Letterman who was employed by NBC at the time, even took a few shots at it. After a while - a few years I think, NBC caved in and spent another load of money to bring back the peacock.
I predict Kodak will do the same. Don't expect to see any dancing "K's."
Bob H
As for a change in brand- that's another story. Logos do not make a brand. A logo is just a component of a complete brand.
Kodak's brand has been in flux for a very long time. Largely due to market pressures, changes in consumer interests, trends and fashion.
I think that photography isn't as popular as it was in the 60's or 70's as either a profession or a hobby. Mind you this is an opinion, I can't really offer data to back it up.
A lot of digital cameras are sold, but I don't believe it is an indication that photography is a fashionable pastime as it had been decades ago. It seems digital photography has become more of an expectation, a convenience much the same as cell phones. To me it looks like it is just one more effect resulting from pervasive and comparatively inexpensive technology. I'm sure this is the pressure that drives Kodak to toy with it's image.
Brands are about corporations or their products having identities, or better yet - personas. Kodak's persona is in flux - very similar to what might happen to you or me if we begin questioning or evaluating who we are and what we do.
As for the logo - It is bland. I take that as a signal that Kodak's corporate officers are unsure of Kodak's identity.
Reminds of a famous case in the early 80's (I think). NBC television network here in the U.S. had changed their logo from the classic peacock (which was changed in the 50s from a typographic treatment) to a single upper case "N" with just a little graphic treatment. Turned out the "N" was extremely similar to the logo for the University of Nebraska. It cost tens of millions for the change. Every college football fan at the time recognized it. "Saturday Night Live," an NBC show parodied the choice, using Gilda Radner as a dancing "N" in an absurd oversized mascot costume. I think David Letterman who was employed by NBC at the time, even took a few shots at it. After a while - a few years I think, NBC caved in and spent another load of money to bring back the peacock.
I predict Kodak will do the same. Don't expect to see any dancing "K's."
Bob H
Last edited:
Fedzilla_Bob
man with cat
I smell a sweeping and stereotypical generalization.
Aizan - some of us on the list are graphic designers.
I can say from experience that it isn't graphic designers that drive "brand" changes.
Last edited:
sf
Veteran
Creepy . . . . that is one way to put it. I'd say that the value of a logo with worldwide recognition is enormous, and they are throwing that away - especially horrible in a time where companies' identities in the market are so fragile in the context of such turbulent and ever changing markets.
dostacos
Dan
RDW said:
In Israel the coke logo has the same style, you can tell it is coke without reading it
I am sure some AD spokeshole said the new logo will be an attention getter for people that just want some film and don't have a preference.
the funny thing is the picture at the start of the tread probably would be a better choice [old and new together]
Kodak "professional" BW400CN [C41 process] only has the old K logo in one very small spot.....
Last edited:
Andy K
Well-known
TGFI!
(Thank God For Ilford!)
(Thank God For Ilford!)
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
JoeFriday said:
My point exactly.
Bill: Not likely there will be any public lynching of the marketing group, IMO. If Kodak fails in the digital market, it won't logo changes or marketing tactics that will be blamed, it will be Perez and senior management of product development.
Look, Kodak was founded on selling to the consumer .... "You push the button, we do the rest." The fact that Kodak rose to the top in professional photography had more to do with materials than cameras. When was the last successful Kodak camera of professional quality marketed? About the time of the Retinas, right? Maybe I'm forgetting something here, but you get my point. Kodak was successful in the professional market due to its film, chemistry, papers and expertise in processing.
What is the digital equivalent of that today? Memory cards? Kodak will hardly go into that market on a widespread basis. Competing with SanDisk, Hitachi, et al would be insanity. Inkjet cartridges? Now THAT'S a sucker's game! The big three have that market in terms of volume (non specialist) sales. And the public is learning how expensive it is to print at home. So if Kodak were to enter that market, they would have to compete on price and come in as the high quality budget alternative. Then Canon, Epson and HP would change their ink delivery systems to make them even more proprietary. I would be shocked if EK decided to get into the 3rd party inkjet printer market more than what they have now, i.e., the 4x6 printers. Even there, most people can go to their local supermarket and get good prints on KODAK paper. They can do it online and pick them up at their leisure, thus avoiding waiting in line at the Kiosk while teeny-boppers giggle over which 500 of 10 zillion crappy photos on their cell phone/cameras they want to print while you stew.
So, EK turns back to their roots in the still imaging market.... the amateur photographer. Anything from the cheapest digital P&S for the occasional shooter to a higher spec'd (albeit small sensor) camera with a 10x Schneider optical zoom that produces RAW files for the serious amateur who doesn't want to spend more than about $500 for a digicam.
Can they make money at that? You're saying they can't, but they're betting a lot of cash they can. It's a game of turnover in an expanding market.
In the meantime, they know that Motorola provides them with a huge expanding market. Hell, even Zeiss is in the camera phone market! And as I said, Kodak is as much about medical imaging and associated software, and commercial digital printing on demand as they are consumer photography. The logo/branding change is as much about those other divisions as it is still photography; we on RFF (and on APUG) are looking through one lens only; there are a lot of other angles of view.
In my mind, the jury is still out on Kodak's future. Their track record on execution is pretty suspect right now, so I'm not making any predictions. But I'm sure glad Tri-X is even better now, and I've changed my position on buying it as a result. And I'm damned sure they won't be making a turnaround by selling ink cartridges. They do have a line of pro printers, but the size of that market is not large enough to sustain the company, no matter how pricey the cartridges.
Earl
Bryan Lee
Expat Street Photographer
Kodaks new vision is not clear, They seem a little overstaffed. They are trying to be sexy but its not attracting many new customers. It appears they have left the photographer in the dark.
Last edited: