chesapeake1787 said:
I spent some time trying to develop a logo for my own company and worked with a top rate brand, marketing and graphics design and logo firm, gratis. It is a really interesting process.
Most people can not recall the logo.
Without looking at them -- What is Fidelity’s Investments logo? What does you local supermarket logo? Fact is most people only remember a name or an abbreviation of three letters. What does the IBM logo look like, the Apple logo? What are the colors of ebay?
That said how many here can recall exactly what the Kodak logo looks like above – without looking at it?
One last, how about Kodak inventing digital film? A flexible high resolution ccd electrical magnetic matrix on a strip of acetate? That would be cool.
I won't answer the first few because that would be as valid as bringing a calculator to a 2nd-grade math test, but let me tell you that I can answer all of your questions.
As a matter of fact, there is a high percentage of people in a certain country that cannot locate Canada on a map (not kidding) -- that doesn't mean that either maps are useless or that you can erase a country off a map because people can't recall it.
The whole point of this is that Kodak is showing more evidence of throwing punches in the air. Whether this is correct or not, is not relevant anymore; the problem is the perception on the consumer (knowledgeable or not, opinionated or not) and its effect.
Successful brands don't try to reinvent themselves in the middle of their success. Case-study: "New" Coke and "Classic" Coke back in the mid-80s right in the middle of Pepsi's aggressive marketting campaign.
If they were such excellent players in the digital world, they would not be perceived of as being so third-rate. It's all great that their "professional" digital backs are very good; but their software is so-so (a sin of Canon's, btw) and their consumer products, the ones that are actually sold
en masse, give results so horrid or mediocre at best, that that market, the one that is really spearheading the "digital revolution", is obviously preferring,
word-of-mouth recommendations for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax point-and-shoots. Heck, even the prosumer cameras from Canon and Nikon, dollar-for-dollar, leave Kodak in the dust. Under about 6 feet of it.
So it's not nitpicking about the logo itself: it's the company's
"strategy"/reason to do this. It's a symptom of something that, quite frankly, not many of us are too comfortable about.