So, here is the inspiration (left) and colour palette (right) for Mexico…Īnd what does all this navel-gazing produce for us, the customer, you might ask? Well, you now get a series of animated screens that appear when you open the app, with different colours and textures depending on where you are (see below).įirst, this is waste of time that adds no real value to the experience. Here’s the founder and CEO Travis Kalanick talking about the logo development: “The team has spent months researching architecture, textiles, scenery, art, fashion, people and more to come up with authentic identities for the countries where Uber operates.” Really? But it looks to me like Uber have spent far too much money and time on creating their multiples identities. Try and keep a straight face as you read the explanation of the hidden meaning behind each part…īrand identity is important for creating brand recognition and deserves proper investment.
Here’s how the consumer logo is apparently constructed in 4 parts/steps:Īnd here’s the best bit. Really, it could be a spoof website couldn’t it? On their dedicated brand website they explain how “The new Uber brand system is made up of primary and secondary components that tell the story of technology moving the physical world”. However, Uber mistakenly believe that we will engage our system 2, rational thinking to look at and interpret their logo. And in doing so, they work as a key to unlock brand meaning (benefits, attributes, values etc.) Great identities (Nike, Apple, Coke) create impact and evoke the brand in an instant. And it fundamentally misunderstands how brand identity works.Įffective brand identity works by tapping into our system 1, autopilot thinking. It really is the sort of bull**** and buzzwords that Hugo from my Where’s the Sausage? book would spew, as part of his Hugbrands™ philosophy. This logic behind logo change has taken brand bollocks to a whole new level. And when you look at the before and after in this way, you see the change is minor, and if anything the old logo is more impactful than the new one.
Job 1 is, I guess, to attract attention and be easy to find on your phone. And for Uber, in situ means seeing how the app looks like on a mobile phone home screen. For consumer goods brands, in situ means looking at a new pack on a messy supermarket shelf, not blown up by itself on a Powerpoint page compared to the old one. Why is this necessary? I can’t think of any powerful global brand that has felt the need to change its identity based on which target audience it is talking to.Īnother fundamental flaw in Uber’s design thinking is showing off their new logo in glorious isolation in Vimeo videos and on a dedicated brand showcase website, rather than “in situ”. I don’t get the need to have two different logos, one for the “Rider” (i.e. This looks like a case of “image wrapper” branding, where the outside changes, but the product “sausage” stays the same. Click on the new icon and go into the app, and nothing has changed in terms of my user experience, apart from the new typeface for the word “Uber” (at the top of the app image below). They claim it is a new “brand design system”, but as far as I can see, its really nothing more than a logo change. My first issue is that the change made by Uber is being massively over-sold. Indeed, I felt the look and feel of Uber was pretty slick and cool, as I posted on here.
Huh? I don’t share the views of CEO Travis Kalanick, who believes that the old look was “somewhat distant and cold” and “failed to communicate that Uber was a transportation network, woven into the fabric of cities and how they move,” as reported here. What the bloody hell is Uber up to with its new brand logo change? They’ve taken an iconic and impactful identity and turned it into a right old mess, with one logo for riders, and another totally different one for drivers.
0 kommentar(er)
