document.write("
  1. GordonNov 23 2009 6:09 PM

    Hmmm this is really strange. I don\'t care much about AOL since I\'m not from USA but I do know of it. This new branding set is totally unrecognizable from the original one. I think they might have gone a bit overboard and that they should have left some of the old, recognizable elements (like that blue triangle) in there.

  2. GabrieleNov 23 2009 6:30 PM

    Lol.
    Seriously.

  3. John FredricksonNov 23 2009 6:40 PM

    I\'ve got to be honest, I don\'t get it. What were they thinking? I guess we\'ll have to wait and see how they integrate it into every day use before completely writing it off though.

  4. Carter ColeNov 23 2009 6:47 PM

    yea i dont like the logo

  5. peter FrancNov 23 2009 6:49 PM

    didn\'t we all learn back in design school that the logo should work in black and white, scale well and all that jazz?

    Yet here we have another identity, from a big studio/agency that probably know\'s what it\'s doing, that breaks away from this hard-coded theory.

    Sure it might\'ve been done before.. but the design is evolving.. where idea reigns supreme, so you can break a few rules - good on them.

    Would like to see the style guide - probably weighs a tonne :)

  6. David BrierNov 23 2009 6:50 PM

    Gabriele nailed. Lol. Not Aol. Design firms, especially the \"big boys\" have gotten too lazy and lost their leadership and drive. It\'s become business over brilliance. Profit over passion. Tiresome over timlessness. It\'s time to get lost in art, a gallery, live music, great words, inspired movies, thought-provoking dialogue. This is none of that. Shame.

  7. James WestonNov 23 2009 6:53 PM

    Try to say Aol like it\'s a word.I sounds like I\'m vomiting when I try.Thought through.

  8. NileekaNov 23 2009 6:58 PM

    Oh dear. What does this even mean?!

  9. platypusmanNov 23 2009 8:58 PM

    I hate AOL but this doesn\'t seem like a bad marketing strategy to me. (The video is probably a better representation than the logo examples.)think they had to reinvent themselves or die. Logo concept feels like a [slightly less cheesy] ripoff of Google, though.

  10. Brent VermilyeaNov 23 2009 9:29 PM

    The problem with AOL (or Aol.) isn\'t their logo (their brand perception is much worse).It\'s that nobody uses them.The only time I find my way to AOL is on accident, when I get linked to an AOL property.

    I actually think the new logos are OK.And they have gotten attention already, which is a plus.If they just reworked the existing logo, like they\'ve done before, no one would care and there probably wouldn\'t be an article about it on this blog.

    But all this doesn\'t change the fact that AOL doesn\'t have a very compelling web presence.That\'s the problem.

  11. Scott MerrittNov 23 2009 10:21 PM

    I think the fact that these new logos break every piece of wisdom about maintaining key recognizable aspects of the logo...like the triangle, is a result of AOL having such a horrible perception from anyone at least over 25, and probably anyone over 18.I am assuming that younger people might not know as much about AOL, so perhaps they are trying to reinvent themself entirely...on purpose.

    Perhaps they can seem \"hip\" to older people (so they stick around), while trying to also reach out to the under 18 crowd.If that\'s the case, should be a fine line to walk, I immediately thought of lol, but haven\'t the kids these days already moved onto cooler expressions?

  12. Michael RockwellNov 23 2009 11:55 PM

    I don\'t have a problem with \"Aol.\" My problem lies in placing it in front of the \"infinitely changeable background.\" They need to keep it simple, goldfish, skateboards, and squiggly lines aren\'t simple.

  13. Sean FousheeNov 24 2009 12:09 AM

    If AOL wants to change the perception of their company with a new brand, I would suggest a logo that doesn\'t say AOL (or Aol.), but rather America Online. Start calling yourself America Online, not AOL, then couple the new push with a resolve towards better customer service and less crap marketing gimmicks. Only then can you attempt to make a clean break from your horrid past.

  14. Chris RobinsonNov 24 2009 12:48 AM

    Plain terrible, just like their work on the 2012 Olympics identity.

  15. John CuadrasNov 24 2009 2:25 AM

    No sir, I don\'t like it.

  16. GeorgeNov 24 2009 3:24 AM

    You can barely read the \"logo\" on many of those backgrounds. What, do they think changing their logo is going to change their luck? AOL is a relic of the past, it has served its purpose; it\'s time to move on.

  17. MattNov 24 2009 4:13 AM

    This identity screams, \"old wretched company tries really really hard to seem relevant to a young hip audience.\" We all see right through you \"Aol.\" There are not enough stock images in the world to hide the fact that you desperately want us to forget what a nightmare AOL was.

  18. MarkNov 24 2009 6:53 AM

    Errr, I really like it. Like their London 2012 stuff, may take a little getting used to. Pleasingly simple.

    I\'ve had to do a few cobranded things with AOL in my time and it was all very corporate and cumbersome. Think this will lead the way for some pretty nice looking campaigns.

  19. Brandon HopkinsNov 24 2009 10:57 AM

    Biggest branding failure in history.No logo would have been better than that.

  20. SamNov 24 2009 12:24 PM

    Hahaha..
    Karl Heiselman, CEO of Wolff Olins says: \"to feel credible\"
    Really not to be credible but feel credible?

  21. bobNov 24 2009 1:14 PM

    So does this mean no more free frisbies coming in the mail? Oh poo.

  22. Steve PoppeNov 24 2009 2:40 PM

    That\'s not a logo. It\'s a typeface.

  23. David VosburgNov 24 2009 3:09 PM

    This branding reflects Aol.\'s market perception: bad.

    Aim (not Aol. instant messenger) higher.

  24. jpNov 24 2009 3:11 PM

    Smells of advertising consultants.Stinky disgusting consultants who don\'t really get it.

  25. Gavin StrangeNov 24 2009 3:43 PM

    This mages me all sorts of angry.

    As a result, I\'ve decided to start my own rival company. i\'ve got 40,000,000 dial-up CD\'s pressed ready to be sent out to every person who doesn\'t want one.

    Wolff Ollins did the logo and it only cost us £35,000 - http://twitpic.com/qr9sp

    I think I\'m on to a real winner here.

    Gav
    CEO of Owl.

  26. Matt SteelNov 24 2009 3:59 PM

    Layers of failure.

  27. ReneeNov 24 2009 4:01 PM

    A long time ago, AOL used to be a content company.Then they became an advertising company. And now, there\'s no there there anymore.And guess what?It shows in the new identity.I would say that it\'s a terrible identity, except that it absolutely reflects their strategy in lack of substance.So, bravo, Wolff Olins, for so accurately capturing the absolute lack of relevance in the brand.

  28. Led Nov 25 2009 8:57 AM

    these are confusing times we\'re living in... vampires have feelings, MTV has no music and AOL sells fashion. let us all pray for that big meteor, I think it\'s time.

  29. Christian AnnyasNov 25 2009 9:44 AM

    This reminded me of old Volkswagen ads.

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3443/3791414695_b38289ff62_o.jpg

    Ugh.

  30. Carter ColeNov 25 2009 11:54 AM

    it was only a matter of time... http://yfrog.com/04k00001j

  31. Jason SchwartzNov 25 2009 4:39 PM

    Most likely any design agency that did an AOL rebrand would fail due to the fact that AOL has been in serious FAIL mode for about 10 years.

    I always appreciate what Wolff Olins puts out (yes, I like the London 2012 campaign), but I can see why everyone is ripping this to shreds.

    I\'m interested to see how this thing gets rolled out across their products-

  32. Matt ConventeNov 25 2009 8:47 PM

    I’m sorta torn on this new brand.I enjoy the whimsical, almost non-sequitor approach to the background images, but it sorta doesn’t make sense to me.To me, AOL will be forever ingrained in our minds as a dial-up ISP that struggled in its adaptation to broadband.My family never subscribed to to AOL’s dial-up service namely because it was something ridiculous like $25 a month when we got the same 56k connection from AT&T for $8 a month.Once cable became widespread in my area, we went with that from the cable company and have been with them since.

    Back to the brand before my tangent drives you crazy.I think AOL is trying to catch up and be cool again, except it completely overdid it.The thing is younger people who grew up with AOL are kinda over it, it seems.And when you try too hard to be cool, it doesn’t work.I think that is the core problem with this new brand, and it will be interesting to see how AOL’s new-media transformation turns out.

    My full take on the new brand is here: http://blog.mattconvente.com/2009/11/24/youve-got-fail/

  33. Jen KehlerNov 25 2009 10:16 PM

    The logo is a cop-out. Using a simple wordmark can be considered classy and sophisticated. But they are running out of ideas, and fonts apparently. Silhouettes have been done, and so has this. In order for AOL to move forward, their logo should be as well, instead of knocked out of the image of the day. The images they use may attract a younger, more vibrant audience, but their methods have been done time and time again. Sometimes people overthink logo design and overdo it. I am not sure they thought at all.

  34. redwall_hpNov 28 2009 12:18 AM

    A lot of you seem to be forgetting that internet access isn\'t AOL\'s primary business now. (Or, at least, they\'re moving away from it.) Their most valuable holding is probably Weblogs Inc. Yes, AOL owns Engadget, TUAW, Autoblog and the rest of the family.

    As for the logo: FAILure.

    The clipart backgrounds look amateurish, and the period is just idiotic. (I\'m not a fan of the mixed case either. \"Aol\" isn\'t a word. Either use all-caps or make go with lower case.)

  35. Eric HaywardNov 30 2009 11:37 AM

    The lower case is probably pretty smart - they\'re trying to reclaim ownership ofacronyms like \"lol,\" many of which were invented by AOL users.(Really, those were just early web users).Even though LOL would usually be capped, that wouldn\'t look as \"typed\" (vs. designed) if it was employed in the brand mark.Today, it\'s usually good and au courant to make brands look a little more personal, a little more in keeping with the increasing trend in user-generated content.I agree with those above on the background photos.Clumsy.But, you watch:this logo will be as recognizable and unquestioned in legitimacy as any other in two months.

  36. Dale CampbellNov 30 2009 12:08 PM

    You know, I have to admire Wolff Olins on their philosophy because I think it\'s a very good one.

    However, just because you have a great philosophy doesn\'t mean that you can develop something so rudimentary that it borders on the edge of being bland.

    Reversing the logo out of a goldfish - seriously? \"Open and generous\"? Not even close.

    Aol, in my opinion is useless. I don\'t see this \"creative\" direction being a direction in which they should continue.

  37. TrevorDec 1 2009 11:31 AM

    Work like this makes me embarrassed to say I\'m a graphic designer. Has branding really come to this? The idea: whatever you want, cool huh? Not making a decision is not a decision. Not designing is not design. Wolff Olins should be ashamed of themselves.

  38. Jim @smashadvDec 1 2009 5:43 PM

    Irrelevant.

  39. Peter francDec 4 2009 9:52 AM

    Hilarious - it seems most people are bitching about the greater issues of Aol rather than discussing the identity.

    Being an Aussie, Aol\'s never really had much relevance to me. There are definite problems with their branding...perhaps because all of us here seewhere they should be, rather than where they are. And surely Wolff Olins\' designers were thinking the same things we all are.

    Yet as a convincing package, it all falls over somewhere. I have a sneaking suspicion it\'s a management thing. A new logo might freshen things up, but company culture still dictates how things work day to day. And that\'s where our view of Aol\'s come from.

    But back to the logo. Don\'t goldfish have a 3 second memor...

  40. PhilDec 10 2009 10:29 AM

    23yr old designer from Holland.

    To be honest, i like it. Taking it back to basics. To be seen when it matters. If you think you need to \'see\' a logo to remember it, tell me right now: How do you think the AOL logo looked at the top of the page?

  41. RolandoAug 25 2010 6:31 AM

    Too cool for them.

Post a comment

*Required fields

")