Marketing veteran here. Just like Uber and Instagram, they messed up big. They took something iconic and replaced it with something forgettable. The first sentece after they show it tells the lie:
"Firstly, it’s not change for the sake of change."
Unfortunately, due to the nature of company politics, this kind of thing usually happens because a new CMO or other exec comes in and needs to "mark their territory". Marketing in tech right now is having a big problem with people rising to the leadership ranks that really don't understand the basic fundamentals of the craft.
Can anyone explain why all the 'incidental' graphics on the website are printing press related (halftone dots, mis-registered colors)?
What the hell unique lineage does slack trace to the printing press? Also how does that align with the new ultra generic could be any kind of business logo.
And let's not even talk about that sweet negative space swastika.
Has there ever been a case where a corporation when to a design firm, and the designers came back with "Your branding is already excellent, and we think your best bet is to not touch it"?
I personally don't like the logo, but is it really fair to say Instagram and Uber "messed up big"? Because they're both wildly successful companies with highly recognised brands. Maybe the way you and I have been taught to think about logos and branding is.... wrong?
It's a shame, too, because the technical reasons they described were all completely sound — but are no reason for them to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
>Marketing veteran here. Just like Uber and Instagram, they messed up big. They took something iconic and replaced it with something forgettable. The first sentece after they show it tells the lie:
>Marketing in tech right now is having a big problem with people rising to the leadership ranks that really don't understand the basic fundamentals of the craft
Can't blame them; tech industry has been focused on tech and some business and of course people from other departments are starting to figure out they grow their career in leaps and bounds just by switching to a tech company rather than fighting in the highly competitive playgrounds of ad/marketing agencies and other companies.
Better to be a big fish in a tech pond than a small fish in a marketing pond.
Yeah this seems to be pretty much the definition of changing for the sake of changing. Just somebody tries to prove their existence, prove that they've got something to do. Thought it is related to the design team but apparently the decision has to be made by the marketing team, and the design team is just the executioner then?
This feels so generic. I get the problem they're referencing with too many colors and not working in all contexts. But the human mind being what it is, I never had a problem connecting "rainbow-colored #" with "Slack". This...this is just some kind of blob. I couldn't tell this apart from a big pharma company, or some kind of conglomerate that makes everything from toasters to jet planes. I'm reminded of the Philip Morris rebrand to Altria, even as far as a generic colorful squarish logo. It's gone from "# means Slack" to "I guess that's Slack...?"
At first I thought this was interesting, mainly because of all the design talent that is at Slack already. But then I realized, it was probably just an easier move to get an outside company to do it and make it a lot less political than had it been done in-house at Slack. And well, Pentagram is also huge, to be fair.
A lot of those “logo explorations for the octothorpe” look like swastikas to me, including the final shape. Basic shape I suppose, easy to find in most any circular-comprised-of-geometric-shapes kind of design, but still imagery you’d probably like to avoid associating with your brand.
Still, I love these kinds of process breakdowns. Having been involved in writing a few of my own, I know there’s probably a lot of pretentious nonsense to fill in the blanks (i.e. designers mess around a lot when working) but still it’s a nice read, short as it is.
To be fair, there's swastikas hidden in all sorts of innocuous places. It's such a basic shape (which is why it was historically popular) that it's hard to avoid accidentally incorporating one somewhere.
Anything with rotational symmetry runs a high risk of somehow incorporating one.
Good eye. Swastika patterns are always something to beware of when creating a pinwheel based design, whether in a logo, decoration, architecture, or even just pinwheels.
I just refreshed my desktop app and I have to say I am not crazy about the new default avatars. It is entirely possible I just got accustomed to my team's collection of colors and shapes, but the current ones have much less variety resulting in them all blending together. I wonder if this is a partially intentional dark pattern to get us to move away from the default avatars.
Every company must have a logo with four colors -- some variant of red-green-blue-yellow. It should also fit into a square, and the colors must stay separate, splitting the square into 4 parts if possible.
I liked the old logo since it represented one of the most iconic features of the Slack, that is channels. This new one seems really generic and I can't associate it with any of the killer features in Slack.
Nonetheless, least props to Slack team to putting reasons on why the logo needed to change, instead of a generic "we wanted to go to new horizons with our product" or "the old logo was getting behind the new design trends" or something else.
In case anyone's wondering about the difference, a &channel is local to the IRC server it's created on, while a #channel is globally usable across the IRC network.
This was the cool part as others have noted. For the techies and nerds, # = IRC and it's like "cool, a nod to tech we know and love and now we have a replacement for". For the Twitter or Facebook generation it's a hashtag, "cool, a nod to something I use everyday and love using."
With a logo like that, you had better at least link to it. Oh, you did. But the link's label was just "Pentagram," so I thought it was to the company's home page, not its specific story about this work.
I understand their complaint about the complexity of color, though I disagree. I thought it was beautiful, maybe worth the complexity.
Regardless, they seem not to know that the new logo is more complex, and therefore harder to be distinctive. They have traded complexity of color for complexity of shape. If you concentrate on the logo in outline, you can see that it has so many lines going so many different ways, all tightly packed, that the overall impression is a drop of rain after hitting the pavement.
It's hard to make good logos. For people whose only job is to make logos, it might in fact be harder. They're tempted to overthink it. They go through 40 revisions. The first two or three are often the best. This was the case here too, based on Pentagram's development artifacts. After a while your secret reasons behind each jot and hook overwhelm your judgment.
Maybe the best thing is to take a month off after you think you've got it, to get a fresh pair of eyes. All those fancy reasons you came up with to justify it fade away. Like, what are those raindrops around it? Oh, you say they're supposed to be speech bubbles. Well, they kind of look like speech bubbles now that you mention it. But not really, because speech bubbles are shaped differently when they contain actual speech. These look like drops. Scattered around the logo like that, it looks like what happens when you drop something.
After working with Pentagram in the past, I can't say I'm all that impressed. Most times they tend to completely lose the concept they were trying to go after, and this is no exception to the rule. The beauty of the original hash logo was that it harkened back to the tags and IRC channel names. You can't see the hash in the new logo, and frankly, it looks like a blasted swastika.
I appreciate the quick blog post much better than the old Uber brand which tried a bit too hard to explain every thought behind each part of the rebrand.
imo, it's better to get a longer post that provides motivation and idea behind the redesign. Slack just told us the reason why they're doing it -- for consistency -- but doesn't explain how they landed at their symbol at all.
Why do companies insist on rebranding every few years? Is it just to keep the in house design team busy? The old logo was memorable and has established Slack as a recognisable brand. Why change it when there is no shift in direction of the company or product?
Look, I get that the four outer dots are probably supposed to look like speech bubbles.
But they look like squirts. Emoji squirts. Which are associated with sexting. And squirting is kind of associated with sex in a lot of people's minds...
I'm trying to keep an open mind. But the logo is four squirts around four lines of roughly phallic proportions and rounded ends.
Seriously. This was literally the first thing I saw when I saw the logo. And judging from some of the other comments here, I'm clearly not the only one.
To me, it seems a bit useless though, but I don’t have any relevant knowledge about Marketing nor Corporate Design to provide useful feedback. There’s probably some value in a re-brand even though the company is not facing any criticism for their colors, logo, and slogan.
> It was also extremely easy to get wrong. It was 11 different colors—and if placed on any color other than white, or at the wrong angle (instead of the precisely prescribed 18° rotation), or with the colors tweaked wrong, it looked terrible.
I stand corrected, these are good reasons to justify the rebrand.
That being said, I felt a bit scared this morning when I opened Slack and found that the colors were slightly different to what they used to be, I freaked and thought someone had hacked my corporate account, then I went looking for answers and found this post, my heart was immediately at peace.
I hope this change brings them more opportunities to grow.
---
EDIT: Interestingly, their “Release Notes” says version 3.3.6 [1] but 3.3.3 [2] in the download page.
The :slack: emoji is also showing the old logo. I wonder if they are going to change “slackbot” avatar as well.
I really like their last logo. It was recognizable.
If they really just wanted to change it, they could have just simplified the colors. Oh well, now they just look like every other generic company (it reminds me of bank logo but I can't remember which one).
[+] [-] fugazithehaxoar|7 years ago|reply
"Firstly, it’s not change for the sake of change."
Unfortunately, due to the nature of company politics, this kind of thing usually happens because a new CMO or other exec comes in and needs to "mark their territory". Marketing in tech right now is having a big problem with people rising to the leadership ranks that really don't understand the basic fundamentals of the craft.
[+] [-] sleepybrett|7 years ago|reply
Can anyone explain why all the 'incidental' graphics on the website are printing press related (halftone dots, mis-registered colors)?
What the hell unique lineage does slack trace to the printing press? Also how does that align with the new ultra generic could be any kind of business logo.
And let's not even talk about that sweet negative space swastika.
[+] [-] ken|7 years ago|reply
(Call it the Miracle on 34th Street response.)
[+] [-] iamaelephant|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zapzupnz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stevewillows|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omouse|7 years ago|reply
Yep; exactly. These companies are successful and their logos are recognizable. Google had the right idea, they become successful and then they tweaked their logo over the years: https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/history-of-the-google-logo...
>Marketing in tech right now is having a big problem with people rising to the leadership ranks that really don't understand the basic fundamentals of the craft
Can't blame them; tech industry has been focused on tech and some business and of course people from other departments are starting to figure out they grow their career in leaps and bounds just by switching to a tech company rather than fighting in the highly competitive playgrounds of ad/marketing agencies and other companies.
Better to be a big fish in a tech pond than a small fish in a marketing pond.
[+] [-] SZJX|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IshKebab|7 years ago|reply
Nobody will care in about a week.
[+] [-] nikolay|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvanantwerp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SCdF|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluetidepro|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walrus01|7 years ago|reply
https://www.goldennumber.net/wp-content/uploads/pepsi-arnell...
[+] [-] mstade|7 years ago|reply
Still, I love these kinds of process breakdowns. Having been involved in writing a few of my own, I know there’s probably a lot of pretentious nonsense to fill in the blanks (i.e. designers mess around a lot when working) but still it’s a nice read, short as it is.
[+] [-] jahlove|7 years ago|reply
https://www.pentagram.com/work/slack/story
[+] [-] Exuma|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mythz|7 years ago|reply
https://www.pentagram.com/work/
[+] [-] christkv|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mfkp|7 years ago|reply
Edit: apparently HN doesn't support emojis. https://emojipedia.org/splashing-sweat-symbol/
[+] [-] ricardobeat|7 years ago|reply
There is a swastika hiding in the negative space in the middle of the logo.
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|7 years ago|reply
Anything with rotational symmetry runs a high risk of somehow incorporating one.
[+] [-] reneherse|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vernie|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pratc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slg|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sz4kerto|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m45t3r|7 years ago|reply
Nonetheless, least props to Slack team to putting reasons on why the logo needed to change, instead of a generic "we wanted to go to new horizons with our product" or "the old logo was getting behind the new design trends" or something else.
[+] [-] otterley|7 years ago|reply
(Technically, in IRC, they could be prefixed with an ampersand (&) as well, but nobody ever did that. Great for making super-secret channels, though.)
[+] [-] iaabtpbtpnn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omouse|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spike021|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] combatentropy|7 years ago|reply
> We’ll not bore you with the design thinking
With a logo like that, you had better at least link to it. Oh, you did. But the link's label was just "Pentagram," so I thought it was to the company's home page, not its specific story about this work.
I understand their complaint about the complexity of color, though I disagree. I thought it was beautiful, maybe worth the complexity.
Regardless, they seem not to know that the new logo is more complex, and therefore harder to be distinctive. They have traded complexity of color for complexity of shape. If you concentrate on the logo in outline, you can see that it has so many lines going so many different ways, all tightly packed, that the overall impression is a drop of rain after hitting the pavement.
It's hard to make good logos. For people whose only job is to make logos, it might in fact be harder. They're tempted to overthink it. They go through 40 revisions. The first two or three are often the best. This was the case here too, based on Pentagram's development artifacts. After a while your secret reasons behind each jot and hook overwhelm your judgment.
Maybe the best thing is to take a month off after you think you've got it, to get a fresh pair of eyes. All those fancy reasons you came up with to justify it fade away. Like, what are those raindrops around it? Oh, you say they're supposed to be speech bubbles. Well, they kind of look like speech bubbles now that you mention it. But not really, because speech bubbles are shaped differently when they contain actual speech. These look like drops. Scattered around the logo like that, it looks like what happens when you drop something.
[+] [-] jcdavis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] citizens|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] farslan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jeromegv|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdpigeon|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mondoshawan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joelrunyon|7 years ago|reply
I appreciate the quick blog post much better than the old Uber brand which tried a bit too hard to explain every thought behind each part of the rebrand.
https://www.uber.design/case-studies/rebrand
[+] [-] QML|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cygned|7 years ago|reply
A pity that Slack’s still lacking such a seemingly easy to implement feature.
However, I like the new logo!
[+] [-] anotheryou|7 years ago|reply
works ok
[+] [-] Karupan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omouse|7 years ago|reply
Yes, that's essentially it. Most projects are make-work to some extent when you're paying for people's time in monthly or yearly increments.
[+] [-] Insanity|7 years ago|reply
The # at least was related to the channels and showed some relation to chat programs because of IRC channels.
I'm sure they had their reason for this change, I'm just not sure if it was a good reason.
[+] [-] crazygringo|7 years ago|reply
But they look like squirts. Emoji squirts. Which are associated with sexting. And squirting is kind of associated with sex in a lot of people's minds...
I'm trying to keep an open mind. But the logo is four squirts around four lines of roughly phallic proportions and rounded ends.
Seriously. This was literally the first thing I saw when I saw the logo. And judging from some of the other comments here, I'm clearly not the only one.
Really suprised this got approved.
[+] [-] guessmyname|7 years ago|reply
To me, it seems a bit useless though, but I don’t have any relevant knowledge about Marketing nor Corporate Design to provide useful feedback. There’s probably some value in a re-brand even though the company is not facing any criticism for their colors, logo, and slogan.
> It was also extremely easy to get wrong. It was 11 different colors—and if placed on any color other than white, or at the wrong angle (instead of the precisely prescribed 18° rotation), or with the colors tweaked wrong, it looked terrible.
I stand corrected, these are good reasons to justify the rebrand.
That being said, I felt a bit scared this morning when I opened Slack and found that the colors were slightly different to what they used to be, I freaked and thought someone had hacked my corporate account, then I went looking for answers and found this post, my heart was immediately at peace.
I hope this change brings them more opportunities to grow.
---
EDIT: Interestingly, their “Release Notes” says version 3.3.6 [1] but 3.3.3 [2] in the download page.
The :slack: emoji is also showing the old logo. I wonder if they are going to change “slackbot” avatar as well.
[1] https://slack.com/release-notes/osx
[2] https://slack.com/downloads/osx
[+] [-] explainplease|7 years ago|reply
* [ ] Doesn't look like 4 sets of you-know-what arranged in a circle
* [ ] Whitespace between elements doesn't look like swastika
Someone mentioned these, and now I can't unsee them. Way to go, Slack.
[+] [-] azhenley|7 years ago|reply
If they really just wanted to change it, they could have just simplified the colors. Oh well, now they just look like every other generic company (it reminds me of bank logo but I can't remember which one).