Thursday, December 5, 2013

The weight in type and the one logo that should watch it

 I was driving down the street a few weeks ago and I noticed a new sign with the new weightwatchers logo on it.  For all you not familiar with the brand name, weightwatchers is a publicly traded company and is one of the world's leading provider of weight management services.
What caught my eye was the fact that I had the pleasure of comparing both the old logo and new, right there and then (courtesy of an old banner haphazardly attached to the railing).




You see that old logo. The one with the thinner type. Yup, they went from thin to extra heavy or in graphic design speak, extra bold. Now, let me be clear, a logo to be successful, needs to be bold and be able to scale easily and effectively, but surely in this case... well you know where I am going with this.
Especially for a company where success is determined by less "weight" not more.
So after a little research I discovered the native logo as it was designed, with a gradient, going from dark to light.




Now in all fairness, the branding design firm that came up with the the new identity, is one of the most well respected and well known branding firms in the nation. I have immense respect for 80% of their work. But I respectfully must voice my opinion on this.
 Their version of the gradient disappearing letters does not translate so well on signage as witnessed in the photo above. The thinking behind their design was to depict the "disappearing" weight  and transformation members go through, when they use weightwatchers products. But in my eyes, it does not read that way. It seems farfetched in it's intentions, it seems unfinished and certainly not versatile.

So I decided to show you my own take on it - see below.
My thought process was simple and logical.
The word "weight" is the starting point and it should be heavy. Eventually we want to lose it or "watch" it. So we start off heavy and end up skinny. Breakthrough design? Hardly.
Effective? I think so. Better than the 50 shades of gray? Well that's for you to decide.




No comments: