Watch the exclusive companion video here: nebula.tv/videos/linusboman-breaking-down-the-design-price-tag-of-walmarts-rebrand Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/linusboman
As a refresh goes, it seems like a pretty decent one that keeps the familiarity of the old logo while also just jazzing it up a bit. The issue is all of the marketing wank going on around it about how groundbreaking this new shade of blue is.
It's not the marketing wank in and of itself, that's unavoidable. It's when marketing wank escapes containment inside the marketing and corporate comms ecosystem and reaches the general population, it often gets lost in translation. Headline writers flatten "look and feel overhaul" to "new logo" and people are understandably left scratching their heads
@@LinusBoman we've also got to have some intellectual honesty here and admit that sometimes these marketing departments have to justify existing by creating conceptual back stories to support their proposition to change in one direction or another. With that said it's good to refresh a brand before it get dusty... and walmart was getting there.
@@morebetter7901exactly! A book called “Bullsh*t Jobs” by David Graeber talks about this. He touches on the marketing industry and how certain jobs have to justify their existence (this video and the above comment is a clear example of this)
One benefit i see with a more subtle rebrand like this for a company that physically prints their logo everywhere is that if you miss updating it here or there it's not as noticeable. If they did a complete update, when you then see the old brand it is more jarring. Like the "new" Euro bills. Same colors, pretty much same design. Just more vibrant and modern looking. When you find an old bill you can still recognise it as an authentic euro bill
Absolutely - that was kind of my last point (perhaps I glossed over it too quickly) about a subtle shift in blue vs changing the brand color to black - the new and old brand will sit side by side for a good while. You'll go in and the shelving might be updated but the brochure in the pharmacy won't be yet. The greeter uniforms will be new and the checkout fixtures won't be. It would be too difficult, expensive and wasteful to do in one shot, but with this approach the majority of customers will barely notice. The ones that do notice will probably think it's a bit ugly for a while, but shrug and get on with shopping.
I remember seeing the rebrand on the BrandNew website and thinking “hey that’s not too bad. Logo hasn’t changed much but that wasn’t really what needed a ton of changes” but I am also a designer so when I saw the budget I wasn’t surprised. How different my life must be.
$1.25m is 5 expert designers for 1 year, a few focus groups and a 3 month engagement with a consultancy. With that, it’s almost amazing how many assets they worked on
In the UK at least, Jaguar was synonymous with wealthy, politically/socially conservative, "out of touch" men aged 50+ even 20 years ago. Their audience was slowly dying off, so they've taken a big swing to try and gain traction with a younger demographic. For me (potentially who they are now targetting) Jaguar's new visual identity feels like a parody and incredibly shallow. I wonder if we'll see more of this, with legacy car brands trying to compete with the new Chinese EV manufacturers and shake off their association with combustion engines.
Sure it's not that much money, but the point is it's completely wasted money. And it's a symptom of a much bigger problem. When you think it's worth spending money on this sort of thing, imagine how many more things you're also spending money on that give you absolutely nothing in return.
another thing that people often forget is that for a brand change like this, there were probably a dozen submissions some of which were radical some of which weren't that were considered to make sure that they weren't missing anything. Additionally, this probably would include legal fees to make sure that the changes that were being made didn't infringe anywhere else, and even though Walmart is a very well-known global brand, it is possible that making these changes to the spark icon might have infringed on another company's trademark. additionally, there was probably some form of Focus group that made sure that the logo still echoed the previous ones sufficiently, even if it was just one group, I guarantee they did one. As a designer, making a design is the easiest part. the hard part is dealing with a customer. Given the size of Walmart, I'm betting that the design firm had to consult with multiple sea level and top line manager people to make sure that the changes that they were making took into consideration the needs of all the different divisions. usually, when I would charge, I would ask how many decision-makers were there for a company, and for each additional decision-maker, I would double my fee. I usually only had to deal with as many as four decision makers on my scale, so you wouldn't necessarily do that here.but if you had 100 different people who had to give input on the final product, that's going to at least multiply tenfold the overall cost. It's mostly because of the time it takes to communicate with all of them and take their needs into consideration.
😂@leisti Obvy it's just a rule of thumb, and I've only ever done it up to 4 Beyond that, I've asked them to contractually designate one final decider, and if they couldn't do that, I'd pass on the job. I was solo, couldn't justify taking on anything bigger
Somewhat off-topic: while most of the closest Wal-Marts to me use the post 2008 logo on their exteriors, there’s at least one in my (Canadian) province that still uses the 1992 WAL★MART stylization.
There's one I believe in Calgary that's located in a dying mall that's been planned to close for like 10 years now, so they probably decided updating the look was pointless with imminent closure
I'm almost 42 and I've never seen more advertising in my life. It's absolutely insane how often an ad is on screen, I've deliberately stopped using all social media besides youtube and i pay for premium so i don't have to see ads anymore. A logo redesign like this just seems unbelievably absurd to me
The rise in advertising is because people are less willing to pay for media. People used to pay for CDs, DVDs, cable, newspapers, magazines etc, but now the costs need to be covered by advertising instead. I personally use Nebula and Patreon to see videos without ads so more of the money goes to the creators instead of to Google.
i mean that's exactly *why* they're doing it. ads are literally worth SO MUCH to companies nowadays that making sure they're good looking and easy to produce is basically worth any price tag that could come with that
I'm on iPhone. I have a free Adblock from the AppStore and uYou plus for TH-cam installed. I cannot remember the last time I've seen an ad on my phone. No kidding, I *never get ads anymore* lol. I also got all TH-cam Premium features for free and a lot more features that don't even come with TH-cam Premium, like iSponsorBlock - that's a feature that automatically skips sponsored segments in TH-cam videos. If someone does not want any ads, there's always a way to get rid of them. You just need to research for a minute.
I'm on iPhone. I have a free Adblock from the AppStore and You plus for TH-cam installed. I cannot remember the last time I've seen an ad on my phone. No kidding, I never get ads anymore lol. I also got all TH-cam Premium features for free and a lot more features that don't even come with TH-cam Premium, like iSponsorBlock - that's a feature that automatically skips sponsored segments in TH-cam videos. If someone does not want any ads, there's always a way to get rid of them. You just need to research for a minute.
As someone interested in logo and visual identity design who often struggles to explain to my family what exactly it is I want to do, this video was super helpful to me, thank you.
This reminds me of a news story I heard when I was in high school. Scotland paid a marketing firm six figures to come up with a new slogan to drum up tourism, and the result was…..”Welcome to Scotland.”
Yes but you see an executive can now claim a bonus for the rebrand, consultants get a suitcase of cash. And many of the workers have to use food stamps to survive, everything is fine and normal.
(I remember a similar situation when Coca-Cola rebranded back in about 1988, implementing their swish into the typography rather than as an added element. There was an article in PRINT magazine about it. To a young designer like me (at the time), I didn't quite get the expenditure but as a seasoned design teacher now, I completely understand.
That's fascinating. I knew there was backlash when they tried to change the whole name to Coke and drop the "old fashioned" hand-written-esque swish logo, but I didn't know there was a smaller furore over the way they integrated the swish. I always thought the integration was really well done, since it's quite hard to draw right.
I think what this doesn't address is the reason why people are annoyed by the "rebrand", in that it doesn't feel like a "rebrand". It changed slightly, to some it'll be imperceptible, so it feels like a lot of work and a lot of money for very little result. At that point, why change at all, why claim that you're changing with your customers only to become the same thing in a different shade. Isn't that just saying "things don't really change"?
One thing that I think could have had more coverage in the video is the fact that it's so much more than a logo. I haven't read the document, but that 1 million dollar price tag probably came with redesigns to nearly every part of the stores. From making different departments and signs more cohesive, to fixing issues with the old branding that was discovered after years of focus testing
$1 million is absolutely NOTHING to a company the size of Wal Mart. It is absolutely EVERYTHING to most normal people. That's the difference. You're thinking as if Wal Mart is a person spending this money. They most likely spend more than $1 million a day on operating costs alone.
Would you be so kind and explain to me why people would be annoyed by that? Why are people annoyed by a rebrand that doesn't feel like a rebrand? I'm not from the US and this is the first time I've heard of about the rebranding, so maybe I'm missing some crucial information. Only reason I could think of is that Walmart is pushing the rebrand? As in running tons of ads? But other than that, why would anyone care?
@ I think he means people are annoyed that they spent this money on what looks essentially the same. I don't think anyone is actually mad. Just internet exaggeration. (Even tho, like I said, $1 million is like a dollar to a company the size of Wal Mart lol)
@dunnowy123 With 1.3 million employees, even with 10$an hour for 8 hours, that is80 per person per day, Soo the employees cost the company as much as about 80 redesigns, and that is daily. Now, operating costs are probably quite a bit mor than that.
Can you please do this for the Mozilla Logo (2017 vs 2024)? While I can understand the reactions of ordinary people, your explanations make absolute sense.
Oh, man... as a graphic designer myself, THANK YOU for this video! People love to be shocked and think companies are brainless and gullible, but especially Walmart wouldn't spend this kind of money if it could be done for $29.95 rollback pricing.
Really good explanation and illustration. A good point to highlight imo is that a rebranding works to communicate to their customers and everyone that they're changing or updating, it's not about how dramatic the change is but about what they're trying to say or highlight with the change, that's why the rebranding is presented almost like a new product rather than just being some freshly printed tees. E.g. A subtle change says _"We're not changing our business but we're polishing it up, showing some maturity"_ , and a dramatic change could be more like _"We started our brand in a specific industry but we've expanded into new territories so now we're reestablishing our brand (usually with a focus on those new territories)"_ .
I hate the premiere function. I’ll try clicking your video in my subscription feed, see it’s “UPCOMING” and move on, hoping I might remember to go back and find the video later once it’s available to watch. Sorry man, but I don’t think this kind of content is any more exciting to watch ‘live.’ The whole thing makes it less likely for people to watch.
You and Allan Peter's should do a collab, maybe both trying their hand at redesigning a logo and comparing the outcomes and discussing the decision making that went behind your respective designs or whatever you guys can come up with
I hate how the new blue and yellow are both so saturated that they fight for attention, it creates a sort of weird jarring effect where the colours meet.
I can't even imagine how long that re-design took to push through. First, a decision had to be made that a subtle change was needed. Then get corporate on board with the change. Then most likely create a team responsible for finding the design agency (unless it was in-house) to do the work. Then as the changes came it get everyone responsible on board with the changes and approve the monumental costs of introducing the new branding across all media and in-store display. I'm a photographer and have shot for Walmart. I used to joke that my computer would explode because we had so many different Walmart art directors on a Zoom call giving their (often meaningless) opinions on the shoot in progress....
One thing i noted in the last few years is that more Walmart stores are putting the yellow sun on top of the wordmark, and many stores have switched to a very saturated blue motif.
Walmart's 2008 rebranding has to be the least hated complete rebranding of a well known brand in the 21st century. Everyone just seemed to be cool with the yellow sun and wordmark.
thanks for the insight, it's a great shock headline because what we see as customers is a really underwhelming difference but makes sense that the nuance behind it makes it make sense
makes me think of the rebrand of the Municipality of Amsterdam in 2014, where people where like "they paid €100,000 for a break?" (as the space between "Gemeente" and "Amsterdam" was replaced by a break in the logo), while this was about the exact difference you talk about here
It seems silly at first, but like the video says, I think this is a good type of rebrand, it doesn't really need to be changed all that much. I'm rather sick of companies completely changing things up for the sake of seeming "new" or "fresh", when all it does is confuse people.
Thank you for the explanation. It makes sense now! If I think of apps, the new logo has got more vibrant colors and the thicker "petals" are more visible when animating them.
Many people are going to see the new, barely different logo and think “that cost $1 million?” But for a company as large as Walmart a million bucks for a rebrand seems like a fucking steal of a deal, to the point where I don’t think that’s nearly enough to be fair pay for the designers involved. A unified brand image that’s modular across multiple formats is gonna generate hundreds of millions for Walmart over the coming years
Oxy pads seems to have recently done a really drastic rebranding. It took me a long time to find their products because they weren't in the colours that I was expecting.
Walmart’s net worth is close to a trillion. Any agency responsible for a rebrand for such a company would be stupid to not charge AT LEAST a million dollars.
I love your use of metaphors to explain brand transformations and talking about brand debt accumulation. One thing I was concerned about the rebrand in my own analysis was that strategically the refresh lives mostly in isolation outside of any real innovative change to how the business operates. To the general consumer it might just feel like a sleight of hand.
the main thing i notice between them is that the "old" logo has a very jank top pillar. the rounded bottom is more angled the left side looks wavy.... maybe from upscaling?
I actually don't mind the logo change, but when my local Walmart changed their store facade, they added their "save more live better" slogan. With the tops of the lowercase letters of the upper row AT THE ROOF LINE. It's SO BAD.
I mean, browsing their website, it was more than the logo. I can tell there are font changes and stuff too, and testing that out was probably honestly where most of the money went
That was a good walkthrough. The idea that over time and with growth guidelines lose cohesion hadn't occurred to me. Also an eye opener just how massive walmart is now. I had a sense before but their exploitative model really has thrived :[
Side by side, the new colors make the old look weathered. But I’m sure I wouldn’t feel that way if I only was looking at the old. Perhaps these colors will hold up better to the seasonal elements than the old do.
I want to be mad about the slander on Costco's logo but you're not wrong. I just don't know how a re-design would go over either, and if I wouldn't also have an initial 'no!' reaction lol
You have massive talent for coming up with great metaphors! 😮 Also wonderful to see you join Nebula, it's a really heartwarming space for creators to be. ❤
To quoth Neil Cicierega: "Redesign your logo, we know what we're doing, we are here to help you, everything's connected." Redesign your logo was about that mindless weird new Pepsi logo design document that consted millions and led to stuff like "gravitational pull of Pepsi" and "golden ratio of logo"...
I don't know yet what you are going to say about it but before watching the video the new logo just looks more childish. The rounded edges, bigger lines and saturated blue makes it look less professional and more like a company targeting kids. I really don't get the change. Also this is me analyzing it living in Europe and I never went to any Walmart.
@@neatnateable Yeah he didn't really analyze it in this video but I still stand with my opinion. A better change would've been to keep the logo like it is and just make the blue a bit darker.
@@pasi123567 Yes, I'm with you. Having been one who has worked a lot with vector art, either one of these logos could have been made in 30 minutes or less. I had the same thought as you when I saw the new logo. It's much more childish-looking.
I understand why this rebrand was needed, in modern ads, app logos, etc, they need something that catches the attentions more and from farther away but... to act like it's so super big deal that they're "bolder" and "better" now over the tiniest of changes is plain silly
I’m so glad you’re not using the ‘for people who like trains’ line that so many TH-camrs, almost none of whom do content that relates to trains. It feels like a really unsubtle euphemism for autistic people, taking an old and baggage-laden stereotype to avoid mentioning us whilst still communicating that - in a fun way (such a joke that people might have a significant autistic audience). I much prefer the way you have done it here, where you actually give a couple of examples of things that people might like that are on Nebula. It communicates clearly and isn’t … you know
Hey Linus, ever considered doing a video on the logos of australian AFL teams? Several have just been redesigned and Tasmania's upcoming team have unveiled theirs, would be interesting to look at how sports branding has evolved over 150 years.
This is why AI should never become Copyrightable. That person can very well now be set for life, whereas if they had gone with AI nobody would get diddly squat. People it´s not just about making fugly free art, it´s about livelihoods. I hope we can pass legislation globally to never allow AI work to be copyrighttable.
lol, my first guess was that the procepoint was more for a new website/app/store design (walmart is famous for its easy-to-build architechture, but they might still want to remodel or see if there is better building tech now) and the small changes in the logo were just accomodatios for the materials that they were planning on plastering it on.
i assume the cost is not in how new the logo looks but the analysis/report that the consultants turn in with the bill. the logo could stay exactly the same but cautious business execs might want pages and pages of studies to show that this is still the best option for this culture...backed by market research, psychology, focus groups...etc... 😀
Creatives need to think hard about the knock on effects of implementing a re-brand. This "small change" to the logo, fonts and brand colours is going to fill a garbage dump with all the plastic signs, fixtures, uniforms and packaging that need to be replaced. It's either that or you roll it out slowly and live with two sets of branding living side by side, clashing with each other, which it doesn't look like they considered whatsoever.
I remember when Walmart used a yellow five-pointed star as their logo (yep, I'm that old 😊). Here's what the current Walmart logo reminds me of... ... ... ...the Imperial logo from the 'Star Wars' universe. Am I the only weirdo to see the similarity or are there others out there? Stay tuned...🤔
I'm not American so have no connections and very little knowledge about Walmart. I first heard about the rebrand from seeing the title to this video, and I thought that was a very cheap rebrand. Many companies have spent more than that for JUST a logo redesign and nothing else. A rebrand like this is a ton more work and complexity. So it's pretty surprising how little they spent in relation to everything, if the figure is accurate as said.
Watch the exclusive companion video here: nebula.tv/videos/linusboman-breaking-down-the-design-price-tag-of-walmarts-rebrand
Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/linusboman
As a refresh goes, it seems like a pretty decent one that keeps the familiarity of the old logo while also just jazzing it up a bit. The issue is all of the marketing wank going on around it about how groundbreaking this new shade of blue is.
It's not the marketing wank in and of itself, that's unavoidable. It's when marketing wank escapes containment inside the marketing and corporate comms ecosystem and reaches the general population, it often gets lost in translation. Headline writers flatten "look and feel overhaul" to "new logo" and people are understandably left scratching their heads
@@LinusBoman we've also got to have some intellectual honesty here and admit that sometimes these marketing departments have to justify existing by creating conceptual back stories to support their proposition to change in one direction or another.
With that said it's good to refresh a brand before it get dusty... and walmart was getting there.
@@morebetter7901exactly!! a book called “Bullshit Jobs” by David Graeber touches on this
@@morebetter7901exactly! A book called “Bullsh*t Jobs” by David Graeber talks about this. He touches on the marketing industry and how certain jobs have to justify their existence (this video and the above comment is a clear example of this)
There's a shortage of perfect thumbnails in this world. But you've got one.
what's wrong with his other thumbnail?
audible thumbnail
@@RoamingAdhocrat Not a thing, I'm just complementing this one because it's the one in front of me.
@@torren5950 you have one of Linus's thumbnails in front of you?? oh god, what are his kidnappers' demands?
😉
I was about to comment, “what a perfect thumbnail!” I'm glad the sentiment is shared.
The new logo crosses some invisible threshold away from an abstracted sun and now reads specifically as a sphincter, to my eyes.
You could say that the new logo is more accurate about the company as a hole.
I think Hegel had this specific example in mind when he wrote about the "sudden revulsion of quantity into quality"
@@imveryangryitsnotbutter I see what you did there
It always read as an asterisk to me.
"Walmart: Where You Get All Your Sh*t."
As you pretty much said, I would be surprised if Walmart could do anything affecting their entire company for less than a million dollars.
$1.25m for a rebrand for a company as big as Walmart is frankly quite impressive
One benefit i see with a more subtle rebrand like this for a company that physically prints their logo everywhere is that if you miss updating it here or there it's not as noticeable. If they did a complete update, when you then see the old brand it is more jarring. Like the "new" Euro bills. Same colors, pretty much same design. Just more vibrant and modern looking. When you find an old bill you can still recognise it as an authentic euro bill
Absolutely - that was kind of my last point (perhaps I glossed over it too quickly) about a subtle shift in blue vs changing the brand color to black - the new and old brand will sit side by side for a good while. You'll go in and the shelving might be updated but the brochure in the pharmacy won't be yet. The greeter uniforms will be new and the checkout fixtures won't be. It would be too difficult, expensive and wasteful to do in one shot, but with this approach the majority of customers will barely notice. The ones that do notice will probably think it's a bit ugly for a while, but shrug and get on with shopping.
A good example of too sharp of a change is KIA. Since it's new logo, the searches for "KN cars" have spiked, as the new logo kida looks like a kn.
I thought the same too when it came out
But the new logo is so beautiful :)
@Visuwyg I agree with that.
КИ is my favorite Russian car brand
Looks like a generic scifi font.
I remember seeing the rebrand on the BrandNew website and thinking “hey that’s not too bad. Logo hasn’t changed much but that wasn’t really what needed a ton of changes” but I am also a designer so when I saw the budget I wasn’t surprised. How different my life must be.
$1.25m is 5 expert designers for 1 year, a few focus groups and a 3 month engagement with a consultancy. With that, it’s almost amazing how many assets they worked on
What the HELL is that new jaguar brand identity?
Jaguar got too “affordable” so they did… that, I guess.
In the UK at least, Jaguar was synonymous with wealthy, politically/socially conservative, "out of touch" men aged 50+ even 20 years ago. Their audience was slowly dying off, so they've taken a big swing to try and gain traction with a younger demographic. For me (potentially who they are now targetting) Jaguar's new visual identity feels like a parody and incredibly shallow. I wonder if we'll see more of this, with legacy car brands trying to compete with the new Chinese EV manufacturers and shake off their association with combustion engines.
The Zoolander of luxury car brands.
You answered it yourself: Hell
Its sooooo bad 😂
$1M works out to about $120 per each of 10,600 stores.
Sure it's not that much money, but the point is it's completely wasted money. And it's a symptom of a much bigger problem. When you think it's worth spending money on this sort of thing, imagine how many more things you're also spending money on that give you absolutely nothing in return.
No, to about $94.
@@leisti it was $1,250,000
another thing that people often forget is that for a brand change like this, there were probably a dozen submissions some of which were radical some of which weren't that were considered to make sure that they weren't missing anything. Additionally, this probably would include legal fees to make sure that the changes that were being made didn't infringe anywhere else, and even though Walmart is a very well-known global brand, it is possible that making these changes to the spark icon might have infringed on another company's trademark. additionally, there was probably some form of Focus group that made sure that the logo still echoed the previous ones sufficiently, even if it was just one group, I guarantee they did one.
As a designer, making a design is the easiest part. the hard part is dealing with a customer. Given the size of Walmart, I'm betting that the design firm had to consult with multiple sea level and top line manager people to make sure that the changes that they were making took into consideration the needs of all the different divisions. usually, when I would charge, I would ask how many decision-makers were there for a company, and for each additional decision-maker, I would double my fee. I usually only had to deal with as many as four decision makers on my scale, so you wouldn't necessarily do that here.but if you had 100 different people who had to give input on the final product, that's going to at least multiply tenfold the overall cost. It's mostly because of the time it takes to communicate with all of them and take their needs into consideration.
If you double your fee for each decision-maker, 100 decision-makers would result increasing your fee by a factor of about 6.338253×10²⁹.
😂@leisti
Obvy it's just a rule of thumb, and I've only ever done it up to 4
Beyond that, I've asked them to contractually designate one final decider, and if they couldn't do that, I'd pass on the job. I was solo, couldn't justify taking on anything bigger
Somewhat off-topic: while most of the closest Wal-Marts to me use the post 2008 logo on their exteriors, there’s at least one in my (Canadian) province that still uses the 1992 WAL★MART stylization.
There's one I believe in Calgary that's located in a dying mall that's been planned to close for like 10 years now, so they probably decided updating the look was pointless with imminent closure
I'm almost 42 and I've never seen more advertising in my life. It's absolutely insane how often an ad is on screen, I've deliberately stopped using all social media besides youtube and i pay for premium so i don't have to see ads anymore. A logo redesign like this just seems unbelievably absurd to me
The rise in advertising is because people are less willing to pay for media. People used to pay for CDs, DVDs, cable, newspapers, magazines etc, but now the costs need to be covered by advertising instead.
I personally use Nebula and Patreon to see videos without ads so more of the money goes to the creators instead of to Google.
i mean that's exactly *why* they're doing it. ads are literally worth SO MUCH to companies nowadays that making sure they're good looking and easy to produce is basically worth any price tag that could come with that
Imagine paying for premium instead of just blocking ads. You're part of the problem you goddamn sucker.
I'm on iPhone. I have a free Adblock from the AppStore and uYou plus for TH-cam installed. I cannot remember the last time I've seen an ad on my phone. No kidding, I *never get ads anymore* lol. I also got all TH-cam Premium features for free and a lot more features that don't even come with TH-cam Premium, like iSponsorBlock - that's a feature that automatically skips sponsored segments in TH-cam videos. If someone does not want any ads, there's always a way to get rid of them. You just need to research for a minute.
I'm on iPhone. I have a free Adblock from the AppStore and You plus for TH-cam installed. I cannot remember the last time I've seen an ad on my phone. No kidding, I never get ads anymore lol. I also got all TH-cam Premium features for free and a lot more features that don't even come with TH-cam Premium, like iSponsorBlock - that's a feature that automatically skips sponsored segments in TH-cam videos. If someone does not want any ads, there's always a way to get rid of them. You just need to research for a minute.
As someone interested in logo and visual identity design who often struggles to explain to my family what exactly it is I want to do, this video was super helpful to me, thank you.
Some examples of what Walmart changed (other than the slight tweaks to the logo) would have been nice.
This reminds me of a news story I heard when I was in high school. Scotland paid a marketing firm six figures to come up with a new slogan to drum up tourism, and the result was…..”Welcome to Scotland.”
Nothing wrong with the slogan.
@ of course not. The issue wasn’t the slogan, it was the expense to come up with something so unoriginal.
I love experts breaking down things which would otherwise seem unnecessary to the casual observer. Thank you, Linus 😊
6:42 Not quite. Jaguar's rebranding was more like if the Barbie movie was launched with the title "Top Gun 3"
I just realized that the little star could of been read as an abstracted:
W(al)
M(art)
huh
Yes but you see an executive can now claim a bonus for the rebrand, consultants get a suitcase of cash. And many of the workers have to use food stamps to survive, everything is fine and normal.
The Keanu analogy is so perfectly illustrative.... Love it!
Already a Nebula subscriber so I'm very happy to see that you'll be posting bonus content there!
"Breaking down corporate jargon" is like breaking down baby babble. *Jaguar rebrand is phony BS.
YESSSSSSSS HOMIE IS ON NEBULA cheers, man!! 🥂
When Zuckerberg got a perm and started wearing gold chains, I knew he was paying someone a lot of money to rebrand him. I miss the old mark😔
....I don't want to say me too. But...
He's gone full crypto bro....
I doubt it’s a perm, he just let his hair grow. Also I definitely don’t miss the old Mark. He was impersonal and robotic.
(I remember a similar situation when Coca-Cola rebranded back in about 1988, implementing their swish into the typography rather than as an added element. There was an article in PRINT magazine about it. To a young designer like me (at the time), I didn't quite get the expenditure but as a seasoned design teacher now, I completely understand.
That's fascinating. I knew there was backlash when they tried to change the whole name to Coke and drop the "old fashioned" hand-written-esque swish logo, but I didn't know there was a smaller furore over the way they integrated the swish. I always thought the integration was really well done, since it's quite hard to draw right.
Jaguar then: We make cars. Fast. Powerful. Stylish. Like our namesake.
Jaguar now: We make... Something? IDK.
Looks like a makeup or sparkling water brand. Other examples of those two categories use such bouncy looking typefaces, anyhow
I think what this doesn't address is the reason why people are annoyed by the "rebrand", in that it doesn't feel like a "rebrand". It changed slightly, to some it'll be imperceptible, so it feels like a lot of work and a lot of money for very little result. At that point, why change at all, why claim that you're changing with your customers only to become the same thing in a different shade. Isn't that just saying "things don't really change"?
One thing that I think could have had more coverage in the video is the fact that it's so much more than a logo. I haven't read the document, but that 1 million dollar price tag probably came with redesigns to nearly every part of the stores. From making different departments and signs more cohesive, to fixing issues with the old branding that was discovered after years of focus testing
$1 million is absolutely NOTHING to a company the size of Wal Mart. It is absolutely EVERYTHING to most normal people. That's the difference.
You're thinking as if Wal Mart is a person spending this money. They most likely spend more than $1 million a day on operating costs alone.
Would you be so kind and explain to me why people would be annoyed by that?
Why are people annoyed by a rebrand that doesn't feel like a rebrand?
I'm not from the US and this is the first time I've heard of about the rebranding, so maybe I'm missing some crucial information.
Only reason I could think of is that Walmart is pushing the rebrand? As in running tons of ads? But other than that, why would anyone care?
@ I think he means people are annoyed that they spent this money on what looks essentially the same. I don't think anyone is actually mad. Just internet exaggeration.
(Even tho, like I said, $1 million is like a dollar to a company the size of Wal Mart lol)
@dunnowy123
With 1.3 million employees, even with 10$an hour for 8 hours, that is80 per person per day,
Soo the employees cost the company as much as about 80 redesigns, and that is daily.
Now, operating costs are probably quite a bit mor than that.
Can you please do this for the Mozilla Logo (2017 vs 2024)?
While I can understand the reactions of ordinary people, your explanations make absolute sense.
Oh, man... as a graphic designer myself, THANK YOU for this video! People love to be shocked and think companies are brainless and gullible, but especially Walmart wouldn't spend this kind of money if it could be done for $29.95 rollback pricing.
Looks like Walmart left their old logo in the sun for too long and had to get a new one
99.999% of the time changing your logo does absolutely nothing for your company, but 100% of the time it costs a whole lot of money.
Really good explanation and illustration. A good point to highlight imo is that a rebranding works to communicate to their customers and everyone that they're changing or updating, it's not about how dramatic the change is but about what they're trying to say or highlight with the change, that's why the rebranding is presented almost like a new product rather than just being some freshly printed tees. E.g. A subtle change says _"We're not changing our business but we're polishing it up, showing some maturity"_ , and a dramatic change could be more like _"We started our brand in a specific industry but we've expanded into new territories so now we're reestablishing our brand (usually with a focus on those new territories)"_ .
I hate the premiere function. I’ll try clicking your video in my subscription feed, see it’s “UPCOMING” and move on, hoping I might remember to go back and find the video later once it’s available to watch. Sorry man, but I don’t think this kind of content is any more exciting to watch ‘live.’ The whole thing makes it less likely for people to watch.
You and Allan Peter's should do a collab, maybe both trying their hand at redesigning a logo and comparing the outcomes and discussing the decision making that went behind your respective designs or whatever you guys can come up with
I hate how the new blue and yellow are both so saturated that they fight for attention, it creates a sort of weird jarring effect where the colours meet.
this is a fantastic no-nonsense video. you are a great educator
This is the best video explaining branding and its nuances! I'm going to send it to everyone! I love your videos!
I can't even imagine how long that re-design took to push through. First, a decision had to be made that a subtle change was needed. Then get corporate on board with the change. Then most likely create a team responsible for finding the design agency (unless it was in-house) to do the work. Then as the changes came it get everyone responsible on board with the changes and approve the monumental costs of introducing the new branding across all media and in-store display. I'm a photographer and have shot for Walmart. I used to joke that my computer would explode because we had so many different Walmart art directors on a Zoom call giving their (often meaningless) opinions on the shoot in progress....
One thing i noted in the last few years is that more Walmart stores are putting the yellow sun on top of the wordmark, and many stores have switched to a very saturated blue motif.
Nothing beats the Pepsi rebranding that looks like a generic drink trying to trick people that they are actually Pepsi.
I clicked on this video and got a Walmart ad lmao
did it have the new logo?
@@chuwasco I hadn't seen the video yet, so I wouldn't have known the difference
Walmart's 2008 rebranding has to be the least hated complete rebranding of a well known brand in the 21st century. Everyone just seemed to be cool with the yellow sun and wordmark.
thanks for the insight, it's a great shock headline because what we see as customers is a really underwhelming difference but makes sense that the nuance behind it makes it make sense
I love your videos 😁
Best Nebula ad so far! Love to see you join. Loved watching the bonus video! ❤
makes me think of the rebrand of the Municipality of Amsterdam in 2014, where people where like "they paid €100,000 for a break?" (as the space between "Gemeente" and "Amsterdam" was replaced by a break in the logo), while this was about the exact difference you talk about here
"And vice versa" LOL
Honestly the reason I'm not into Graphic Design that much anymore
It seems silly at first, but like the video says, I think this is a good type of rebrand, it doesn't really need to be changed all that much. I'm rather sick of companies completely changing things up for the sake of seeming "new" or "fresh", when all it does is confuse people.
Plus, spending money to find you didn't need to change can still be a worthwhile venture
A masterpiece of a thumbnail! You don’t see many like this.
As minor as the revision is it really does feel more 'playful and friendly' than the older version, for some reason.
Thank you for the explanation. It makes sense now!
If I think of apps, the new logo has got more vibrant colors and the thicker "petals" are more visible when animating them.
Many people are going to see the new, barely different logo and think “that cost $1 million?” But for a company as large as Walmart a million bucks for a rebrand seems like a fucking steal of a deal, to the point where I don’t think that’s nearly enough to be fair pay for the designers involved. A unified brand image that’s modular across multiple formats is gonna generate hundreds of millions for Walmart over the coming years
We need to spend less time thinking of corporations as people.
Oxy pads seems to have recently done a really drastic rebranding. It took me a long time to find their products because they weren't in the colours that I was expecting.
Jaguar is obviously going for Martian consumers.
Mojang spent four years, on a dedicated team to change the menu screens, and they didn't even touch the title screens.
Walmart’s net worth is close to a trillion. Any agency responsible for a rebrand for such a company would be stupid to not charge AT LEAST a million dollars.
I love your use of metaphors to explain brand transformations and talking about brand debt accumulation.
One thing I was concerned about the rebrand in my own analysis was that strategically the refresh lives mostly in isolation outside of any real innovative change to how the business operates.
To the general consumer it might just feel like a sleight of hand.
The marketing departments just want to justify their existence with some of these "redesigns" and "rebrands".
As someone with Nebula sub, I am so glad to see Creators I watch on here show up over there.
the main thing i notice between them is that the "old" logo has a very jank top pillar. the rounded bottom is more angled the left side looks wavy.... maybe from upscaling?
I actually don't mind the logo change, but when my local Walmart changed their store facade, they added their "save more live better" slogan. With the tops of the lowercase letters of the upper row AT THE ROOF LINE. It's SO BAD.
TLDR: The actual video is paywalled on Nebula.
I mean, browsing their website, it was more than the logo. I can tell there are font changes and stuff too, and testing that out was probably honestly where most of the money went
That was a good walkthrough. The idea that over time and with growth guidelines lose cohesion hadn't occurred to me.
Also an eye opener just how massive walmart is now. I had a sense before but their exploitative model really has thrived :[
Feels like someone said "make it pop" and they said "bet"
Side by side, the new colors make the old look weathered. But I’m sure I wouldn’t feel that way if I only was looking at the old. Perhaps these colors will hold up better to the seasonal elements than the old do.
I want to be mad about the slander on Costco's logo but you're not wrong. I just don't know how a re-design would go over either, and if I wouldn't also have an initial 'no!' reaction lol
Reminds me of the recent "redesign" of the logo of Dutch football club Feyenoord. The changes were hardly noticeable
You didn't watch the full video, huh
@@BryanLu0 are you commenting that under every comment?
@@BryanLu0I did though, why wouldn't I?
You have massive talent for coming up with great metaphors! 😮 Also wonderful to see you join Nebula, it's a really heartwarming space for creators to be. ❤
To quoth Neil Cicierega:
"Redesign your logo,
we know what we're doing,
we are here to help you,
everything's connected."
Redesign your logo was about that mindless weird new Pepsi logo design document that consted millions and led to stuff like "gravitational pull of Pepsi" and "golden ratio of logo"...
This was a very cool breakdown! And, I like the new shade of blue they're using. 😁
Excuse me, but... Why the million dollars price?
I don't know yet what you are going to say about it but before watching the video the new logo just looks more childish. The rounded edges, bigger lines and saturated blue makes it look less professional and more like a company targeting kids. I really don't get the change. Also this is me analyzing it living in Europe and I never went to any Walmart.
I go to Walmart weekly, and I agree!
@@neatnateable Yeah he didn't really analyze it in this video but I still stand with my opinion. A better change would've been to keep the logo like it is and just make the blue a bit darker.
@@pasi123567 Yes, I'm with you. Having been one who has worked a lot with vector art, either one of these logos could have been made in 30 minutes or less. I had the same thought as you when I saw the new logo. It's much more childish-looking.
2:06 this is a good analogy. Though I think it's unfortunate that people call themselves brands though. I think it's absurd and ... Dark
The logo after it had a couple kids, that’s what changed.
I understand why this rebrand was needed, in modern ads, app logos, etc, they need something that catches the attentions more and from farther away but... to act like it's so super big deal that they're "bolder" and "better" now over the tiniest of changes is plain silly
I’m so glad you’re not using the ‘for people who like trains’ line that so many TH-camrs, almost none of whom do content that relates to trains. It feels like a really unsubtle euphemism for autistic people, taking an old and baggage-laden stereotype to avoid mentioning us whilst still communicating that - in a fun way (such a joke that people might have a significant autistic audience).
I much prefer the way you have done it here, where you actually give a couple of examples of things that people might like that are on Nebula. It communicates clearly and isn’t … you know
I'm so glad some ad firm got paid 1.25 million just for putting an existing logo in bold.
You didn't watch the video, huh
@@BryanLu0 Nope. You caught me. 😅
I should probably do that huh?
It's going to cost a bit more than $1 million. Once you replace the signage it will be hundreds of millions.
Hey Linus, ever considered doing a video on the logos of australian AFL teams? Several have just been redesigned and Tasmania's upcoming team have unveiled theirs, would be interesting to look at how sports branding has evolved over 150 years.
u should cut out the 2 seconds of black at the start, would help with your cick through rate from auto play and also retention
It looks more "2024" and I acctually really like it.
I really wish nebula had country specific pricing. it's just unfeasible if you don't live in a first world country
1.25m for a rejig of the logo....it'll be 10's of millions to apply that across the business.
It changes thickness depending on how much money they managed to get you to spend.
This is why AI should never become Copyrightable. That person can very well now be set for life, whereas if they had gone with AI nobody would get diddly squat. People it´s not just about making fugly free art, it´s about livelihoods. I hope we can pass legislation globally to never allow AI work to be copyrighttable.
The real answer to that amount is that they simply did some tax write off scheme or simply some friends pocketed the extra monies
lol, my first guess was that the procepoint was more for a new website/app/store design (walmart is famous for its easy-to-build architechture, but they might still want to remodel or see if there is better building tech now) and the small changes in the logo were just accomodatios for the materials that they were planning on plastering it on.
i assume the cost is not in how new the logo looks but the analysis/report that the consultants turn in with the bill. the logo could stay exactly the same but cautious business execs might want pages and pages of studies to show that this is still the best option for this culture...backed by market research, psychology, focus groups...etc... 😀
Creatives need to think hard about the knock on effects of implementing a re-brand. This "small change" to the logo, fonts and brand colours is going to fill a garbage dump with all the plastic signs, fixtures, uniforms and packaging that need to be replaced. It's either that or you roll it out slowly and live with two sets of branding living side by side, clashing with each other, which it doesn't look like they considered whatsoever.
How does the rebrand clash with the old designs?
Sphincter logo
I remember when Walmart used a yellow five-pointed star as their logo (yep, I'm that old 😊).
Here's what the current Walmart logo reminds me of...
...
...
...the Imperial logo from the 'Star Wars' universe. Am I the only weirdo to see the similarity or are there others out there?
Stay tuned...🤔
I guess I'm getting old or something. It seems like they just launched the first "spark" logo not long ago. Before that, they didnt' have a logo.
They had that creepy smiley face 🙂
@@thekingoffailure9967 Haha...yes, they did, but that wasn't their logo.
So… 1.25 million is less than one dollar per employee? Sounds worth it to me 🤷♂️
I'm not American so have no connections and very little knowledge about Walmart. I first heard about the rebrand from seeing the title to this video, and I thought that was a very cheap rebrand. Many companies have spent more than that for JUST a logo redesign and nothing else. A rebrand like this is a ton more work and complexity. So it's pretty surprising how little they spent in relation to everything, if the figure is accurate as said.