Explain yourselves, /gd/.
we are post-goofy shit
Except for maybe Pinterest, one thing all of those have in common is that all of those companies are seen as either too powerful and manipulative beyond normal business activity and/or as disruptions in their respective e fields that tend to be lightning rods for negative attention.A bunch of them waded into social and political controversy over the last decade or two in ways that polarized potential customer pools and hurt their brands, and now they are backing away from overt displays of those ki ds of policies and just want to get back to a neutral PR stance and reputation.It's exactly the kind of environment where standing out isn't so helpful (the sociopolitical posturing was nothing more than an attempt to do that for MARKETING purposes) so genericizing corporate ID with styles that convey nothing beyond their name makes a lot of sense.Anything that suggests any kind of feeling or idea should accompany thoughts of their company is just a loose thread for critics to pull on in hopes of unraveling them.It's literally like a POW or criminal suspect under questioning giving their name and ID number and nothing else when facing captors who really don't care if they're guilty or not and will twist anything else to use against them.These constant threads are proof of that.
>>457625cool. nice analysis!
>>457619The Microsoft one is brutal
>>457625Great contribution, thanks for taking the time to write it. In a similar sense the change could also be a reflection of these companies ubiquity, they mesh with our daily lives. Also, since corporate design tends to be unoriginal, I wonder who started the trend (if I cared enough I could look at the dates).
>>457634>UbiquityGood point; all of them are arguably either monopolies or have massive market share within their respective niches and that usually changes the strategies regarding branding to some degree...it becomes an effort to maintain market share rather than expand it or convert loyalists to other brands and much of the work of setting the brand apart is already accomplished.Where brand ID is concerned that can mean following expectations for that space so as not to seem outside of it or battling the status quo...if you are Coke or Pepsi or Ebay or Google or Microsoft you *are* the status quo.Financial service and business/life insurance providers do this a lot with their ID and iconography; being the odd guy out in that niche is generally bad for business so they all stay within a pretty limited format that's about stability and reliability and avoids anything unserious.
>>457625>>457626mehpeople just wana simple clear stuff on the fucking webits not a fucking conspiracy and we aint fucking web.1 aol dialup never seen any good design before start ups anymore.
>>457645take your meds
>>457646says the fucking conspiracy theorist
>>457647>companies are seen as either too powerful and manipulative beyond normal business activity and/or as disruptions in their respective e fields that tend to be lightning rods for negative attention."""conspiracy theory""".dumb mf.
>>457647>"In the wake of Trump’s border wall and “Muslim ban” proposals, the Super Bowl — those three hours every year that Americans aren’t desperate to avoid advertising — featured Budweiser, ***Airbnb***, and others all weighing in on the moral imperative to welcome dream-chasing foreigners after an arduous journey, rather than caging them and taking away their children.>“Every single ad, like, literally every chewing gum brand was trying to say something about immigration, because you wanted to be relevant,” an advertising strategy director joked. Politicized ads shown during the Super Bowl reportedly quadrupled last decade."https://www.vox.com/culture/351890/your-favorite-brand-no-longer-cares-about-being-woke>By monopolizing search queries on smartphones and browsers, Google abused its dominance in the search market, throttling competition and harming consumers, U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta said in his 286-page decision. Google owes much of its more than $300 billion in annual revenue to search ads.>“Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Mehta wrote.https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/08/05/google-loses-antitrust-case/74680072007/>Holding:>Business practices conducted by Microsoft, when tying its Internet browser and operating system, was monopolistic behavior per the Sherman Antitrust Act.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.>Spotify has been hit with a lawsuit in New York federal court that accuses the streaming giant of underpaying songwriting royalties for tens of millions of songs.https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/spotify-sued-over-millions-allegedly-unpaid-music-royalties-2024-05-17/>Pinterest settles gender discrimination lawsuit with former exec for $22.5 million https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/14/tech/pinterest-francoise-brougher-lawsuit-settlement/index.html
>>457647"Theory">Seven eBay employees pleaded guilty to charges involving criminal conspiracies.>The seven employees included two senior members of eBay’s corporate security team. Two members of eBay's Executive Leadership Team who were implicated in the scandal were not charged.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal>The settlement resolved a 2012 lawsuit that accused eBay of having an agreement with the Intuit software company preventing each firm from recruiting the other's employees. The deal would bar eBay from enforcing any agreement that restricts recruitment or hiring of employees.>Bill Baer, head of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, said the only purpose of the agreement with Intuit was to limit competition between the two companies. He said the deal caused workers to lose opportunities for better jobs and higher pay.>"The behavior was blatant and egregious. And the agreements were fully documented in company electronic communications," https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/01/ebay-justice-settlement/8566925/>Google committed “clear abuse of privilege” by implementing a policy that automatically deleted employee chat records, according to the judge overseeing a major Justice Department antitrust trial targeting its alleged digital advertising monopoly.>US District Judge Leonie Brinkema shredded Google during a hearing to consider the DOJ’s motion for an “adverse inference” finding against the company for deleting records it was ordered to preserve. If granted, it would allow the court to assume that Google intentionally acted to destroy evidence relevant to the case.https://nypost.com/2024/08/29/business/judge-blasts-google-over-destroyed-evidence-as-another-doj-antitrust-case-looms/
>>457651>>457650>>457652lol meds dude
>>457653typical reaction to style rather than substance.these messages aren't even all from the same fucking person...
>>457646I don't support big pharma, conspiracy theorist lol
>>457655lol ok SCHIZO
>>457619
>>457619>DEI hires:>So I've got an idea! Akzidenz-Grotesk-style sans serif that looks like everything else.>Genius! Who needs originality?
That's why no one takes GDs seriously
>>457619Brands too big to fall, so they just use simplest logo possible so it couldn't be misread.
>>458261>Who needs originalityOriginality in a corporate ID symbology only matters when you are trying to set yourself apart from larger established competitors. When you ARE the largest established player in your space (as all of the companies in the OPs image arguably are) there's little if any value to be gained from trying to be different for its own sake.The companies in that image that used the quirky, lighthearted "fun" look were all originally using it to identify as something other than the staid, serious, powerful corporate blocs they were up against...it was a way of thumbing their noses at the idea that you had to look, act and *be* one of them to take them on. It's a very astute approach at that start up phase when unproven investment vehicles rely more on "beat the system" ideology and gambling on a long shot to attract money.Once they gained major market share and clout in their space they took on the same "serious" trappings as the earlier corporate blocs they displaced because that's what is expected of them by investors who now have something concrete to lose if they continue on the more radical and risky path of being upsetters.Nobody wants or needs to upset a space they virtually own.
