Kodak has unveiled a new logo. It looks more 1970s than the last one.

Too many logo redesigns this year, and barely a one is better than it's original.

I actually think it's better than the original.

Thank God there isn't a swoosh in it.

I prefer the original.

I'd have to go with the original logo, just because it's been around for so long that I can't remember anything before it, and I'm sure that's the case for a lot of people. I think there are some logos that really do need improvement, but this wasn't one of 'em.

And hey, how about that new Intel logo? Apparently, they didn't get the memo about the swoosh...

I like the old better too - the new one just looks so naked

Talk about throwing away years of brand recognition.

At least with the new AT&T logo, you know that its still AT&T.

+1 for the old logo

First DC Comics, now Kodak?

Is nothing sacred?

The original was much better.

I agree the old one was better. And what is this, logo change season? At least the Intel, AT&T, and Sprint logos are nice.

I do kind of like how the a in Kodak looks like a roll of film.

Thanks for the link. I'm undecided. Here is my opinion.

Mike Henderson: If they're trying to be "a cutting-edge, 21st century innovator" (as the article says), then why would they want any part of their logo to look like a roll of film? Film is so last century.

Maybe they could have freshened up the old logo with the new typeface and some 3-D or gradient treatment (like the new UPS and AT&T logos). The old logo had a great distinctive shape, bold colors, and evoked both the 'K' of Kodak and light coming in through a lens.

I think that the minimalistic, slick look for kodak misses the boat. Perhaps they're trying to move from the high touch world of film photography to the clean, and slick feel to move towards the digital photography crowd. or say, "Hey, we're still relevant". Not saying that they are or they aren't, but it seems that they're grasping at straws to stay in the game.

why change a decades old logo?
I bet they paid upwards of a million dollars for that lackluster new "corporate identity."

ugh...

Too much whitespace between the text and lines

To be honest I don't care about the logo change. Old logo or new logo, it's not going to stop me from buying one of their products. As long as Kodak creates worthwhile products they will still get money.

It reminds me of fast food.

I'm saddened by this stream of logo redesigns recently. They all seem to share a common "pseudo-trendy" yearning by the company, but in the process manage to completely throw away distinctiveness. Then again, a logo alone doesn't say much...it'd be interesting to see the entire gamut of their new corporate identity to see it work in context.

I vote for the old one, but boy oh boy... don't they say that time repeats itself? Maybe the 70s are coming back and hitting hard ;)

To redesign a brand identity with such worldwide recognition. What is their ROI, beside thinking that the millions they will have to spend on updating all of their branding will somehow fuel new business?

Imagine Nike or McDonalds altering their mark in a major way... they never would, because they don't need to. Neither does Kodak.

No kidding... you can lose "Kodak" from the old logo and still know it's Kodak.

No kidding... you can lose "Kodak" from the old logo and still know it's Kodak. The new one really has no ID, or signature, at least when UPS and DC did there logo updates they maintain some sort of similiarity.