"You don't know what you got till it's gone".

I don't think they needed a different logo and I don't think they got a better one either. They should have respected their heritage a bit more.

They should just start over.

:: yawn ::

Seriously, that oversized O at the end of the word just looks weird. As if you're saying "Yah--OUCH!" Combined with the leaning exclamation mark, it looks as if the O ballooned unexpectedly and knocked its neighbor off balance. If this was the intention, the video does not say.

One thing's for sure: Some design firm out there is now a lot richer.

Change for the sake of change...... looks the same anyways.

One thing's for sure: Some design firm out there is now a lot richer.

And yet they managed to make it look cheap. Frankly, it looks like it was made by someone who's just discovered Photoshop's layer effects. It's unsharp, too, at small sizes. And that animation on the homepage is totally nineties (in a bad way).

They should have respected their heritage a bit more.

Spot on. I liked the brand in part because of the logo and what it represented. It was a strong one, too. This one's sterile.

Huh!

Well, I happen to like it ... better.

I think they were hoping this would be bigger news than it is, just to get some news cover.

A good exercise in how to not iterate your design process publicly.

About the logo itself - bevels are notoriously difficult to port over different media. The fussyness is lost at small sizes, and they're moving from something resembling warmth and approachability in the purple to a dark corporate blue resulting in a very pallid looking mark.

Of course the test of any logo is how it plays out in application, but I have to say how they've demonstrated it, and that weak 'blueprint' video do not bode well.

AOL showed how it should be done.

One thing's for sure: Some design firm out there is now a lot richer.

It was designed in-house. Which could be part of the issue. Looks like the Creative Director/Art Directors don't have a Ruby.

Link bait, desperate attempt at gaining some national attention. Cheap trick...

there was some TV show that spoke about "consultancy" firms taking a few million in order to sack half the staff and "design a new squiggle" for the logo.

Fun times....

A good exercise in how to not iterate your design process publicly.

Agreed. Showing all of other logos made me feel like the chosen one was a disappointment no matter which one they would have gone with.

Urgh. When your brand is losing recognition, the best thing to do is to ensure that even more people stop recognizing it?

...mumbles something about sow's ears, silk --- rambles on.

The old Yahoo! had a whimsical font, it had character.

Then again, so did the old Mountain Dew and they radically rebranded, here's the original for you youngsters that never grew up with the original Mtn Dew: [en.wikipedia.org...]

Why Mtn Dew? Their slogan used to be "Yahoo! Mountain Dew!"
[youtube.com...]

My point is if Mountain Dew can rebrand that much, I think Yahoo will survive s subtle but albeit boring font change.

BTW, the Yahoo logo on their home page is animated and kinda cute so check it out.

Yeah, the old Y! logo might have been a bit more fun, but hey, brands change all the time. And it's not as if it's as iconic as Coke or some others [boredpanda.com].

Branding... bit of a Roman ceremony, for me - but obviously important.

A lot of people would've started out on back in the 90's and the 'net was young. Perhaps that logo could have been synonymous with that time gone by, obsolete if you will. I remember the lower resolution version of their original logo well. In that sense... it makes sense to me why they'd change their logo.

As for the logo itself... nothing much to say. Nice use of font!

We wanted a logo that stayed true to our roots...

They shoulda stuck with the red logo then. It was way better than anything they've had since.

Not sure if the change was needed, but I think it looks pretty good.

Mack.

Typical hack... no idea about spacing!

Amusing though... one illustration displays the mechanics of nicely proportioned letter weight, but then you find that the letters are "machine spaced" and optically incorrect.

We all know that the company logo is the most crucial element for any brand. But some how i don't think how this new logo change will affect their business.

Neither this nor the old one have an unforgettable impact on its audience.

Pretty terrible design if you ask me.

For my taste they put too much space between the Y and the A.

The new logo looks more professional to me, I have no problems with it. It's a little "bland" but it is more serious than the old one which is good.

at the end of the day, does it really make a difference?

at the end of the day, does it really make a difference?

Yes, aesthetics are most important as the look of a logo or theme can sway mood and trust... whether you consciously realise it or not.

The Google design proved very popular and was easy on they eye, while the whole time the Yahoo logo looked awkward. So this change is an improvement but still not a winning design.

The end result is what it is... however, I think somebody had money burning a hole in the pocket and had to spent it or lose it...

On the other hand, any noise made which makes people look is well-worth the expense!... and I bet all of you looked!

"There's no such thing as negative publicity" ?