DO
Well, originally there was disgust and outrage at the idea that a branding agency could dare to change the logo. Then there was digust and outrage at the idea that a branding agency could add warmth to a logo. Then there was disgust and outrage that Sky uses different logos for different brands. Then there was disgust and outrage at the first sight of the new logo, and that it actually seemed to be warmer than the old logo, and that's not what Sky's about. Then there was disgust and outrage about the use of more than one logo at once. Then there was disgust and outrage about the inconsistent implementation and use of the new logo. Currently there is disgust and outrage about the alignment of the "sky" and "SPORTS" text on the new Sky Sports logo.
Apologies if I missed any other disgust and/or outrage throughout the thread, but it's only a summary.
I'm just amazed that such a small, virtually insignificant change has generated so much discussion
Well, originally there was disgust and outrage at the idea that a branding agency could dare to change the logo. Then there was digust and outrage at the idea that a branding agency could add warmth to a logo. Then there was disgust and outrage that Sky uses different logos for different brands. Then there was disgust and outrage at the first sight of the new logo, and that it actually seemed to be warmer than the old logo, and that's not what Sky's about. Then there was disgust and outrage about the use of more than one logo at once. Then there was disgust and outrage about the inconsistent implementation and use of the new logo. Currently there is disgust and outrage about the alignment of the "sky" and "SPORTS" text on the new Sky Sports logo.
Apologies if I missed any other disgust and/or outrage throughout the thread, but it's only a summary.


