Apple to Twitter: “Cool new logo guys, could use some text.” d35lb3dl296zwu.cloudfront.net/uploads/photo/…
— Sebastiaan de With (@sdw) June 11, 2012
Apple to Twitter: “Your Logo Needs Some Text”
This is one of the challenges going wordless poses when choosing to dump the all important brand name—at least Apple used the new Twitter bird logo. I sort of alluded to this is my little critique of the new Twitter logo the other day:
Twitter’s New Logo Is Sharp And Sitting Proud: Twitter just hasn’t revised the brand logo as they have made that step from brand name to no brand name. No more will you see the Twitter word mark. I’m personally not sure so on this part of the plan due to the prolific nature of 3rd party generated Twitter birds. The Twitter word mark, at least to me, was just as solid a part of the Twitter brand as the Twitter Bird, but do fully agree that the initial T is surplus to requirements.
*I’ll just add here that I’m thinking this botch of the Twitter brand name could be just part of the preview build of the OS, and maybe improved in the final consumer release to fully appease Twitter’s brand guidelines?
Another consideration is that Twitter gave Apple the green-light to place the Twitter name alongside the bird as a one-off example? The problem with that, however, is that if Apple are seen to use a non-standard logo then it paves the way for other people to copy which is just a brand nightmare.
It could also just have been just for this particular slideshow, but it still raises a valid issue: this unofficial use of the Twitter brand name has now raised doubt and confusion as to the correct usage of the Twitter logo. According to Twitter’s brand guidelines there are no allowances for the Twitter brand name alongside the bird logo
Apple Applefies The Twitter Logo
This isn’t to say that Twitter dropping it’s brand name is a fail, but it does clearly demonstrate some problems that can arise from dumping your brand name from the logo.
In Apple’s case, and for the purposes of driving home a certain application sharing feature, they “presumably” felt the Twitter bird wasn’t/isn’t clear/strong enough to stand on it’s own especially when in a list of other brands with full brand names? I would have agreed with this until I Photoshopped the Twitter name out.
Does just the Twitter logo look lost or insignificant to you?
A crude Photoshop alteration (below) removing the Twitter brand name.
Nice choice of font though Apple.
This is where the all important Twitter brand guidelines fall flat on it’s face as Apple slap on a Twitter word mark that now somewhat mocks* the new Twitter brand guidelines.
One can’t really argue with Apple’s intention here, even if it violates Twitter’s guidelines, Apple is all about useability and accessibility and maybe feels the Twitter bird is not clear/strong enough for some people using OSX? Apple maybe hinting that they feel the Twitter share option, and it’s logo, should be clearer to OSX users’ in day-to-day computer use.
I’m now also wondering about times past when people had exactly the same issue when Apple dropped it’s own brand name. This again raises the issue of day-to-day use and visibility of wordless brand logos. The idea of a brand simplifying their logo by dropping the name can mean it then complicates things further down the line. This can then make a total mockery of the move in the first place as end users’ end up doing similar to what Apple have done with Twitter’s logo: adding their own choice of font etc.
The very fact that I have written this post on the back hand of a Tweet by Sebastiaan de With shows how easy and quickly brand confusion can occur.
Maybe Twitter will amend it’s brand guidelines with the addition of new logo lock-up just for Apple. :-)