Where are we? Home » Blog » Waterstones Rebrands a strong ID to a limp ID

Waterstones Rebrands a strong ID to a limp ID

UPDATE : There is an interesting remark in the comments below by ‘Blonde’, which may put the rebrand into perspective. I have also posted a follow-up to this post: The Waterstones identity rebrand revisited

Straight to the point, my initial reaction is ‘Oh dear.’ This was my reaction when seeing it last night, and it’s till my reaction this morning. If anything, I feel more ‘Oh dear, oh dear.’ Easy to criticize without knowing the real reasons why Waterstone’s felt a rebrand was required, I am sure they had very good reasons.

I would like to know what these reasons are, but in the absence of these reasons, I am basing it on my view as both a designer and a regular Waterstone’s customer. This is not an attack on the actual logo design, but a view of the Waterstone brand as a whole and what the new identity means for it, from my perspective.

The Register don’t seem to be too ‘chuffed’ with it.

There is something about the traditional serif typeface of the previous logo. It’s solid, it’s reassuring, it’s classic and it’s smart. And look’s stunning next to a pretty face. :) I would walk towards a Waterstone’s store, seeing the familiar and reassuring ‘W’ and feel happy to be walking into such a wonderful store. Seeing the ‘W’ etched onto windows, seeing it lit up at night, lovely.

Now what will I feel, when I see this ‘limp’ two finger salute?

This is what makes a brand, our perception of the company, NOT the companies perception of it’s self.

It’s Waterstone’s because it represents the VERY essence of reading and the VERY traditional methods of book publishing. What book, what novel uses a sans-serif font for the body text? Newspapers, magazines, book all use serif fonts, that’s the heritage, that’s the practicalities of reading a book. A serif is easier on the eye, far more than a sans-serif font.

Therefore makes sense that a book seller uses the very style of font that is used for the majority of books it sells. It might be predictable, it might be obvious but it is also works.

Look at this logo, it’s beautiful. Waterstone’s made the serif ‘W’ look beautiful, not boring. We see the ‘W’ and think Waterstone’s.

Now what will people think when they see this?

Why would you want to change this, change this established and well known identity for something pretty ‘now’.

By shedding the serif ‘W’, it has transformed itself into a trendy modern logo. I have nothing against the new design, its nice, it’s clean, smart and modern. But it’s also trendy. And an established book store should not be experimenting with type trends. There is too much at stake. In one foul swoop it has lost credibility. It not longer feels like the established book store it once was. Now feels like something entirely different.

Have they panicked with this whole ebook technology, have they looked at Apple and see that actually you can go from serif to sans-serif and feel they should do the same. Have they assumed that to move more into a technological area one then needs to adopt a more modern identity? Did they just get bored and fancied a change? Well, that’s crap if they think any of those. A brand agency need to be as clear about the direction of the company being rebranded as the company themselves, if anything, more so. So someone has either given bad advice, or they have been micro-managed by heavy handed MD’s over at Waterstone’s. Either way, it will reflect very badly for all concerned. Think Tropicana.

I would argue that the previous logo would could have lasted for many more years, even decades. Maybe with a slight refreshing or tweaking of the serif font, but there is no way this logo could really age. Why not? Because it’s based on heritage, centuries of book publishing.

Waterstone’s have now irreversibly changed the very essence of what made Waterstone’s, Waterstone’s. The problem they will have is that in maybe 5 or 10 years is that this logo will fall victim to typeface trends. I maybe wrong, but I don’t think so. This has a limited shelf life and they may find themselves having to repeat this process again. Sooner than they maybe anticipated. As I said, as a logo standing on its own, its a nice design. But it’s not long lasting when put into the context of Waterstone’s and the history of book publishing.

By changing to this very smooth font, they have almost said ‘bollocks’ to their roots.

This isn’t to say that a book sellers can never use a sans-serif font, that’s not the point. Border’s had a sans-serif, although almost art-deco in it’s form. It was sturdy, it was serious.The red line creates the impression of book platform, a place to store your books, the letters spaced so that you could imagine pulling of each letter as a separate book volume.

A rebrand doesn’t automatically mean you have to start all over again, throw away all the history, heritage and reputation. Feel’s very much like a case of ‘we will because we can.’

This new logo for Waterstone’s looks anything but serious. Just looks ‘now’ and NOT a Waterstone’s bookstore. Huge mistake me thinks.

I wrote an article on aspects of the research and interview process necessary for a successful rebranding.

And breathe...

Article Posted On: May 14, 2010 by Graham Smith
Posted In Categories: Brand Identity, Famous Logos, Logo design, My Views

Before you rush off somewhere else. If you have found this post useful, I would greatly appreciate it if you would consider signing up to my RSS feed, or Email newsletter. Follow me on Twitter or FaceBook. There are also my prolific postings on Posterous.

Any Stumbles, Tweets, Shares etc would be more that most welcome, convenient share buttons follow.

RSS

Ben

Some big-knob at HMV wants everything to look the same. It’s naff – it looks like Superdrug!
Ben

Some big-knob at HMV wants everything to look the same. It’s naff – it looks like Superdrug!
http://toolboxdigital.com. Dan

The new “W” looks like an elongated bottom. How disappointing.
http://toolboxdigital.com. Dan

The new “W” looks like an elongated bottom. How disappointing.
http://deusdictum.com Mark Lee

Waterstone’s new ID is not just awful, it’s my first logo ever created awful. I’m serious — the first thing I ever did when I decided to become a designer was putting two sans “U”s together so they make “W”. It turned out to look exactly like this one.
http://deusdictum.com Mark Lee

Waterstone’s new ID is not just awful, it’s my first logo ever created awful. I’m serious — the first thing I ever did when I decided to become a designer was putting two sans “U”s together so they make “W”. It turned out to look exactly like this one.
http://alteredaspect.info Rob MacKay

I have to agree – if they were going to re-brand they needed to stay within the “book” feel – not try and go all modern. People love books – I love books – There is no way I would be reading for pleasure off a screen in the near future – it feels like they are trying to claw their way into some kind of digital age for fear of becoming obsolete.

Plus it looks like a pair of drooping testicals. lol
http://alteredaspect.info Rob MacKay

I have to agree – if they were going to re-brand they needed to stay within the “book” feel – not try and go all modern. People love books – I love books – There is no way I would be reading for pleasure off a screen in the near future – it feels like they are trying to claw their way into some kind of digital age for fear of becoming obsolete.

Plus it looks like a pair of drooping testicals. lol
http://paulgalbraith.com Paul Galbraith

I too would like to know their reason’s for the rebrand, maybe there were very good reasons. I’m not as against the new identity as many others seem to be, it does have quite a different feel to it and breaks from tradition, which some might question the logic of for such an established business. I have to say though, I do quite like the ‘W’ when illustrated in different ways (speech bubbles, x-ray etc).
http://paulgalbraith.com Paul Galbraith

I too would like to know their reason’s for the rebrand, maybe there were very good reasons. I’m not as against the new identity as many others seem to be, it does have quite a different feel to it and breaks from tradition, which some might question the logic of for such an established business. I have to say though, I do quite like the ‘W’ when illustrated in different ways (speech bubbles, x-ray etc).
Blonde

As far as I know from a friend that works at Waterstones (and has been informed of their re-brand), it was an instruction by HMV to bring everything in-line. Fears are that Waterstones won’t be around for that much longer as HMV look to scale down on their retail outlets and focus on their online sales and competition.

Unfortunately the reality is that we all buy books online because it is cheaper. It’s a sad but true fact. I’d love to say that I don’t buy online as a principle and to support great institutions like Waterstones, but I can’t. The ease, choice and cost of buying online makes it almost impossible not to.

That said, there is no excuse for this design. It look rushed and lacks inspiration.

Another sad example of the client leading the design perhaps?
Blonde

As far as I know from a friend that works at Waterstones (and has been informed of their re-brand), it was an instruction by HMV to bring everything in-line. Fears are that Waterstones won’t be around for that much longer as HMV look to scale down on their retail outlets and focus on their online sales and competition.

Unfortunately the reality is that we all buy books online because it is cheaper. It’s a sad but true fact. I’d love to say that I don’t buy online as a principle and to support great institutions like Waterstones, but I can’t. The ease, choice and cost of buying online makes it almost impossible not to.

That said, there is no excuse for this design. It look rushed and lacks inspiration.

Another sad example of the client leading the design perhaps?
http://imjustcreative.com/ Graham Smith

It’s not that I am against the actual design, it’s that I am against the implementation of it and the uncertainty why at a glip of a switch, they have killed a very solid and well known identity. I’m sure the new design can be implemented really well, but that’s just one very small aspect. The bigger picture here is the death of a well known brand identity, something which I know creates a lot of passion in people, and not just creative types.

It’s fair enough to break tradition if the need warrants it, it’s OK to try something new if the research backs it up… but I just feel that this new design would be more suitable to a brand new brand opposed to replacing an identity which had nothing wrong with it. I have seen the various bits of new marketing with the new design and for the most part, it’s pretty fresh, but I still say it’s too big of a change.
http://imjustcreative.com/ Graham Smith

It’s not that I am against the actual design, it’s that I am against the implementation of it and the uncertainty why at a glip of a switch, they have killed a very solid and well known identity. I’m sure the new design can be implemented really well, but that’s just one very small aspect. The bigger picture here is the death of a well known brand identity, something which I know creates a lot of passion in people, and not just creative types.

It’s fair enough to break tradition if the need warrants it, it’s OK to try something new if the research backs it up… but I just feel that this new design would be more suitable to a brand new brand opposed to replacing an identity which had nothing wrong with it. I have seen the various bits of new marketing with the new design and for the most part, it’s pretty fresh, but I still say it’s too big of a change.
http://imjustcreative.com/ Graham Smith

Yes, the ‘w’ on it’s own is VERY limp, has nothing going for it whatsoever. If they are to rely on fancy extras to make it work, then that’s a bad move I think.
http://imjustcreative.com/ Graham Smith

Yes, the ‘w’ on it’s own is VERY limp, has nothing going for it whatsoever. If they are to rely on fancy extras to make it work, then that’s a bad move I think.
http://www.imjustcreative.com ImJustCreative

That’s interesting news. Certainly add’s up. Have referenced this comment in the post. Thanks for sharing this news.

Still sad thought. :(
http://www.imjustcreative.com Graham Smith

That’s interesting news. Certainly add’s up. Have referenced this comment in the post. Thanks for sharing this news.

Still sad thought. :(
http://paulgalbraith.com Paul Galbraith

It is a big change, but maybe a necessary one. It’s easy to judge a rebrand without understanding the bigger picture. Of course we’re free to voice an opinion, but it feels like some people are all too ready to look negatively on a rebrand, in fact I’ve wrote a new blog article about the very subject, if anyone is interested – Rebrand Hate and Loathing
http://paulgalbraith.com Paul Galbraith

It is a big change, but maybe a necessary one. It’s easy to judge a rebrand without understanding the bigger picture. Of course we’re free to voice an opinion, but it feels like some people are all too ready to look negatively on a rebrand, in fact I’ve wrote a new blog article about the very subject, if anyone is interested – Rebrand Hate and Loathing
http://www.imjustcreative.com ImJustCreative

Hi Paul, welcome your comments. I started to write a reply and it ended up being a whole post, so have done just that. Your comment spurred me to a lengthy reply. :)

The Waterstones identity rebrand revisited
http://www.imjustcreative.com Graham Smith

Hi Paul, welcome your comments. I started to write a reply and it ended up being a whole post, so have done just that. Your comment spurred me to a lengthy reply. :)

The Waterstones identity rebrand revisited
Howard

Don’t you just want to give designers a good slap, sometimes.
If you are really interested in winding me up, try and concoct an identity that is essentially flawed from its inception. Take the new Waterstone’s identity for example, or should I say waterstone’s – because the designers clearly haven’t a clue of the grammatical blunder they are advocating. Is the ‘new’ brand waterstone’s with a lowercase w or is it Waterstone’s? Take a look at any of the supporting text on the ?aterstone’s site and the inconsistency is immediately apparent. What’s more, even the explanatory text on the offenders own website (I won’t name them as to heighten their embarrassment may seem hectoring) – but there in clear black and white the Company is listed in it’s work examples as Waterstone’s. What a bloody silly thing to do.
http://www.imjustcreative.com ImJustCreative

Just say what you mean, you’re amongst friends here. :0)

FIND YOUR WAY

Waterstones Rebrands a strong ID to a limp ID

This is what makes a brand, our perception of the company, NOT the companies perception of it’s self.

Look at this logo, it’s beautiful. Waterstone’s made the serif ‘W’ look beautiful, not boring. We see the ‘W’ and think Waterstone’s.

Now what will people think when they see this?

By changing to this very smooth font, they have almost said ‘bollocks’ to their roots.

This new logo for Waterstone’s looks anything but serious. Just looks ‘now’ and NOT a Waterstone’s bookstore. Huge mistake me thinks.

And breathe...

LOGO PROCESS ARTICLES

IDENTITY GUIDELINES

The Footer - Also known as 'The Bottom'

Send me a message