Comments on: Waterstones Rebrands a strong ID to a limp ID

By: ImJustCreative

ImJustCreative — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:42:00 +0000

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

By: Howard

Howard — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:29:00 +0000

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.

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Sun, 16 May 2010 09:20:34 +0000

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

By: ImJustCreative

ImJustCreative — Sun, 16 May 2010 09:20:00 +0000

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

By: Paul Galbraith

Paul Galbraith — Sun, 16 May 2010 01:55:30 +0000

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

By: Paul Galbraith

Paul Galbraith — Sun, 16 May 2010 01:55:00 +0000

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Sat, 15 May 2010 08:56:45 +0000

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

Still sad thought. :(

By: ImJustCreative

ImJustCreative — Sat, 15 May 2010 08:56:00 +0000

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

Still sad thought. :(

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:40:43 +0000

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.

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:40:00 +0000

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.

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:39:48 +0000

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.

By: Graham Smith

Graham Smith — Fri, 14 May 2010 17:39:00 +0000

By: Blonde

Blonde — Fri, 14 May 2010 16:13:59 +0000

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?

By: Blonde

Blonde — Fri, 14 May 2010 16:13:00 +0000

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?

By: Paul Galbraith

Paul Galbraith — Fri, 14 May 2010 13:28:45 +0000

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).