Comments on: Reader’s Digest New Logo: What do You Think?

By: Nancy

Nancy — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:30:38 +0000

I don’t really like the new version. I think Digest is too big. I also think the font looks kid-like. I don’t mind the red mark, but I prefer the old-style apostrophe. I’d rather the logo feel like an old bookshelf, instead of an online magazine. The original could use updating, but I think more attention needs to be given to the history of RD to ensure the new logo reflects more than a new look.

By: Tim

Tim — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 18:17:38 +0000

I think we have another ” New Coke ”
on our hands.

They’ve lost the focus on “Reader’s”
and focused more on “Digest”.

Are we supposed to eat it?

By: Rolando Amado

Rolando Amado — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:37:58 +0000

The new logo is great!……contemporary and fresh

By: Skot

Skot — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:05:54 +0000

That red stylized apostrophe is not original. I think like UPS they killed a Logo that was timeless and tuned it into something cliché. One thing I noticed in this Logotype is that the Digest seems to have become more important than the Readers. I think that’s what bugs me the most.

By: Hanz

Hanz — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:24:54 +0000

Nice work. Red stylized apostrophe is cool.

By: Danny

Danny — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:43:56 +0000

I agree, the old logo was instantly recognizable, which made me feel a little partial to it. But after a good look, the new logo looks better. I don’t care much for the speech bubble, it’s subtle, but doesn’t make a big enough impact for me. The “I” and the “R” looks a little weird to me, my eyes seem to be more drawn to the relationship between those two letter rather than the speech bubble.

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:11:22 +0000

The second logo is much cleaner and more contemporary. I think they did a beautiful job nesting the type. I am sure this logo has been through the ringer a few to many times and from experience I know to get an old established look to a new youthful feel is no easy task. This is a beautiful execution.

By: denise t

denise t — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:59:03 +0000

I would love to see all the other idea samples that they came up with before they selected this one. I certainly would have played more with the original “R” more and added color or some other graphic element… changing the look has simply just changed the emphasis to the “D” now. Yes its a digest= a compilation of articles in a shortened version….but still. this new look reminds me of another company’s logo, but i can;t recall who…maybe some drug company product or something.

By: Managed Dedicated Servers

Managed Dedicated Servers — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:49:24 +0000

What a drastic change! I really like the new logo much more than the previous logo.

By: Jiah

Jiah — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:18:56 +0000

I really didn’t like at&t’s logo at first but it grew on me. This seams like a clean design. I don’t know why they used the red apostrophe and the stylized “D” are we sure it is a speech bubble and not just a broken stroke. Anyone know the cost of this work? The red apostrophe reminds me of nabisco I think.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:32:17 +0000

Wow, what a shocking change. What I liked about the old logo is that it seemed very literary with the serif font. They could have just altered that logo slightly, adding the web address, or adding color strategically. And what is with the emphasis on Digest? I thought the point of the Reader’s Digest is the readers. Digest just makes me think of food digestion. I guess I don’t really see the D as a speech bubble so much as a stylized D, probably because the leg of the bubble is so short. The whole thing just speaks to me as a dumbed down version. I guess maybe that will bring in more diverse reading ability levels, I don’t know. I don’t like it…

By: Max

Max — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:39:05 +0000

Bad touch. The new logo is generic and cluttered in terms of space, color and concept. Unless they’re absolutely hemorrhaging readers, trading their cultural relevance–which in this case is the brand heritage–for a website no one will visit and a trite and unrecognizable speech bubble is a silly move.