Reader’s Digest New Logo: What do You Think?
Readers’ Digest recently updated their logo. I’m not too sure what to think of it yet. It just seems like the old logo was so instantly recognizable. Here are a few of the changes that I noticed when I first saw the new logo.
- Sans serif vs. serif
- Emphasis on Digest vs. Reader’s
- Red stylized apostrophe vs. black apostrophe
- Speech bubble in “D” vs. no speech bubble
- URL vs. no URL
Call me old fashioned, but I think the old logo was great. We all know that the majority of the readership is my grandma and your grandma. RD is probably trying to attract new, younger readers. Will it work? Did they alienate their current readership? What do you think?
December 17th, 2007
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.
December 18th, 2007
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…
December 18th, 2007
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.
December 18th, 2007
What a drastic change! I really like the new logo much more than the previous logo.
December 26th, 2007
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.
December 26th, 2007
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.
December 28th, 2007
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.
January 8th, 2008
Nice work. Red stylized apostrophe is cool.
January 10th, 2008
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.
February 11th, 2008
The new logo is great!……contemporary and fresh
July 23rd, 2008
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?
July 25th, 2008
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.