Looks like a swastika made of dicks.

Edit: I do like the negative space though, but still... come on.

Not feeling it. Their old branding was iconic, friendly, and related to their product. I'm failing to see how this has any relation to the brand they've built and their product (not that it necessarily has to), and this new one feels more like a healthcare service from the 2000s.

Can't wait for the Brand New post on this.

Quick 2¢:

I mean, I don't hate it. I don't really like it either though. Feels a lot more generic. Not sure it achieves the "more instantly recognizable" thing they're looking for.

The post suggests that without consistency, a brand is unrecognisable, but I don't think I ever had any trouble identifying that something was "made by Slack". They use old landing page illustrations to show how things have become "inconsistent", but I haven't seen those landing pages in ~18 months, so why would they influence the way I see the brand now? It feels like they're trying to justify the changes to a design lecturer by creating this false narrative that "nobody understands when something is made by Slack, because the colours are different sometimes". Right, okay.

I mean, if Slack is all about "hearing different voices", then surely different interpretations of the hash mark is your brand? Different points of view that see the brand in different ways, but with one common thing that binds them all together, the hash mark. Surely that's the whole point? To celebrate difference within the same. Why would a top-down, enforced design system represent the diversity of the people that use Slack better than, you know, the many different interpretations of the brand created by the many different perspectives that actually make up their user base? Surely you can fashion these different perspectives into something more conceptually strong than another top-down design system that will inevitably fail to enforce compliance. The hash is everywhere, and it's the thing people think about when they think "Slack". Is it really worth sacrificing that deep-seated recognition at the altar of consistency?

If anything, it just seems like a missed opportunity to involve the community in the decision making process (and to reinforce core brand values, that people's voices come first, that discussion is important, and so on). "We really care about hearing what you have to say, so we decided to give the community some options to choose from." It just seems like an obvious home run.

It does work well on different colours, and some of the applications are really nice, but I think it's a stretch to think that people see that logo and go "Oh yes, that's definitely speech bubbles coming from different directions, which is what Slack is all about". The hash felt very.. iconic, and it's everywhere in the application. I just feel like there was an immediate, obvious connection that now feels lost in the shuffle.

New type feels much fresher. Its branding applications are lookin pretty good.

“…comprised of two basic geometric shapes—a speech bubble and lozenge—that can be extracted and used as graphic elements. The speech bubble evokes communication and connectivity, and will form the basis of a system of customized icons, illustrations and motifs with rounded corners that echo the shapes of the logo.”

Does anyone else see this as the Google Photos logo but positioned upside down?

My first thought is “pinwheel”. Their old logo was one of my favorites.

Preview:

Link: https://i.ibb.co/P4PPQR9/nice-logo-btw.png

It's fine - I doubt their logo in and of itself matters too much to their business and everyone will forget it's different in a couple months. This one solves a lot of problems from a consistency and versatility standpoint too. My only gripe is the dark purple background they're using with it a lot - it makes the colors look muddy and is super low-contrast. Not great for an icon you want to find easily many times a day. I would prefer it on white.

I like it. Brand refreshes are inevitable, and this one feels fresh and friendly.

Loved the justification blogpost

"We changed it because our own designers couldn't use the old one correctly"

Sounds like the problem was more poor designers or a poor creative director

Hey, Look! Another terrible execute & not-needed rebrand! Shame on you Slack... you have sadly been filed next to Dropbox on this one.

LOL https://twitter.com/charles_miller/status/1085617746346430465

Doesn't get the job done, especially in small dimensions.

Wrong Move. The old one was quite nice and still fresh and most of all: Timeless. if you play it right. This is just: we want something new. Why? Because.

"It was 11 colors". I only count 8 colors.

Reminds me of the Picasa logo from Google:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxEURmsUcAA8xV5.jpg

please get back!

:(

I think the new logo would be served much better with the old white background.

I like it.

Awesome! I think I like it even more because it's not plain, black and white, sans serif text.

Can anyone tell me where Pentagram found eleven colors in Slacks old logo? I count eight.

The Pentagram article I talk about.

The small shapes look like sweat drops, not conversation bubbles. Which is how you feel when you get back to your desk with 50+ unread :D

Terrible

The new logo moves away from the language centric "S" approach to a more language agnostic idea. Consider the possibilities of using regional languages where users won't feel alienated by an "S".

This may be a step in the right direction I think.