I applaud the time and effort they took into researching the brand as it stands today, but they aren't thinking about the behavior and expectations of the actual consumer.
For example, people who buy Adidas Originals like the old-school look and appreciate that it looks just like stuff from 3 decades ago or more. That's the point. That's what they are buying. Slapping a new, minimal logo on a classic Gazelle or Samba would sell WORSE. It defeats the point of the entire line in the first place. When Nike re-releases classic Air Jordans, they aren't slapping a new logo and lettering on it to make it consistent as part of an over arching brand. People are attracted to the classic stuff because it FEELS less corporate, unified and mass produced.
It's not hurting the brand. Even NIKE, which he kind of unfairly made look more unified that it is, has plenty of differing sub-branding treatments on products.
These can be seen here:
Overall, I appreciate the desire to unify, but sometimes a company's offerings are simply too grand to put under one visual umbrella. Consumers LIKE differentiation. By giving their larger sub-branches a unique identity gives that product a unique voice and a chance to "speak" to a niche market, etc. This stuff can't be glossed over.
I'm not that fussed by the outcome, seems overly simplified and not recognisable, but the research into Adidas's current logo situation is interesting
SOMEBODY STOP THIS MADNESSSSSSS
thing is... it's adidas AG with a lowercase 'a' — no uppercase "A" is allowed. Looking through, this guy definetely done his research but to write it incorrectly I just don't understand it. Further info: http://www.adidas-group.com/en/brands/adidas/
A great read!
I applaud the time and effort that went in to putting this together - it's certainly good food for thought.
Whilst I disagree with his outcome (especially his proposal which I think lacks dynamism) I did get me thinking about the brand and what separates it from Nike.
Benjamin Rogers made a great point; people buy the classic stuff because it's old-school and they love the leaf. They don't want a modern logo. That can't be fixed for the existing products, but in 2034 when people buy stuff from 2014 it would be useful to make the changes now so that they benefit in the long run.
Reebok make for a fascinating case-study. They totally rebranded, and although they cornered the Cross-Fit market, their stores are a significantly better experience than they used to be - and miles ahead of what Adidas offer.
The screen-grab from the 2005 website is the strongest. There are 2 choices; fashion and performance. That for me makes everything better.
Looks shooped. (Great job on the research!)