I think it looks great in application, especially on digital mediums. However, I would be lying if I didn't say that it pains me to see work such as this coming from firms such as Pentagram. It is not cheap to have Pentagram work on your brand. With that said, it's painful to see work coming from such firms that a Freshman Designer could have done in Keynote.

I do like it, but doesn't it feel a bit like it's been put through a 'flat design logo generator' ?

Michael Bierut had a 6-month deadline to design a new logo and on the very last day said, "Sh_t! I totally forgot about the Mastercard thing! What was their logo like in the 70's?"

Simple, but very nice animation:

Think it'll get a lot of flack from non-designers and the people against 'modern' design but personally I think it's lovely.

The alt lockup and icon by itself are brilliant and the applications are really nice.

Barring (potentially) the lowercase 'M' I don't know how they could have done much better.

I like it but it lacks brand identity.. they did the same with the MIT rebranding

http://weburbanist.com/2013/08/24/taking-names-famous-logos-without-their-brand-names/

Agree to disagree on this. Of course I haven't got access to the brief but I think we can still offer some criticism of the overall brand.

It's bland and uninspired in my opinion.

Why do I think so? Let me give you my impression of the MasterCard brand… It's a company that promises you your dreams - without the wait. It promises a better lifestyle - better food, better products etc. The redesign doesn't simply doesn't inspire.

Another commenter stated that the logo was simple like Nike, BUT unlike Nike, the supporting graphics don't offer any additional excitement. Nike place their logo on various graphic treatments. They express the different values of the different audiences they are targeting whether that's sneaker freaks or yoga enthusiasts. The MasterCard redesign (at least what we've seen) could easily apply to any banking organization. It has no voice.

Great design always has a tension to it. Whether that's clever use of scale, typography or colour. The logo in this case is almost too uniform. For a company the size of MasterCard I would have liked to see a bit more customization on the type face, that could roll out into the larger graphic language. Likewise the supporting imagery again lacks tension. People have said it harks back to Swiss design… but Swiss design played with things like scale, bold colour palettes and angled grids. Outside of simplicity this has very little in common with Swiss Design.

Of course it remains to be seen how the actual rollout will be handled, and many of my arguments may be irrelevant.

However the problem with this rebrand so far is… it's just OK.

I would love to know how much they got paid for this. Not hating, it looks good.

Love it.

Dudes need a 2x version on their website though.

I think designers at Pentagram have great talent. The talent which make things super boring and uninteresting.

Verizon, MIT Media Lab, The New School, UAL...

The 1990 logo puts this to shame. Belongs on a Behance unsolicited re design.

No Kappa

I think it's common for people to jump the gun and attack simple logos out of spite. Most probably assume the logo was easy to come up with when in reality the simple ones are the hardest. Humans tend to forget that less is more and always assume what others want without doing enough research to validate the assumption.

The end result, in this case in particular, is simple not doubt, but the problem with logo design in general is public perception of value.

Simple logos may have very well come together quick, but what you don't see is likely the massive amount of iterations, concepts, brainstorming sessions, sketches and more that went into creating it. This part of any design process doesn't get advertised and is why you have apps like Fiverr or something who offer logos for $5.

Just my $0.02 but you get what you pay for, I think the rebrand is solid and iconic. Mastercard needed to evolve. Pentagram helped them with that. The fact Pentagram worked with Mastercard automatically promotes value in their new logo mark for those who know of Pentagram and their long time success with brand development.

(Also posted on the other MasterCard logo thread.)

The 1996 logo's "color comb" and more trustworthy, formal, professional typeface lent MasterCard a more distinct personality and portrayed it—appropriately—as a behemoth corporation who works hard to handle people's money securely. I have yet to hear a thoughtful justification for replacing it with a more generic, less fitting, "radically simple" (to what end?) sequel. Would anyone care to debate or discuss with me?

A well-stated sentiment from the article's comments: "Rebranding isn't about making things different, it's about making things stronger and more fit for purpose based on sound business thinking."

That version from 1979 looks nice.

Sober and elegant. Very "modern" indeed.

I totally love them for being so brave. I love the typeface and the simplicity it brings to the brand. Makes for a much stronger branding.

I like that they went backwards in time and made it simple again (Like the early logos)

I really like it. And for all those people saying it was done on the back of a napkin, remember, simplicity is sometimes the hardest thing to get right.

I agree that it takes years of legacy to make a red and yellow circle feel iconic to you. I wouldn't have messed with that either, and would have used it as its biggest asset.

On the overall usage, however, I would be careful with how it is presented. For instance it reminds me a lot about the circles within circles trend from the mid-2000's and the billboard design looks like a James Bond intro: http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/4349701/james-bond-intro-o.gif

With such simplicity comes the responsibility of making it unique in all of its applications. And that's where simplicity becomes complex.