if i'm reading this evolution chart correctly, the new logo is legs.
Yes, the new logo immediately reminded me of the Chinese character/ word for person:
And/ or - dueling tubes of electro-shock blue lipstick.
A reminder to never skip leg day :D
Sorry Charlie, the first rule of being bold, don't call yourself "bold"
While the new "A" mark is a nice graphic, it is generic. Any company could use a graphic A. Using the Greek God Atlas provided something a bit more concrete, something that Atlassian could "own".
The Atlas mark reminds me of those gym and supplement logos I see everywhere.
To follow the company brand direction, all of their product logos have been changed to a generic ones too.
While the Apple is a nice graphic, it is generic. Any company could use an Apple. Using Newton sitting under a tree provided something more concrete, something that Apple could "own".
I think it's a matter of how much money/work you can invest in your brand. If you are coca cola you can own the color red in soft drinks. If you are a small company maybe you can own burgundy red within cider drinks or something. So sure Atlasian could try to own the letter A, but it's gonna be hell of a lot more work.
Atlassian have a market cap of 7.86 Billion at the time I'm writing this comment.
But that's not even the point - I don't think Atlassian are trying to own the letter A.
Like us, you may notice important symbolism around teams in the new Atlassian logo – two people high-fiving, a mountain ready for teams to scale, or even the letter A formed from two pillars reinforcing each other.
In this statement above, you can see that the letter A is almost relegated to an afterthought in what they want their logo to represent. Yes - the letter A is a part of what makes their logo - but it is not the definition of it.
It is true that it's a little bit generic looking but also it's very stylish and minimalistic and works well when being very small for favicons and whats not. And being so thick it works very well being a mask for images and illustrations.
All product logos are now very consistent (same thickness and gradient) which is a nice touch. Congrats to the designers at Atlassian for pulling this off. Atlassian had all these talented designers for a while but was very conservatively not changing anything. And now all those product pages, illustrations, and logos appear. Good Job!
BTW, I love the crucible logo the most (don't know what crucible is but I dig it :D )
I don't mind it :)
Their awesome products and story are what make me love them, regardless. If anything, their efforts in ramping up design and uniform branding is apparent and appreciated.
The change seems to have a backbone of unification, rather than 'boldness'. Changing all the product logos to exist under a design system similar to that of the logo solidifies the brand identity. It can be seen in practice with Google's products. In more of a visual sense, I agree that the logo feels a bit safe and generic. I think this is fine, since the main Atlassian logo should be something more iconic and symbolic, but the product logos could have used a bit more creativity. They are significantly differentiable now, but not necessarily notable enough to tell apart without the logotype. It's interesting to note that the Trello logo hasn't changed at all, and their decision to keep its logo despite owning the product.
Since a visual identity change usually comes as nauseating to its users, it's frustrating to see them reveal this new logo, and back up the identity with an unclear description of their values ('open work'). From the user's perspective, it would be less jarring if we understood Atlassian's new teamwork strategy, open work, and then were revealed this new logo and identity that supports it.
Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see if there will be any changes to the user interfaces in their products to support this new identity and its values, or if the change is just visual.
I kind of liked the people branding—but hey, now I can tell the difference between JIRA and Confluence in my Chrome tabs.
This feels like a good move. It's much more polished and more in line with their enterprise direction.
I think it's a neat evolution of their brand (and what I personally thought was an out-of-date logo previously).
As silly as the dynamic logos at the bottom were — pizza, Sydney Opera House, etc. — they did a great job having a unique illustration style that made the new logo come to life.
As a Jira/Trello user, I'm a fan. No, it's not bold in being drastically different (is anything?) but it is bold in that it's a comprehensive visual refresh for a large brand, which always risks some kickback. The look is appropriate, clean, and modern, and stuff like the Jira nav is now a little clearer. I'm a fan, anyway. :)
They are easily distinguishable. They are all very clearly part of the parent brand now as well. Do you have an example of what you think they should have done?
G suite (sheets, slides, docs). They feel like the same family; yet distinguishable at the size of favicons on browser tabs.
If I would be a first timer, I would say that's a campaing tent
I think any logo or icon can work well, when done right. We saw that in the Google rebrand. It's not incredible or crazy, but the brand works so well across their products and at all sizes, so it became incredible instead of just "ok."
But when I look at this rebrand, I feel like it's in the same boat: A decent logo, but unlike Google this feels like it lacks execution and attention to detail. That "A" completely falls apart at small sizes. If they adjusted the gradient and spacing for smaller versions, it could be nice.
I also don't know how "brandable" that A feels with the illustrated versions. Feels like Airbnb's logo was in their initial brand inspiration bucket and they thought "We should do some fun illustrated logos, too!" As it stands this just feels mediocre.
Other than Google, have you got some examples for who you feel does not lack execution and attention to detail in their brand?
It would be interesting to get a better gauge on what you consider is a good brand.
Yep! The Mastercard Rebrand, the Graphcore rebrand, the Polaris system by Shopify. https://polaris.shopify.com/
Not really an improvement on the old brand, but I guess someone felt this needed precedence over the rest of the experience.
Here's their blog post explaining the logo redesign: https://www.atlassian.com/blog/archives/behind-the-scenes-of-the-atlassian-logo-redesign
I also find the "A" generic. I'm a huge fan of their previous "Atlas" logo. I love the boldness, yet simplicity. And I love the consistency across (some) of their products, with the presence of Atlas tying each back to their brand.
A question I ponder. Yes, the product logos are now consistent with the brand, across the entire line. But I argue that each, looked at individually, is not memorable; each lacks individuality and will likely result in poor consumer recognition. When you take away their names, it becomes difficult to tell which one each represents (with a few exceptions, e.g. Trello and Hipchat whose logos changed the least). Is this acceptable for a B2B product where consumer recognition isn't as important?
The associated icons seem like an afterthought. That Bamboo icon in particular is pretty bad.
Was that internal job or they hired some agency? :)