Instead of embracing that, they made it flat like an App icon. It will look shit on cars and it does not communicate that BMW builds _real machines_.
Everybody is going crazy about going digital and they forget what they are good at and what the customer likes them for.
If you are learning it from that basic level you cannot unsee badly unbalanced design. You cannot just remove a black background with a white one and keep everything unchanged (which is why dark themes sometimes suck as they don't get the extra love they need.
This thing looks like it has been made by the CEOs daugther in Powerpoint.
I love this. I know only a bit about graphic design, but this new logo just looks...cheap. My first thought was a high school student made it with whatever free software he could find while he was bored during class, and gave up after 30 minutes because class was over.
I'm not a big fan of the new flat VW logo either, although it's much better than this.
https://www.motor1.com/news/369756/volkswagen-new-logo-unvei...
The lack of both on the new version makes the letters look like they've been crammed into a tiny space at the top of a big empty ring.
This might have worked with new lettering with different proportions. But it's literally just a flat copy of the original letter shapes, without any of the original context.
The 3D effect on the original print/blueprint/engineering marker/quadrant feels dynamic. The impression changes as you move your eye over it. It conveys movement and substance. It works with the black to suggest a car tire, but also a sophisticated (black...) crafted object.
The new version looks like a printer reference mark. It's just... there. It doesn't do anything.
The grey is meaningless and neutral. Again, it's just there. It fills a space, and that's all. The transparent version doesn't even do that. There's literally nothing there.
Removing the 3D creates a uniform space inside the ring, which is why the letters now look as if they're squashed up at the top for no reason. There's poor alignment, and no metaphorical or literal highlight.
Overall it suggests that management don't care about engineering or about appearances.
The fact that you said "makes the letters pop" would send shivers down any designer's spine.
See here: https://i.imgur.com/uW4TGX2.png
To me, it looks like the mark on a crash test dummy.
I believe the logo was originally intended to represent a propeller.
1. Lack of depth...yes, depth can be introduced in any 2D/flat design utilizing color and space illusions
2. The curve/arch that the letters follow is not fully concentric to the center circle
3. The letters appear to be transformed vertically to make their height such that it fits between the outer circle and the inner circle...this in-turn throws of the original aspect ratio of each letter of the given font
Minor inconsistencies as such are aggravating for graphic designers who generally tend to be OCD. I hope this helps.
Anyway as someone who's spent the requisite sleepless nights I've been granted the power of justifying my taste. It's not the same as "why" because the understanding comes from a felt sense, and then I just make up some bullshit to explain it.
In this case the design isn't well composed because the removal of the background has left the logo un-grounded. The outer ring is now dominated by the letters B M W, making the design top heavy. Also worth noting is that the letters themselves are no longer balanced. The M and W are no longer the full cap-height in the center, which further unbalances the design by making it lighter to the right. The "simplicity" reduces legibility. The design is now dependent on the color of the background rather than working anywhere. Though I can't imagine a color upon which this logo would work better than the previous one. There's also an unpleasant visual ringing that occurs at hard edged transitions like the center of the checkerboard which was previously mitigated by the dividing lines.
Without the black, the text and the circle are just hanging out at the top of the outer circle, unbalanced against a large empty space at the bottom of the outer circle.
EDIT: Another way of putting it is that it looks like the text and inner circle could just bounce around inside the outer circle—they are "loose", and, as I said above, ungrounded.
What a poor result.
The white letters without background are perceived to be placed in space – you don't see the ring so you assume it is empty. The bavarian checkers in the middle seem to float in midair with letters crammed in above it. And this combination of floating and cramming makes it look bad.
With a dark ring this works much better, because the floating part is removed and the letters are on the ring instead of in it.
Used to. These days, not so much. And they're misfiring quite a bit. For example, the new X3 xDrive30e gets a measly 18 miles of electric range (EPA; real-world likely less). All of that added complexity and weight for very little benefit (in 2020 -- 10 years ago it would have been alright). No 3er manuals in the US anymore. Have you seen the rear of the new 3er which looks like Lexus IS? Have you seen what the 5er looks like, heck even in M5 guise? And so on, and so on.
Sry, I used to be a BMW guy and that touched (touches?) a nerve. They had the right formula when the i3 originally came out, and then someone at the top decided to effectively kill the program and most of their top EV engineers left. They would have been way ahead of where they are today, and of most of their competition, had they not intentionally shot themselves in the foot.
With that logo, it's a done deal, I'll never buy their product again. BMW was something you could identify with.
I would argue that they still pride themselves in the execution of the designs, even if you (and I) disagree with some of the design direction.
Statistically they may not be any better or worse than any other manufacturer, but I still can't convince myself that their craftsmanship is any better. The koreans pride themselves in their craftsmanship too, and their cars are a third of the price.
I love the older bmws for the driving experience but they require so much more maintenance than say a Lexus. The newer bmws meanwhile seem to be geared much more to the luxury market than driving enthusiasts (eg very few manual choices).
In general they were all beaters that barely ran, but they ran. One corolla went for 2 or 3 years without an oil change and had 2 cylinders with low compression. Friend never got it fixed, but the car was still running (although with very low power). I actually think the general reliability of these cars leads to them being in worse shape. They're running so why bother to fix it. The owners also had a drive it until it dies approach, just generally took a long time to die.
Employees maybe but the company strives to be a mobility service provider nowadays.
An overpriced design study with huge panel gaps everywhere?
Just like MB's w123 and w124 series.
Today, not so much.
This evolution of the logo is bad, but not because it's flat.
Like you're saying, the client very well might be requesting and choose a design that looks like it was made by an amateur.
Envision a black ring instead of black, no white border, and the letters B M W in a tighter, more modern sans serif. That could have been slick.
Instead BMW tries to transform its business to provide mobility. Its a service provider and the service is mobility. It is not the cars. The cars are the vehicle to provide mobility, one form of mobility.
BMW has several brands to communicate this mobility, which are ShareNOW, FreeNOW, and ReachNOW. ShareNow is what used to be DriveNow, which is the free floating carsharing. FreeNOW is the Uber-like Taxi-App. ReachNow is the Google/Apple Maps which includes public transport, Carsharing, Taxi, eScooter Rental, Bike Rental so that you can reach your desired destination the most efficient way.
Do they? You're commenting on a thread about their logo change which suggests they don't.
BMW has for very long time been primarily a brand. Take away the brand and they simply wouldn't compete in the market. They build real machines, but not very good ones. Look at Honda if you want an example of a company that is about the machines.
It's worth saying that due to taxing in USA they are a worse deal than in Europe.
As I said in another comment imported American cars aren't a good deal in Europe. Japanese are a good deal too, but there aren't really many options that are sporty AND practical.
And anyway, complaining that some luxury cars are a bit more expensive somewhere is a first world problem most people aren't lucky enough to have.
Regarding the cost of the goods, cars in particular are still cheaper in USA (even European ones). Most American states will have cheaper taxes than most European countries.
Regarding the rest of the goods, I don't know America nearly enough to have a strong opinion, but checking median salaries by state and median salaries by country in the European union I'm quite skeptical to believe most goods are actually cheaper.
Regarding the purchasing power I don't know either.
Everybody here is tripping for no reason.
This Logo design change is so out of left field too, since the craze about "going digital" feels almost a decade old at this point.
Designing a good logo is also craftsmanship.
I understand that there are people who want to impress others with their stuff, but if slapping a logo on it is what makes the car impressive... then the car is not impressive at all.
It needs that black ring. Would be fine if they brought it back
Don't know if a 3D logo works as a reminder of what BMW does.
I will hate a 3D logo in a company like SpaceX