Design Requirements for NetApp’s New Logo

I love our old logo, and I’m going to miss it. NetApp has been an important part of my life, and I’ve built up many positive associations with that logo over the years. Part of what’s fun is the way some lines are missing; for many people, it takes a while before it “pops” as a 3D image – almost like an optical illusion.

So I’m sympathetic to people who wish we’d kept the old logo. I’ve been asked: Do you like that new logo? What was wrong with the old one? What does the new logo mean?

I’ll answer these questions, but to me they miss the most important point, which is: How do you design a logo that helps drive higher awareness? It’s okay to ask whether you like something, but when you consider a designed object, you should also ask whether it meets the design requirements. Here were ours:

1. visually distinctive
2. memorable and easy to get
3. foundation of a visual system (not just a stand-alone symbol)
4. can absorb meaning and feeling over time

The first two requirements are subtly different. Our previous logo was visually distinctive; I’ve never seen another one like it. But it was hard to remember or describe. Also, the 3D-optical-illusion thing was a problem, since some people never did get it. One person asked, “Why is your logo an arrow pointing down to the left?” Another asked, “Why do you have a forward C and a backward C next to each other?” Perhaps technical talent correlates with 3D visualization skills, because it was mostly non-technical people who saw a confusing 2D image, but that was a problem for our goal of driving awareness in business people.

Visually distinctive does not mean “unique in all the world”; it just means unique within the tech industry. So it’s not a problem that there is a Dutch automotive supply company with a similar logo. Apple Records and Apple Computer had similar names and logos for decades without trouble, until Apple got into the music business. (I love the closing comment from The Register article on this: “Lawyers for the Arc de Triomphe and Stonehenge were last seen kicking the dirt dejectedly.”)

The idea of a visual system is to create a common look and feel that lets you easily spot material from the same company. This before-and-after comparison shows the difference. Individually, the before materials are fine pieces of work, but it’s hard to see that they all come from NetApp.

Notice how we use the logo as the foundation of our visual design. Sometimes we use fragments of the logo, or shapes that are reminiscent of the logo, as in www.netapp.com. Other times a large logo interacts with other images, as a platform to hold them up, or a gateway for them to step through. The complex shape of the old logo was hard to use as anything except a stand-alone symbol.

It’s funny how logos absorb meanings and feelings. Why would two arcs painted a particular color represent food? There is no logic to it, but when I drive down the interstate and see those golden arches, it definitely means hamburgers and french fries. I know that the golden arches don’t inherently “mean” hamburgers, and I won’t argue that they are an artistic triumph, but over time this simple symbol has built up powerful associations.

The Arc de Triomphe inspired our “blue gateway” logo. The triumphal arch is a symbol of victory and progress going back thousands of years. I understand that there’s nothing inherent in the shape that means “innovative enterprise storage that helps you go further and faster toward your goals,” but if we continue helping our customers to succeed, then it will absorb those positive associations over time, just like the old logo did. I don’t know if the new logo is artistically better than the old one, but I think it’s a better symbol for NetApp.

As I said, I loved the old logo, but after 16 years, it no longer met NetApp’s logo requirements. It’s no surprise that I like the new one, since I helped chose it. More importantly, the new logo meets the design requirements much better than the old. And I love the flexible way we are using it as the foundation for our visual identity.

Comments

[TimC]

So when can we expect an updated filerview? I'm getting sick of looking at those old F-series heads!

:)

For what it's worth, I like the new design, but that beating heart on the front page kind of weirds me out.

[ChrisB]

I just wonder how much this added to the bottom line price of the filers. Changing that kind of branding world wide can't be cheap.

[Dave replies: I don't expect this to change our prices. In the short run, we are hunting for other places to save as we fund this. In the longer run, I believe that better awareness will actually lower our overall cost of sales. It costs less to sell to people who already know who you are.]

[TimC]

@chris: none. That would be why they basically gave the finger to wallstreet and lowered their projections for the next quarter. It's coming out of their margins, it isn't increasing the cost of filers.

[Brian T. O'Neill]

Just one question...

How long till someone asks "why is your logo an upside down U?"

[Dave replies: You were the first! :-) ]

[Steve Rodrigues]

While I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of improving NetApp's brand awareness, the 'before' and 'after' pictures don't tell me how great the new logo is and how it forms the basis for a visual system; they tell me that consistency in the use of the logo and your branding is a good thing. The 'before' photo illustrates 15 years of (subtly or not-so-subtly) different messaging policies -- the 'after' illustrates <15 days of one.

(The logos I find memorable are the ones that have recognizably stayed the same over years and that haven't changed their messaging very much: McDonalds, Coke, Starbucks, IBM. Apple might be the "biggest" change in my lifetime of the really memorable ones and all they did was lose the rainbow, which no one younger than me even remembers.)

[Kleber]

I pretty understand the reason you stated for changing the old logo (in spite I also loved it!), however I do not understand the reason for choosing a so simple and unfashion new one. At least it could be more impactive and detailed. Sorry, but I did not hear from anyone enjoying it... :(

[Anonymous]

The logo also resembles 'n' (maybe for netapp)

[outside looking in]

Was there a contest for ideas? Any vote for preference or acceptance? Sorry folks, but it sounds like you missed a prime marketing opportunity to build identity, excitement & awareness among a valuable customer segment -- your employees.

[kstephens]

Not sure I get why you would take a technical company with a 3d logo, which was stated in the article as being recognized by "most" technical people, and change it to something that those non-technical monkeys we call managers can understand. Changing the name to NetApp is pretty much in-line with what everyone in the industry calls you anyway, so that seems a pretty understandable change. But changing your logo to become more recognizable seems counter-intuitive to me. So instead of going technical and 3d you now have a lego block as a design. Nice even my little kids can understand you are a non-technical toy company, now.

[Vince]

Why the EMC blue? :D

Seriously though, all this is good but you're losing your current customers because of your premium prices and arrogant sales/district managers. Why should a company have to pay 4 to 8 times the other offerings such as BlueArc, Celerra, OnStore etc Maybe back in 2000 but doesn't make sense now when NetApp has serious competition.

[Bruce Leverett]

I do not share your regret about the old logo. I remember that when Spinnaker was acquired, I thought we were getting a pretty good deal, except that we lost a good logo. I admit, the Spinnaker logo wouldn't have survived this branding transition either. But it had a certain je ne sais quoi, while the nut+bolt had "geek" written all over it :-)

[Steve Windsor]

OK. So you went from cool colors (purple/orange) and a differentiated company/brand/logo/web site to IBM cold blue and a weird looking pumping heart on the front page...A decision only a CEO can make. As far as driving awareness goes...I am now aware that you know how to waste money on useless marketing errors. FYI...igorinternational.com will show you the error of your ways.

[Shibin Zhang]

Why are you changing LOGO? What happened?

[Jason]

Your new logo actually does have a 3D aspect to it. A Lone NetApp rack in an empty data center. Maybe I'm stretching it a bit.. ;-)

[Todd]

Who "designed" this? It looks like a customer bending over.

The majority of these comments seem to be from competition taking a low blow. I guess they have to get their digs published someplace as all the press on our company is positive and suggests we are market leaders and innovators. To the poster on March 19 (not that they'll be reading the comments now) I would ask how in touch they really are with branding and awareness? Cisco just changed their logo completely as well. Most companies tweak their logos in some fashion every 2-3 years! I like the new logo a lot. It is simple and straightforward and suggests a strong foundation.