Yesterday I was shown a most unfortunate and horribly misguided logo "re-branding". Of course, this "new and improved" logo is nothing new to the re-branding urgency that is plaguing corporations throughout the globe. The "re-brand" is often a compliment to 3 factors; a merger or acquisition, a new product launch, or corporate restructuring (a new CEO, a new location, etc). But in the last 5 years there's been a new factor -- the need to be "relevant" in the "global marketplace" -- in other words, boredom and share holder pressure. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with wanting to refresh an old, out-dated brand, as long as the brand is still adhering to the basic rules and principles of a successful mark:

The logo must be concise and simple, a compelling symbol of the theme or object; its form must be easy to understand and imprint itself on the mind. It must be unique and have no resemblance to to any existing logo.J. Müller-Brockmann, "The Graphic Artist and his Design Problems", p61 (Verlag Niggli AG, 1961)

Yesterday I was shown the new Adobe Photoshop logo. The logo was introduced, not because there is a new Photoshop version, or any distinctive changes within the company -- as best I can tell, they redesigned "just because". I really love E.T. but I don't see how he has anything to do with digital imaging. Sadly, Adobe isn't the only company to fall prey to unfortunate re-branding faux pas ... here's my list brand redesigns that are less than stellar. 95% of brand redesigns have used an ugly and meaningless new formula; The Poser Rule (in reference to the 3D interface developed my MetaCreation's Poser application) where you take the existing logo and do one or all of the following:

1. Add 3D effect
2. Add a drop shadow
3. Add shadow and highlights
4. Add gradient effect for good measure
5. Use a "hip" sans-serif font.

UPS.
In 2003 UPS started the craze in a certain style of brand redesigns, setting an unfortunately precedent in substituting effective communication through a concise and clear mark, for style and visual gimmicks that do nothing but add visual noise. Why not update the mark Rand created? Why destroy it and go for the meaningless, 3D-like badge?

AT&T.
They learned well from UPS. Did they apply the formula? Let's see -- take what you had, make it look 3D? Check. Add gradients? Check. Add drop shadows? Check. Add shadows and highlights? Check. Add gradients? Check. And add a new "hip" font? Check.

Alcatel Lucent.
Remember that cool red brush-stroked circle that Lucent Technologies used to have? It had the old-world Chinese handwriting look (the Innovation Ring). Well, the "formula" was yet again applied, and the results -- less than revolutionary.