No products in the cart.
Google recently unveiled the new rebranded logos for a variety of products across their ecosystem. These rebranded logos seek to bring the logos of a variety of well-known apps under one cohesive aesthetic and brand identity. While they may have succeeded in comping up with a set of logos that are aesthetically cohesive, they have created a usability nightmare for many users who struggle to identify their once familiar apps easily.
From my personal experience interfacing with the new logos on the Android OS, I too have struggled to find my way through the Google app directory as a result of the new rebrand. It is something that no one would have though would be so critical but it really is! The experience of having to snap out of your flow or initial thought to reset and take the extra 2 seconds to correctly identify which app you need to open is truly a jarring experience and I don’t think it is an experience unique to myself.
Let’s talk about what these logos bring to the table; These new logos use the same color schemes, same orientations and same design principles (use of negative space, flat icons etc.). While these may all seem like positives to someone speaking about “adhering to brand guidelines” , I think they have been designed with a key factor missing from the equation, Usability. Each of these new uniform logos replaced an individual product with its own brand identity which the users had interfaced with for almost a decade. To take that and not only change it but make it comically similar to a suite of other apps is setting the user up for failure.
To me, this is an example of what happens when design is executed in isolation without an anchor/perspective on how the new design will impact the actual functionality of the product.
From a strategic perspective, I can understand why Google may see this an a necessary step towards creating a more cohesive app ecosystem that they can slowly root further into people’s tech-psyche. I also think that Google benefits from having a variety of product with strong enough value proposition that they don’t have to worry too much about customers leaving due to a poor user experience design. Maybe a year from now, no one will notice. But then again, the fact that the change has made such a splash may suggest that not everything that is old needs to be replaced with something new.
