| I'm a designer, and from my perspective these are all either incredibly generic or very poorly executed. It's an open exploration though, and they do admit the need for refinement. Direction 2 is the strongest in terms of execution, but it's like they googled "stock developer logo." It's literally something any developer-facing tech company anywhere could use. Nothing about it is unique to Mozilla. Direction 1: The crocodile-looking thing seems to be an effort at modernizing the dinosaur mark, but it's just so bad (the mark without the mouth feels decent and unique, but once you add the mouth it's like a bad joke). Stylistically it feels like something HotBot would have done in 1998 down to the random caPitaL lEttEr treatment. Design direction 4 is trying to capitalize on a really popular (but now dwindling) faceted/stained-glass "data" trend... it's already starting to look dated due to overuse, and on top of that is really poorly executed (blobby rabbit, anyone?). Design Direction 3 is mind-numbingly literal, it's like the first idea from a Sophomore design student. Some of the supporting patterns where the mark is simplified and abstracted beyond the "M" start to look interesting — but the main "M" mark is muddled mess. Just look at the all-white example on a poster, it's almost objectively hideous. I think their existing lower-case 'mozilla' type treatment is generally friendly and recognizable and there's nothing wrong with it — this exercise would be more interesting if they stuck with that and looked into more options to modernize the T-Rex... I could easily imagine mozilla as a "mascot" heavy brand in the same vein as Mailchimp (but maybe dialed back a tad in the cuteness factor). Addendum: Look at the homepage for their design partner Johnson Banks (http://johnsonbanks.co.uk/), and look at the shirt in Option 2 — give me a break. You don't even have to go beyond a single degree of separation to see how generic that concept is. Addendum 2: Holy shit, look at these other options their agency partner has explored — these have their own issues and would need a lot of refinement, but are infinitely more interesting than these posted options: route B (very '90s and the 'mozilla' treatment is a bit too abstract, but I think it could be pushed to a really nice place): https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-b-the-conne... route F (combining a few existing trends, but it's eye-catching, fun, and I'd like to see more of it): https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/design-route-f-the-impos... I'm not sure if these options mean that Mozilla doesn't know who they are, or their agency partner doesn't know who they are — but it really seems like a brand lost in the woods. |