15 thoughts on "Into the past - and into the future - new Citroën logo"

  • blank

    Looks like a military rank. For example, sergeants in the Swiss army. Back to basics is not always progress. Hope Citroën doesn't make the same mistake with DS.

  • blank

    It's a good thing that the 3 design from 2009 is now finally gone in two steps ...

    It is still incomprehensible to me today how many agencies, graphic designers and customers ticked in one way or another. Citroën wasn't the only fashion victim there...

    Just because it was possible new, e- and print media without any problems, it was far from good and right - and certainly not better!

    You don't always have to do everything, just because it's possible doesn't always mean you have to go along with everything.

    Incidentally, the 3-D nonsense with its gradients and preferably several colors could only be implemented cleanly in e-media.

    Of course, you can also print such a logo. But not on everything. And not without looking awful. You certainly can't embroider, engrave, emboss or etch it...

    But a good logo can do everything and always works! It's completely independent of colors, gradients, animation and any dummies that you might add without needing to.

    None of this increases the recognition value, increases awareness, simplifies marketing, enables attractive products in merchandising. Citroën is better advised with the youngest logo than with the last two ...

    • blank

      ... didn't even fall on Mercedes with such a 3D version (and especially printed products) ..... somehow I still have a story like that in the back of my head.

  • blank

    I definitely liked the current logo better.

    • blank

      Kind of yes... It's too vintage for me.

    • blank

      There's something to it too...

      Between 1959 and until 2022 (the presentation of the most recent logo), the double angles were equal in size and tapered outwards and downwards...

      So both of these shape traits have existed for 63 years, should have been retained for the most recent and 1959 is vintage enough.

      While I don't like the two predecessors any better for the reasons mentioned above, the new logo could have been better than it was made out to be...

      The double angle used from 1959 and up to 2009 was more aspiring, more dynamic, more concise than its predecessors. And it was simpler than the 3D Boomerang design from 2009...

      The recollection beyond 1959 goes too far for me. What also bothers me is that the new figurative mark is reminiscent of badges on the sleeves of uniforms. Alternatively to painted Easter eggs. Both associations that are certainly not wanted, that could have been avoided ...

  • blank

    I like that! 100% successful!

    • blank

      I, on the other hand, don't find it very successful in this case.
      “More modern” or “social-media-compatible” is not always (for me) more progressive (see, for example, Engelbert Strauss and a few others, which is particularly topical).

      I often like to skim such reports on corporate design or redesign here:
      But even then, the latest version of the Citroën logo doesn't seem to have been mentioned (last report October 5, 2021).
      Tom is just too quick (and/or knowledgeable). 😉

      • blank

        I think the only thing that bothers me the most is the “o”.

        • blank

          The “o” is like a foreign body

          • blank

            ... and I found the "angle" (roughly about 45°) of 66 und ´85 (in einem Oval) auch irgendwie besser als die Versionen von zB von ´19 oder22 (about 38°).
            And with a more acute angle, the “oval” would also be better filled.

            ... and if a logo already has an "ellipse", then I would also attach it uniformly to cars (and not there differently than a circle).

            I tend to find “uniform logos” better and better and think that they generally have a higher recognition value.
            (many people complain about the confusing “diversity of logos” at adidas, for example, but there isn’t a lot like that at Nike, for example; one of my favorite examples is also Karhu: bear as Lofo, but there’s always an “M” on the shoes {for Mestari})

            Oh ... and with "not so good redesign" I also think of the current BMW logo .... I think that's a big step backwards.

            • blank

              The relaunch of a trademark is always associated with a risk. Does the customer go along with you, or not?

              I like the new signet, but it boldly takes a wide berth. Will that get everywhere? Saab was less brave in 2011. The farewell to the griffin would have been slower and phased, as would the return to the airplane symbol.

              Incidentally, I still positively associated the red/white 80s symbol with the brand. It's certainly not the most successful variant, but it stands for my time in Citroën, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

              • blank

                Funny. I also think 1985 was very successful. For me it is the most relevant...

              • blank

                Yes ... the 80's logo is still the most formative for me.
                It may also be due to the fact that that was the “most formative” (youth) time for me and I actively and consciously had my first personal contacts with the brand. (via acquaintances of my parents from Zurich, who always came to us for nudist holidays on the coast ... nudist - bah) 🙂

      • blank

        Sorry, one more small addendum:
        An oval logo (ellipse), for example, on rims or the like, always looks a bit "egg-like" even when it's moving....

Comments are closed.