Facebook recently unveiled its first-ever corporate logo. Facebook’s new corporate logo acts as a unified logo that brings its family apps together. The logo represents the company as a whole plus its subsidiaries which include Whatsapp, Instagram, Oculus and Facebook. Facebook’s new corporate logo uses custom typography and capitalization to create a visual distinction between the company and app. The logo will appear on all the company’s platforms and it will appear in different colours depending on which platform it’s being viewed on.
Since the debut of Facebook’s new corporate logo, designers have been weighing in on their thoughts on the logo. Their reactions have been ranging from good, bad to ugly.
Here’s what designers think about Facebook’s new corporate logo.
Jan Eumann, creative director, Wolff Olins
As a logo for a holding company, it’s neutral enough, well-drawn, and the fact that it can adapt to its product brands is a nice flex, especially if the role of Facebook becomes more apparent within each product. Facebook’s overall direction though—different story.
Kelli Miller, creative director and partner, And/Or
As far as corporate wordmarks go, this is a very nicely designed one. The typography feels familiar while also being unique and ownable. Some honest-to-goodness design craft went into the creation of the logo. It feels considered and contemporary, and has the flexibility to work nicely amongst the suite of Facebook brands without competing with them. The name confusion is going to be the biggest and most glaring challenge with this brand decision. It’s a pretty big head-scratcher.
I appreciate the effort to reframe the brand image of FACEBOOK (do we have to do that now? All caps?), but it feels like terrible timing. It might have been more successful if they had worked on regaining the public’s trust in real, actionable ways versus using marketing and branding as a tactic to reposition themselves. People are very savvy about these things. It’s going to be hard to use a nicely designed logo as an olive branch.
Dave Snyder, chief creative officer, Firstborn
It’s nice. It’s well crafted. In particular, I’m a fan of the “K” and the shape the leg makes off of the stem. I also find the ever-so-slight bulge found on the “A” quite smart. It’s simple and very well balanced.
I do think they should have considered a name other than Facebook for the corporate brand. That being said, by introducing a new name, they may open themselves up for an easier federal push to “break them up.” I have to imagine this was discussed
Phil Koh, director of strategy, Without
The rebrand would seem to be an attempt to distance the group from the toxicity of the social network. From Cambridge Analytica to Russian election manipulation to explicitly allowing political advertising known to be lies, the Facebook brand tracks pretty negatively in current public discourse.
Perhaps by associating Facebook more obviously with more popular services like Instagram and WhatsApp, the ambition is to dilute the negative view of the corporate group (it’s a way of saying “we’re not all bad”). All the more important given their attempts to get their cryptocurrency Libra off the ground, in the face of hostility from governments around the world.
The risk of the new branding is that instead of detoxifying Facebook, they raise questions about privacy and security on Instagram and WhatsApp. It’s more likely that these services are tarred with the same brush as the social network than for positive associations to flow the other way.
Stephen Clements, chief creative officer, Y Media Labs
Full transparency: My wife works at Facebook. So I’m risking my marriage here. But, here goes. It’s OK. I certainly don’t love it. I don’t particularly like it. But I don’t hate it. It looks like Facebook put all the trendy Silicon Valley redesigns of the last few years—Airbnb, Dropbox, Thumbtack, Uber, etc.—into an AI blender, put the “Safe” and “Corporate” dials at max, and this is what the algorithm churned out.
At least it doesn’t look like a sexy body part. But it doesn’t look like anything. It’s hard to care.
Anne Swan, partner, Dear Future
I was underwhelmed, even though I understood the context behind the identity. The design team succeeded in creating a mark that does recede and become part of its environment. What they lost in the process was the intelligence and humanity that the brand should express.
Like Google’s Alphabet, I do believe that Facebook needed to redesign its parent company logo to be more inclusive of the brands they own. The idea of “From Facebook” is an interesting one, and they could have taken that idea further than just a sign-off.
Paul Levy, designer, Grady Britton
While I’m not a fan of generic wordmarks, I can tolerate them when they are the primary mark for a brand. What’s particularly confusing about Facebook’s new corporate mark is that it has to co-exist with the brand mark that, presumably, will continue to live on the platform. Creating a corporate mark that doesn’t leverage, or at least pay some kind of homage to, the brand mark seems confusing, bordering upon design malfeasance.
Andrea Dunne, copywriter, Reed Words
As a company with such a sordid reputation, why have they resorted to shouting at us? There’s a trend of youth-focused brands like Made.com, Schuh and Adidas using either all uppercase or all lowercase letters in their name. But uppercase only works if you have something to shout about—which Facebook does not.
With trust at an all-time low, it’s unusual for Facebook to want to spoil the illusion people have with Instagram and WhatsApp. Some people forget that Facebook even owns these crisis-free, much cooler apps. Is putting their logo in uppercase at the bottom of these platforms Facebook’s attempt at being super clear and transparent? Or just another giant conglomerate reminding us they’re still in control?
David Prusko, adjunct lecturer, The New York City College of Technology
There is nothing interesting, unique or impactful [about] the new Facebook corporate logo in its execution or application, which could be a sign of the things to come. Or, an attempt to be a benign presence looking to ward off focused government scrutiny as Facebook’s shameless actions and manipulations come to light.