Over the past few hours, 874 valid responses have been collected. Across all three platforms, there's a predominance of preference for the classic Google logo.
All GCS participants come from the US while 99% of the CF crowd are from other countries. The demographics of participants on MT are unknown, but 80% of the overall workforce there are US-based according to mturk-tracker.
Although it's optional to provide a reason, many people did opt to write one. Their descriptions of the classic logo are universally positive while reception of the new logo seems mixed.
Common words that describe the two logos:
|cute, clean, fun, playful, friendly, casual, fresh, modern, whimsical, minimalist, bold, childish, juvenile, bland, plain, awkward, boring, |
clunky, dull, bubbly, cheap, ugly
|sophisticated, professional, recognizable, trustworthy, credible, authentic, elegant, classy, fluid, sleek, pleasing, familiar, stylish, sharp, iconic, attractive, striking, mature, cool|
It's probably too early to call Google's new logo a branding failure. The general public's initial negative reaction might be attributed to change aversion. I recognize that, for example, my personal bias against the new logo is not just an aesthetic judgment but also a result of an emotional attachment to the classic Catull font. Many of my Googler friends share the same sentiment, but some of them reported that after a week-long preview period, they hated it less. Maybe the sans-serif new logo will eventually grow on us as the company evolves.