I'm still in the process of comparing and contrasting the search experience between Google and Microsoft's latest foray into search engines: Bing. Google is a great example of a rock solid brand with an especially poor brand identity. The multicolored serif letters suggest the hand of a novice designer or worse, a relative or friend with no design training whatsoever. Still, it is Google that we think of when we need to find something online. If their success of their brand's popularity is due to their sophisticated technology and ease of use, than the fact that the name is short, simple, easy to remember, easy to spell, and audibly pleasant is why people remember and recognize it so easily. Microsoft has learned those same lessons with Bing. The name itself is a type of onomatopoeia, where the sound of the word resembles what it could represent. Bing's similarity to "ring" suggests a bell-like sound, perhaps an indicator of something completed (think kitchen timers, the end of software installations, the birth of an idea, etc.). The visual aspects of the logo (typography, color, composition, etc.) are more straightforward and intuitive than conceptual: friendly, fun, and approachable in an almost youthful way. The customization of the typography, including its mild distortion, is evidence of a professional's involvement. While not a groundbreaking mark by any means, it does seem to accomplish its strategic goals. Whether Bing can actually gain mindshare from Google has yet to be seen, but it's not a bad start.
>See more posts
Posts
