The reactions in the media have not been important either, the coverage has been as expected but there are no positions on the matter. The new brand image meets the objectives and is a clear effort to simplify visual communication; however, it does not go further. Today Google or rather Alphabet announced a new logo, the most significant change in its image in the last 16 years. The Belarus Mobile Database brand was already tired, its image was originally created in 1998 and it is valid to say that it had no real connection with the current market, much less with the one it aspires to attract in the near future.

However, the reaction on social media has been very weak. Normally a certain level of controversy is expected, the case of Gap and the ITESM come to mind in which a significant number of people went out on social networks to give their opinion good or bad about it. To some extent, Google becomes Alphabet, with small color changes and using a San Serif typeface. The typeface was created for the exclusive use of the logo and will be known as Product Sans. The new image appears on all the company’s products and is not only limited to the logo, the brand also took the opportunity to create a version where the capital letter G is used with four different colors.

The reactions in the media are not important, the coverage is as expected but there are no positions on the matter. The new brand image meets the objectives and is a clear effort to simplify visual communication; however, it does not go further. It is important to note that the brand is normally recognized by elements other than its logo, that is, Google Doodles. These creative elements have been the value of its visual differentiation strategy for many years, and the Google brand has been relegated to brand support functions.

An example of the above is the redesign of the Google Plus logo that also went unnoticed, to the extent that few media have covered it. The Brother Cell Phone List topic is a trending topic on Twitter with a significant number of mentions but it is fair to say that they do not have a clear position and it is valid to say that they tend to be neutral. The strategic question for the brand is whether its desire after 16 years of a constant image is to receive such a cold reception from the market. If that was the intention they succeeded.