Comments on: 2009-07-12 | Target

By: Brand Fantom

Brand Fantom — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:15:35 +0000

I actually like it better. The Helvetica type that’s used here in teh states looks so flemsy. It needed to beef up some. I really think the period is a nice accessory too.

By: Analise

Analise — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:09:19 +0000

The American version is much more appealing, I don’t understand how this even made it to be logo of the day?

By: Jarhead

Jarhead — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:24:37 +0000

Thanks for the backup Arron. I knew I wasn’t crazy.

By: Oblikovanje

Oblikovanje — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:56:20 +0000

It’s simple and effective, but it looks too much like template logo.

By: DChuck

DChuck — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:01:13 +0000

Simple and direct, I like it.

By: MWilson

MWilson — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:46:48 +0000

Apparently in the Wikipedia article about this Aus Target store, Dayton Hudson/Target Corp. did grant them the right to use their logo. Either way I find it dumb that they would do that, but hey, i guess it IS a great logo!

By: MWilson

MWilson — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 22:39:15 +0000

ya it still makes no sense… even their bag design is the same as Target in the US. Even though it says on the site that they are in no way affiliated with the US brand, i still don’t believe it. Unless they had an agreement by Target US, this is a straight ass rip off of the Target USA logo.

By: Arron Lock

Arron Lock — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:56:48 +0000

thought I would share this link with everyone to validate what Jarhead said. http://www.target.com.au/html/homepage/home_fw.htm

Clearly says at the footer that they are not affiliated with Target Corp. US

By: Arron Lock

Arron Lock — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:49:56 +0000

@Tareq – I would love to see what you would come up with. I think the target logo its self is fantastic. It represents the brand name exceptionally well and follows ALL the standardized logo rules. I don’t think it was necessarily the most creative idea, but at the same time it is certainly one that works and has been effective for many years.

By: Arron Lock

Arron Lock — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:49:25 +0000

I tend to agree with MWilson. IMO, if this is a different company than the Target we all know and love (loathe) then it looks like a straight rip.

Playing devils advocate, I will just tell my self that this is purely coincidental.

By: MWilson

MWilson — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:25:58 +0000

how the hell can it not be affiliated with the US chain? If it wasn’t then that would be plagerism (sp?)

By: Jarhead

Jarhead — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 01:53:39 +0000

This is NOT target’s logo. Well not the American Target anyway. This is an Aussie chain called Target that, though the logo is VERY similar, is not affiliated with the US chain.

By: jordsta

jordsta — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 00:21:34 +0000

This isn’t the US logo guys – this is the Australian Target store logo! It’s not owned by Target in the US, instead it’s owned by the Coles Group in Oz..

The logo’s been around for years, possibly for more than 10 years! I think it’s time for a new logo.. I looove the US logo so much more than this one!

If you want more info on the company, go to the Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Target_%28Australia%29

By: Samuel Guebo

Samuel Guebo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:01:10 +0000

I really don’t know why but this square punctuation disturbs me a lot ..anyway i have to say this is an expressive logo.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:46:57 +0000

Since it’s a modified version of an existing logo, you can question a lot of tiny things. Why change the typeface? Why switch to mixed case? Is the outer ring just a little bit thicker? Why include a period? I don’t see a period at the end very often in logos, so that’s a very interesting choice, to me.

By: Tareq

Tareq — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 16:41:23 +0000

When i just readed “Target” i had like a million thoughts more creative than this, it is simple but i think it could done better, i wish i got this job!

By: adabus

adabus — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:47:48 +0000

What the hell happened to the wonderful Helvetica in majuscels?

By: Lambros

Lambros — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 15:17:53 +0000

very creative and simple, very similar with this…

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/commercials/2006/10/check-out-my-breasts-target.jpg

By: smytii

smytii — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:46:21 +0000

Hmm. I’ve never been a fan of square punctuation, and really disliking ‘visually oversized” square punctuation. But that’s probably just me. I will say the “circle within a circle” concept is timeless and fits the “it’s always been that way, right?” question I (personally) use to determine great design.

By: nichocreativo

nichocreativo — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:16:10 +0000

Little changes! I see the same in a different position…

By: Arron Lock

Arron Lock — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:14:26 +0000

Target’s logo has always been one my favs just for its representation of the brand name and its simplicity. I don’t remember such a heavy font though. Not bad, but I thought it was a lighter font and I think it would look better that way.

By: Michel Cabelho

Michel Cabelho — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:03:52 +0000

Great logo just like Paul Randall wrote/said, a timeless classic design!

Good work!

By: Armig Esfahani

Armig Esfahani — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:00:42 +0000

hmmm I was expecting something creative actually…

By: Twitted by jagster83

Twitted by jagster83 — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:48:40 +0000

[...] This post was Twitted by jagster83 [...]

By: mystudio

mystudio — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:37:51 +0000

Plain and simple. Absolutely on TARGET.

By: aelamb

aelamb — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:05:41 +0000

target put on a little weight, eh?

By: Paul Randall

Paul Randall — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:05:22 +0000

A classic, timeless design

By: Metal_Link

Metal_Link — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 13:04:31 +0000

When did that font happen?