Remember when Siglent's logo wasn't ugly?

[TimNJ]

If we put aside the familiarity and coziness of a known logo/color/whatever, then the logo itself has no value.

The "glow" and fame of a logo, or brand, is not given by the graphic representation in itself. A good graphic might help, but "the glow" of a brand is forged by the quality of the products or services offered over time.

The name can be any combination of letters and graphic symbols (unless, of course, epic fails like something called 'Pedobear', or so).

What really counts is not the name, or the graphic appearance.
What really counts it's the product, and its quality.

Both are important!! Even if we wish we didn't, we are all still guilty of "judging a book by its cover". If a company has a half-assed logo made in Microsoft Paint, don't you think this raises a flag for consumers? If a company (seemingly) cares so little about its logo, what else don't they care about?

[RoGeorge]

When I was writing that I was having in mind only personal experiences (which might be wrong), but let's take some examples:
The old Tektronix and the new one. Then the classical Hewlett-Packard, Agilent, Keysight.

Which one looks or sounds better? Depends of what one was used to. Just wait for a while, and (maybe) Keysight will be as cool as Agilent, or HP.

You might ask if I am trying to invalidate years of study of visual arts and marketing. Not at all.

In a movie, where tens and hundreds of subtle artistic details adds up, and all together contribute to the whole "feeling" of the movie, then yes, all those little tricks studied for years pays of. But for one word and one symbol (like in a brand), not so much.

The marketing industry is very good at associating whatever symbol or name you already have with other good or cool feelings (like the joy/youth/playful_and_thirsty in Coca-Cola ads for example), but many times, especially when it's about finding a new name or image, the giant marketing industry is nothing but a bunch of sophisticated BS.

Just listen to this sad-yet-hilarious $50M fail from Jery Ellsworth's own experience if you don't believe me:



Later edit:
Long podcast, sorry, the re-branding story starts somewhere around minute 28:50, or go to 32:45 if you have only one minute to spare, in order to get the taste of a professional branding company at work. I've seen similar cases myself, not in Silicon Valley, but here in EU. It's exactly the same feeling. Loads and loads of BS presented as finesse.

[TimNJ]

When I was writing that I was having in mind only personal experiences (which might be wrong), but let's take some examples:
The old Tektronix and the new one. Then the classical Hewlett-Packard, Agilent, Keysight.

Which one looks or sounds better? Depends of what one was used to. Just wait for a while, and (maybe) Keysight will be as cool as Agilent, or HP.

You might ask if I am trying to invalidate years of study of visual arts and marketing. Not at all.

In a movie, where tens and hundreds of subtle artistic details adds up, and all together contribute to the whole "feeling" of the movie, then yes, all those little tricks studied for years pays of. But for one word and one symbol (like in a brand), not so much.

The marketing industry is very good at associating whatever symbol or name you already have with other good or cool feelings (like the joy/youth/playful_and_thirsty in Coca-Cola ads for example), but many times, especially when it's about finding a new name or image, the giant marketing industry is nothing but a bunch of sophisticated BS.

Just listen to this sad-yet-hilarious $50M fail from Jery Ellsworth's own experience if you don't believe me:



Later edit:
Long podcast, sorry, the re-branding story starts somewhere around minute 28:50, or go to 32:45 if you have one minute to get the taste of a professional branding company at work. I've seen similar cases myself, not in Silicon Valley, but here in EU. I can swear it's the same feeling.

I agree with you. Most well-known brands are not well know because of their logo, but rather their product. And for the most part, we don't care about the logo, only the brand it represents. I'm with you there.

But as a relatively new company, having a crappy logo doesn't help your chances of gaining acceptance in already established market. Take a look at some cheapo bits of Chinese test gear on eBay. Does the Chinese Times New Roman on the front panel give you the warm and fuzzies? Will big customers ever take those brands seriously? Probably not.

That's all I'm trying to say. If you want people to take you seriously, then you have to make it look like you take yourself seriously too.

By the way, I don't mind the Siglent logo at all. It's just the lack of basic color theory awareness that rubs me the wrong way.

Just finished listening to that podcast yesterday. I agree that CastAR did not need a new logo or a new name; They needed a product. And they ultimately failed because of misguided leadership and spending (like 6 figures on a freaking name change).

CastAR is an example of management being obsessed with self-image. Chinese test equipment on eBay/Aliexpress is an example of companies not caring at all about image. Somewhere in between is the happy medium, like anything.

[tautech]

Is there an origin story for the name and logo (other than the coincidental similarity to the Agilent name/logo)?

I see that as self explanatory, others views may differ.

Siglent evolved when their top brass left Atten AFAIK so of course they'd be looking for a 'brand' that might/could turn heads.
Some background:
http://www.siglent.com/ENs/about.aspx?id=549
http://www.siglent.com/ENs/about_us/2

I didn't realize BK rebadged the scope meters.  Does that in any way increase the chances that there is going to be a firmware update for them this decade?

Yep, that's being worked on too.

[Mr. Scram]

Rule 8 of the internet states that whenever there is a logo change or even just a logo people will state they like the old one better, don't like the new one or otherwise criticise the decisions made. It's also likely the people levelling these criticisms have no background or training when it comes to visual communication. How absolute the statements are tends to be inversely proportional to the little experience that might be present, however minute or outdated it may be.

[BillB]

Could be worse:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-worst-corporate-logo-fails-2014-1

[bd139]

 

[amyk]

"Siglent" always sounded like an Agilent knockoff, but at least they haven't rebranded themselves as Sigsight... yet.

[tautech]

"Siglent" always sounded like an Agilent knockoff, but at least they haven't rebranded themselves as Sigsight... yet.

Stumbled across a page on Dave's website from the beginning of 2014 and well before Siglent gained the popularity they have today:
https://www.eevblog.com/2014/01/09/hp-err-agilent-has-a-new-name/

Maybe Agilent changing to KS has helped Siglent. 

[RoGeorge]

Could be worse:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-worst-corporate-logo-fails-2014-1

 

[Electro Detective]

"Siglent" always sounded like an Agilent knockoff, but at least they haven't rebranded themselves as Sigsight... yet.

Stumbled across a page on Dave's website from the beginning of 2014 and well before Siglent gained the popularity they have today:
https://www.eevblog.com/2014/01/09/hp-err-agilent-has-a-new-name/

Maybe Agilent changing to KS has helped Siglent.

I think you're onto something there, perhaps buyers on a budget or newbs desiring to get their feet wet on the cheap, think the brands are somehow related and a safe punt to buy Siglent ?   


FWIW It's absolute absurdity and dumbassery to drop a LONG TIME (raking in the cash) respected name in test gear Hewlett Packard, which was already trimmed down and accepted as 'HP'

to names that relate to   


How many meters will Fluke sell if they change their name to ProbeSight or AgileMeter

and drop the amber yellow holsters for hot pink...