I'm not sure I've ever met an opinion on a logo, name, or anything creative less than a month old that was worth a damn.
When faced with something new, the tendency is to focus on the superficial, the easy joke, and it's too easy to let other opinions steer your own; they're momentarily on equal footing, you see. But the work will last longer than this moment. Your own opinion will evolve. The crowd will move on to the next easy joke and hip-shot reaction.
That's why I like to avoid making more than cautious, small statements until I've had a while to reflect. This work looks nice to me. There's potential for great marketing in an individually customizable — but still distinctive (or distinguishable) — logomark.
Most of this commentary feels like the person in the code review who hasn't taken the time to digest the intent of the code, so they comment on formatting. Whitespace. Trees. Not the forest.
I believe this comment was formatted incorrectly. I think this is how it should've been posted:
>> I'm not sure I've ever met an opinion on a logo, name, or anything creative less than a month old that was worth a damn.
>> When faced with something new, the tendency is to focus on the superficial, the easy joke, and it's too easy to let other opinions steer your own; they're momentarily on equal footing, you see. But the work will last longer than this moment. Your own opinion will evolve. The crowd will move on to the next easy joke and hip-shot reaction.
>> That's why I like to avoid making more than cautious, small statements until I've had a while to reflect. This work looks nice to me. There's potential for great marketing in an individually customizable — but still distinctive (or distinguishable) — logomark.
> Most of this commentary feels like the person in the code review who hasn't taken the time to digest the intent of the code, so they comment on formatting. Whitespace. Trees. Not the forest.
This is on-point for most logo designs, if not all. You can only really see the bad ones in retrospect (the London 2012 Olympics logo comes to mind [1]).
That said, I think the motion-picture used as the background to the call to action is going to be very short-lived on basic UI principles. It's distracting, low-contrast, and pulls people away from the text, button, etc. I'm sure A/B testing will resolve the issue pretty quickly, but it's very trendy right now - Paypal is doing it too. [2]
The background movies that I saw while watching for a while just weren't appealing. AirBnb is full of beautiful, crazy and exciting accommodation options and now instead of showcasing those, they're pushing fairly bland movies and generic location shots first. Any travel website can do that.
As a former Airbnb employee, this is honestly the only thing I don't like about the rebrandredesign!
Airbnb pry has one of, if not THE, world's largest collection of amazing real estate photography.
It's possible some massive real estate company might have as much, but I can't imagine how Airbnb doesn't have the largest collection of lived-in home interiors by a long shot.
When faced with something new, the tendency is to focus on the superficial, the easy joke, and it's too easy to let other opinions steer your own; they're momentarily on equal footing, you see. But the work will last longer than this moment. Your own opinion will evolve. The crowd will move on to the next easy joke and hip-shot reaction.
That's why I like to avoid making more than cautious, small statements until I've had a while to reflect. This work looks nice to me. There's potential for great marketing in an individually customizable — but still distinctive (or distinguishable) — logomark.
Most of this commentary feels like the person in the code review who hasn't taken the time to digest the intent of the code, so they comment on formatting. Whitespace. Trees. Not the forest.