GM Unveils New Logo, We're Perplexed
And we’re batting two for two on the perplexion scale.
All this follows Nissan’s recent logo change.
GM is making the change to showcase its new focus on electrification.
“There are moments in history when everything changes. Inflection points. We believe such a point is upon us for the mass adoption of electric vehicles,” Deborah Wahl, GM’s global chief marketing officer, said in a statement. “Unlike ever before, we have the solutions, capability and scale to put everyone in an EV. Our new brand identity and campaign are designed to reflect this.”
It’s all part of a campaign called “Everybody In” that will showcase GM’s electrification plans, including the Ultium battery.
“’Everybody In’ demonstrates our intent to lead, while inviting others — policymakers, partners, individuals — to play an active role in moving society forward, whether that’s helping to expand infrastructure, advocating for progress in their communities or simply taking an EV for a test drive to learn about the benefits of EV ownership,” Wahl said in the statement.
GM does have big electrification plans, despite having just one EV – the Chevrolet Bolt – currently on sale. We know about the Hummer, a planned “utility” version of the Bolt, and the upcoming Cadillac Lyriq. Rumor has it that GM will reveal more plans around electrification at CES this week.
As for the logo itself, it’s part of a marketing campaign that involves well-known names like author Malcolm Gladwell surfer/shark-attack survivor Bethany Hamilton.
The company’s Web site is set to be redesigned, with the new version launching Monday.
According to Automotive News, the logo is “vibrant blue” to show that the skies of the future will be clearer due to zero emissions. The font is now lowercase, and the edges are rounded off. The “m” remains underlined to represent an electrical plug.
GM considers this logo less severe, more human, and more approachable than the current one.
We just think it doesn’t look as good.
Latest Car ReviewsRead more
Latest Product ReviewsRead more
- Nrd515 I bought an '88 S10 Blazer with the 4.3. We had it 4 years and put just about 48K on it with a bunch of trips to Nebraska and S. Dakota to see relatives. It had a couple of minor issues when new, a piece of trim fell off the first day, and it had a seriously big oil leak soon after we got it. The amazinly tiny starter failed at about 40K, it was fixed under some sort of secret warranty and we got a new Silverado as a loaner. Other than that, and a couple of tires that blew when I ran over some junk on the road, it was a rock. I hated the dash instrumentation, and being built like a gorilla, it was about an inch and a half too narrow for my giant shoulders, but it drove fine, and was my second most trouble free vehicle ever, only beaten by my '82 K5 Blazer, which had zero issues for nearly 50K miles. We sold the S10 to a friend, who had it over 20 years and over 400,000 miles on the original short block! It had a couple of transmissions, a couple of valve jobs, a rear end rebuild at 300K, was stolen and vandalized twice, cut open like a tin can when a diabetic truck driver passed out(We were all impressed at the lack of rust inside the rear quarters at almost 10 years old, and it just went on and on. Ziebart did a good job on that Blazer. All three of his sons learned to drive in it, and it was only sent to the boneyard when the area above the windshield had rusted to the point it was like taking a shower when it rained. He now has a Jeep that he's put a ton of money into. He says he misses the S10's reliablity a lot these days, the Jeep is in the shop a lot.
- Jeff S Most densely populated areas have emission testing and removing catalytic converters and altering pollution devices will cause your vehicle to fail emission testing which could effect renewing license plates. In less populated areas where emission testing is not done there would probably not be any legal consequences and the converter could either be removed or gutted both without having to buy specific parts for bypassing emissions. Tampering with emission systems would make it harder to resell a vehicle but if you plan on keeping the vehicle and literally running it till the wheels fall off there is not much that can be done if there is no emission testing. I did have a cat removed on a car long before mandatory emission testing and it did get better mpgs and it ran better. Also had a cat gutted on my S-10 which was close to 20 years old which increased performance and efficiency but that was in a state that did not require emission testing just that reformulated gas be sold during the Summer months. I would probably not do it again because after market converters are not that expensive on older S-10s compared to many of the newer vehicles. On newer vehicles it can effect other systems that are related to the operating and the running of the vehicle. A little harder to defeat pollution devices on newer vehicles with all the systems run by microprocessors but if someone wants to do it they can. This law could be addressing the modified diesels that are made into coal rollers just as much as the gasoline powered vehicles with cats. You probably will still be able to buy equipment that would modify the performance of a vehicles as long as the emission equipment is not altered.
- ToolGuy I wonder if Vin Diesel requires DEF.(Does he have issues with Sulfur in concentrations above 15ppm?)
- ToolGuy Presented for discussion: https://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/thoreau/civil.html
- Kevin Ford can do what it's always done. Offer buyouts to retirement age employees, and transfers to operating facilities to those who aren't retirement age. Plus, the transition to electric isn't going to be a finger snap one time event. It's going to occur over a few model years. What's a more interesting question is: Where will today's youth find jobs in the auto industry given the lower employment levels?