Cover the Earth, A Marketing Campaign Gone Wrong
Hey, you're new. We like you already! You obviously have great taste! If you like what you read here you'll probably want to subscribe to our RSS feed (or the audio RSS feed). Stick around and be sure to speak up and post a comment or two!
File this one under the “It’s Probably Just Me” category, but does anybody else have a problem with the Sherwin Williams logo and tag line? I first saw this a couple of years ago and was immediately appalled. Who in their right mind would want to “cover the earth” in paint?
I can only imagine that this logo and tag line was developed by some corporate executives who have never set foot outside of a major city, experienced the natural outdoors or watched the sun set. Does Sherwin Williams really want to see mountainsides covered in red paint, trees painted pink or ocean beaches painted purple? Doesn’t “cover the earth” and the accompanying logo tell just that story? It does to me.
This campaign does not seem to have hurt their business any in the past few years, so it looks like it is just me. Unfortunately I have to drive past this everyday on my way to work. I couldn’t take it any longer and just had to say something. IMO, it’s a marketing campaign disaster, but a disaster that never materialized. Though if I had to guess, if the people who developed this campaign were put before Trump on the apprentice, he’d tell them “Your Fired!”
Like this post? Subscribe to the RSS feed and get lots more!
Leave a comment or trackback from your own site.
Tags: Search & Marketing
Posted in Search & Marketing
This logo has been around for 100 years, and at that time I’m sure it wasn’t perceived by either Sherwin Williams or the public in the way it is now. That said, this (eco) disaster of a logo has long outlived it’s usefulness.
Perhaps if the uncovered portion of the Earth were larger and colored in bland shades of grey, and the paint can were pouring out blue and green, it *might* just pass.
As it stands now, however, it’s just gross.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:43 pm100 years? Wow, I had no idea, I thought it was relatively new. But yeah, it has definately outlived it’s usefulness.
June 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pm