Why are companies so addicted to chagning logos?

Thanks to Beard Crumbs for this link: Brand New presents old logos and their newly designed counterparts. It provides the perfect opportunity to ask yourself, "How much did they pay for a logo that is worse than the one they had?"

In the old days of marketing, you got a brand that was recognized and had value, and you stuck to it. Nowadays, with marketers and agencies changing quicker than oil filters, everyone seems compelled to leave their mark on a brand. And what is easier (or more costly or less valuable) than changing a logo?

(I personally experienced this a couple years ago. I worked at a travel brand who hired a guy to run marketing, and the first thing he did was to replace the distinctive logo with a horrible new logo that featured a gradient, making it almost impossible to work with against any background and very expensive to execute in any medium requiring paint or stitching, such as their very common polo shirts. Now, three years later, the brand is back to a simple logo that echoes the original. The company probably spent several million dollars on the two logo switches, which brought it absolutely zero value.)

So, surf to this site and ask yourself if any of the new logos on the first page other than Pick n Pay are really better. Some of the new logos are so bad, I wonder how the agency sold the brand.

Spirit Airlines' logo was distinctive and classy, and their new one is generic and forgettable. I understand what Sungless Hut was trying to do with their new logo, but the use of a translucent lens to represent a brand is simply too subtle and damn near impossible to use in some media. And Reader's Digest somehow managed to take the emphasis away from the reader and put it on the digest, which strikes me a very sad and telling sign.