HW #1

I feel like the biggest message the author was trying to get across was that some companies were spending money in order to "better update" their logos, but the opposite was occurring. Instead of the new designs bringing a positive feel to the company it actually took away form it. I think the author was  trying to say that some things just don't need fixing and are better as is, and when they are changed it can take away the originality to some brands, companies, etc. They also pointed out how if things are changed they have to be aesthetically pleasing to the eye in order to be affective. That's why they showed the street signs in London as a negative example to that point, because the designer had a funky looking D on the sign which throws off the viewers eye to the entire sign. All in all thought it was a cool article.