Below is the current Sherwin-Williams logo, which I saw on a giant truck this morning.
Please take a moment to soak it in (pardon the pun).
You don’t need to be a marketing genius to know that most people don’t like to be covered in red paint.
But to claim that your mission/goal/whatever is to “cover the world” with paint — which may or may not contain all kinds of fun and hazardous things — is just plain stupid. (And the “splashing” looks kinda lazy/dangerous/haphazard, too.)
So yes, Sherwin-Williams, if you wanted me to think “God or some big nasty alien is going to douse our planet with goopy, chemical-filled paint and probably destroy us all,” then you’ve got some A-1 branding there.
And for reference, your competitors are a bit smarter about it:
Benjamin Moore has a nice basic logo that means nothing.
Behr has, you guessed it, a bear. Also means nothing except it makes you think of/say the name.
Glidden is neutral. (See Benjamin Moore comment.)
Valspar goes all-copy.
THE BOTTOM LINE: It’s really unwise to show people (and the world), via logo, that you want to cover it with chemicals.
Poppa Culture 