<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Virgin Atlantic Gets a Makeover	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.corporate-eye.com/main/virgin-atlantic-gets-a-makeover/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.corporate-eye.com/main/virgin-atlantic-gets-a-makeover/</link>
	<description>...compare, compete, excel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:20:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: simon penwarden		</title>
		<link>https://www.corporate-eye.com/main/virgin-atlantic-gets-a-makeover/#comment-11129</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[simon penwarden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.corporate-eye.com/blog/?p=34463#comment-11129</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I recently noticed on Virgin Atlantic advertising, the use of this new, thin typeface. Not very attractive I thought, and I hoped they hadn&#039;t changed their logo. They haven&#039;t have they? Oh dear. Yes they have. Are they mad? The current version is only five years old, still looks great—and looks much stronger than this new, ill-conceived—in my opinion—bastardised typeface (it&#039;s twaeked from a font called Gotham for nerdy designers out there, like me). And when you see the time-lapsed video of stripping and re-spraying all the old planes that must be several weeks work...? Well they must be mad? They current have a fleet of nearly 40 aircraft that will need doing. Look, I love and appreciate branding very much. And if a logo is nearing its sell-by date change it. But this is bloody daft. Virgin Atlantic, please save your dosh. Although I do like it on the fuselage.......]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently noticed on Virgin Atlantic advertising, the use of this new, thin typeface. Not very attractive I thought, and I hoped they hadn&#8217;t changed their logo. They haven&#8217;t have they? Oh dear. Yes they have. Are they mad? The current version is only five years old, still looks great—and looks much stronger than this new, ill-conceived—in my opinion—bastardised typeface (it&#8217;s twaeked from a font called Gotham for nerdy designers out there, like me). And when you see the time-lapsed video of stripping and re-spraying all the old planes that must be several weeks work&#8230;? Well they must be mad? They current have a fleet of nearly 40 aircraft that will need doing. Look, I love and appreciate branding very much. And if a logo is nearing its sell-by date change it. But this is bloody daft. Virgin Atlantic, please save your dosh. Although I do like it on the fuselage&#8230;&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
