Good Old New General Motors

Recently, there has been talk that General Motors is going to change the background color on its logo from blue (would the legions of art directors who were tortured over the years to not offend trade dress in any way like to honk now? Or sing out the PMS number?) to green to signify the new company focus on greener vehicles.

Hmmm. That’s something one could argue for either way.
 
Con: Why? It’s an obvious, cosmetic and superficial signal that you’re now “green”. It seems pandering to the public and government “partners” who want the old GM gone. It’s kind of laughable. Ha! You think turning the logo green will convince people you’re green? Please. Build a bunch of green cars. Then we’ll talk.

Pro: Why? It’s an obvious and cosmetic symbol that it isn’t business as usual for this former lumbering giant who had logo police patrolling the corridors of ad agencies worldwide. And if they did it fast, GM would demonstrate they’re not lumbering anymore—no, now nimble and flexible where there had been rigidity and tired thinking.  Cool.

This kind of flexibility could open the door to showing corporate support for breast cancer, heart health, gay rights. That’s kind of human and fun for a corporation not known for a culture of either. An automotive writer recently put forth another notion. Blue? Green? Please. You need to concentrate on getting from red to black.

I have read that “blue” is the new “green” because most of the world’s population lives next to water and it’s a critical resource to attend to. So, in fact, good old GM with it’s old blue background may be the right color for right now. Irony abounds.

What do you think about trade dress? Hard and fast rules about corporate ID? Branding?