"Simple" is definitely a generic term, but brands are built over time. Personally, I love our new logo (by our own @3n), and I think it'll resonate when you start seeing it on actual debit cards and such :)
"Simple" is definitely a generic term, but brands are built over time. Personally, I love our new logo (by our own @3n), and I think it'll resonate when you start seeing it on actual debit cards and such :)
The logo though. Good type, horrible website icon. It has the Star of David on it. The only ethnicity to Google auto-complete to banking conspiratorial pages is represented by this symbol. There are lots of idiots in the world, I know, but I wouldn't go with this logo. The one on the actual card is much, much better.
Obviously, I support your business idea, and I look forward to it shaking banks up a bit. If the product is strong enough, a generic brand won't kill the business. I still believe
BankSimple was a better name (in my opinion), as it actually positioned you as a new player in a game to change the status quo. I can understand if there were potential legal issues with a non-bank calling itself a bank. If this is the reason a change was made, then I'm wasting my keystrokes.
Send me a beta invite!
Now, the other angle here is that banking might simply be their entree into the abstraction business at large. So maybe today I bank through Simple, but in a few years I buy insurance through them. And maybe my cell phone plan.
There's a lot of confusion and noise interfering with the efficiency of consumer markets as mediums of value exchange. Abstraction, quantification, and objective selection could be a neat way to cut down on some of the inefficiency, misinformation, and confusion.