If you had to guess which of the following logos was the predecessor and the successor, which would you choose?

If you're like me, maybe you screwed up your face a bit, tilted your head to the right and said, "well, obviously the top one is older." Oh boy, how wrong we both are!

In truth, the former is actually the redesigned logo launched this month from Marketing, in tandem with a revamped print magazine, website and mobile-friendly site.

I have to admit, I don't get it. The June issue touts a discussion of the process and inspiration behind the redesign to go up "this month" online by editor-in-chief Tom Gierasimczuk and art director Peter Zaver. When this month, I know not, but I spent more than a few minutes searching and came up empty-handed.

The look and feel certainly hearkens back to a previous era, evoking older, more traditional brand values -- ultimately, heavily juxtaposing, in my opinion, the modern style of the former logo (seen in black above). Does anyone else feel like we're moving in reverse?

But, as with any brand, I'm willing to hear the case, the reason, the motivation. I eagerly await Tom and Peter's "discussion" regarding this redesign. It definitely warrants an explanation, but the sheer fact that it does leaves me a little disappointed. If the logo has changed so dramatically, then so must have the brand as a whole -- this is why I'm calling it a rebrand, while Marketing has positioned it as a redesign instead, semantics = power!

I feel left hostage at this point. Both wanting and needing an explanation, for them to justify the shift. So, I wait patiently -- having not yet received that explanation in either the print version that launched the new logo or online. But if you're a half-decent marketer at all, you should not only be asking "Why?" but also "Why not?".