I find it odd that Xerox has gone about reinventing its business over the past few years, and did so successfully while still burdened by its archaic branding. For customers, employees, analysts, and anybody else who cared, what mattered was what the company was DOING -- its behaviors, whether in offering services or inventing new products -- and not necessarily, or particularly, the shape of its "x" or font used for its name. You could make the case that the company's branding has been arising 'organically' from its actions, and that the old "x" worked just fine for its selling intentions (the fact that some otherwise disinterested observer associates the old "x" with copiers, the 1950s, or life on Mars, is irrelevant, isn't it?). In fact, the old one at least had some heritage, some connection to a physical, historical past vs. the new logo, which screams of generic, vague invention. I've written about what Xerox COULD have done on the branding front at Dim Bulb, if you're interested: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/01/of-balls-and-ba.html