Ok I'm in a waiting room super bored so forgive my ridiculous takes, but the second one is probably a better logo even if the design is worse in a bunch of ways.

So, first lets look at Morgan as a brand. It's a known brand, but not exactly top shelf stuff. From what I can find, they seem to be trying to change that, moving into the ready-to-drink and doing a bunch of social media stuff. they've moved from using artificial vanilla flavor to real *Madagascar vanilla* which is definitely more marketable no matter if it actually tastes better or not.

So as part of that they've redesigned basically all their labels and that means they need vibe with the modern upmarket design trends which right now are to use more type and negative space, and to ape design from the era around the 50s and maybe 60s. It goes with the current retro packaging design trend but doesn't alienate older people like the 70s based stuff, which is usually aimed at a younger market segment. It's old enough to feel "classy" even if the customer is old.

As part of that, the large illustration doesn't fit. Printing full color like that in the era it's aping was expensive so it feels out of place, and you just don't have space for it if you want a clean look. So it's got to be way smaller. The old label has the illustration as basically the main focal point - it's huge. The new one has it as a small design point. The illustration just doesn't work at that size. On a little 50ml bottle it's going to be like 4mm high. Here's a photo I found.

The new one actually reads pretty similar even though it's like half as tall and only uses 2 colors. When it's on a bottle that small and sitting next to Admiral Nelson and Lady Bligh which still use big full color illustratons on their labels can you tell which one is which?

But here's the thing, the captain isn't even actually the logo. The logo is the name, it's the same logotype. They didn't change that. They changed the mascot. It's pretty important to note that there's a big difference. A logo basically is your branding. It needs to work at any size, in any medium, and be instantly recognizable. That generally means it needs to be pretty simple. The Morgan logotype works great as a logo, but the mascot until now really didn't. You can tell because if you look around there are about 50 different versions because the big full color illustration doesn't work more often than it does. The new one will.

With all that defense I will say there are a few kind of dumb moves. The treasure chest is clearly a terrible idea. Like, if they were swapping it in on the non-alcoholic lines it would be kind of great but on everything it's dumb. And I definitely would have fought for a puffy shirt instead of the collared one, if nothing else than for historical accuracy - I don't think you can even wear shirts if the era unbuttoned with a collar like that. Edit- honestly they might be going intentionally anachronistic so that you can "cosplay" as the captain easily. Do the pose, hard cut to the captain logo, it writes itself. Which would be kind of clever but if that were the case I might have pushed the whole thing to be slightly more androgynous.

Anyway, I keep seeing this take over and over again, that everything is moving to minimalist blobs for logos, and while sometimes there's definitely a point (the cross branding for Google's apps on Android come to mind) a lot of the time there done just like this - with two large copies next to each other. And when you frame it like that of course the detailed one will look better. But when your logo has to shrink to 32x32px on a crappy Android phone or be printed like 5mm wide in black and white the simpler one is going to look way better.

Anyway thanks for coming to my Ted talk I guess.

Tldr: the guy isn't the logo he's the mascot and the new one can be printed small.