What’s in a Mark?

27 Responses to “What’s in a Mark?”

1. Dave Giunta Says:
   July 25th, 2005 at 3:56 pm

   Okay, it’s a little funny to have the auto-populated Google ads that shout “Logo Design only $25″ and “Logo Design – $60″ (placed strategically RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER) at the end of the article. Do you think they could even compete with each other (if at all) in this thread? Not to mention, their presence on the same page with Paul Rand’s (brilliant) original UPS mark is a bit ironic.

   Anyways… moving on.

   I think we as designers would like to think that we can solve a company’s problem with good design (or more accurately, OUR design) and that the work we do should garner a large sum of money (just like the big time agencies).

   But I think it’s important that we take a step back and look at what we do for a company with reality glasses on. As I attempted to state in my post in the “Seth Godin” thread: Our work takes different shapes over time. A logo’s effectiveness is a completely subjective thing. You can’t possibly know (or claim to guarantee) how effective a logo is right when you design it. You can only guess. Now, we’d like to think that as designers, our guess is going to be better than some stock house, but let’s think about that for a second.

   What creates successful, effective logos/brands? Is it our graceful use of typography, color, line, shape, form, and all the rest of those wonderful things we learned to use in design school? Or does it have more to do with what the company makes, how they market themselves, who they speak to, and what their reputation is in the marketplace, that ultimately define how successful a logo or brand is? I say it’s a little of both.

   For instance, the Microsoft logo creates a certain amount of uneasiness in me because I hate their products so much. I have a hatred for them and the Microsoft brand is the icon that represents that hatred FOR ME. It is, of course, different for other people, but that’s a discussion for another time. Regardless, do you think my reaction is the desired one for Microsoft’s logo? Did the designer plan on that clever duplicity? Probably not. Do you think it’s always been this way? Also, probably not. This happened over time and it wouldn’t have been different if the logo was different, or if it cost $25 from a stock house or $50,000 from an agency.

   The mark takes on the qualities of the company… not the other way around. A good company can have a bad logo and still use it effectively. Just like a bad company can have a good logo and mistreat it’s every intention of being good.

   The only thing we can do better than a stock house or $25 logo sweatshop is talk to the client more and try to give the client something that reflects where they want their company to go, as opposed to what they think their company is right now. But that’s not to say our outcome would fare any better in the marketplace than the $25 one.

   Essentially, it’s not about price, it’s about service. And quality is going to be subject for a long time after we’ve put the finishing touches on the 100 page brand guideline book and handed it over to the client. All we can hope is that the company can live up to every ideal we’ve portrayed in the logo, and that other designers will care as much when they see it as we did when we created it.

   My $2.

2. Chris Rugen Says:
   July 25th, 2005 at 4:02 pm

   Logos are, in my mind, a fascinating intersection of so many issues in design. They are a very ‘pure’ example of design. The graphic design of a logo (particularly one without full words like the UPS logo) is the essentially the content of the logo. There’s almost nothing there but design choices and expression. Since companies, organizations, individuals, etc. use them as their emblem and identifier, it makes sense that we take them seriously as designers.

   In a way, a logo represents a clear, concise visual manifestation of the logo-holder’s design values and their views on the value of design in general… or their lack thereof. I think that’s why we designers get so riled, for better or worse.

   But, like we’ve discussed, sometimes that’s got little to do with doing business.

3. Bennett Says:
   July 25th, 2005 at 5:04 pm

   I’ve never worked on a multi-national identity, but doesn’t some of the cost of a logo like this take into account the rights to reproduce the logo on billions and billions of products for years to come? It goes to reason that even if the quality of a logo is very similar, that a company like BP should pay far more than the local barber.

   Just think of the fellow that was on the Taster’s Choice can that was never paid for his likeness. He is supposed to receive a huge settlement (about 16 Million) for “royalties” as the result of his lawsuit. What would the results be if it was a logo that they used without permission instead of a photograph?

   And don’t you think Mr. Rand himself is part of the reason we peg such a mystical status and high price on the actual mark? I’m sure he wasn’t charging as little as $500 for his designs.

4. nate Says:
   July 25th, 2005 at 11:02 pm

   Oh now, I think Rand’s name stuck onto the UPS logo (the real UPS logo) has a great deal to do with our mutual admiration of it. And it’s nice. And simple.

   I think logo and identity design hold such a special place in the heart of a graphic designer because it is very akin to developing a person. Or rather, I should say, a character. A character with subtlety and emotion, with reason and expression. The character is, in a sense, the client’s public persona. A client is nothing more than a group of people doing a common task, but their company must have a character to portray to the public. The logo is that character’s face. That character is the company’s brand. And that brand is what the customer meets and greets everyday.

   That’s the ultimate creative process. To create a living, breathing thing. In many ways, designing a logo is the first step.

5. DC1974 Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 8:49 am

   Besides the product, the logo is the one area of the business that doesn’t need to be translated. In fact, it probably needs less translation than the product. So it’s important for multinationals to express something universally. Universality is big money.

   The old UPS logo is nice. But who ties their packages with strings anymore? In fact, you can mail things at UPS that don’t even half to be wrapped in brown paper, like you did when I was a kid in the 80s. So the idea of shipping has changed. Ergo, a new logo. The shield is what Rand borrowed from previous designs and it carried through to the new logo. That idea, of protecting your packages, hasn’t changed. And didn’t need to be changed.

   Think about the Nike logo: it was meant as a stilized check-mark. To stand for quality, or something. Now it’s known as the “swoosh.” So the brand changed in our mind, but the logo stayed the same.

   These are opposite concepts. And/or Nike got lucky.

6. Dave Giunta Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 9:08 am

   It occurs to me that we haven’t mentioned the client’s role in the development of a logo… The client’s involvement in design-related matters nowadays seems to be MUCH higher than it used to. I look at all the projects I work on that end up morphing from whatever initial design vision may have been there to some hybrid of negotiated values and think, “this wouldn’t happen if clients would just let me do my job…” Arrogant? Maybe.

   The point is, it’s very easy for me to think that whatever FutureBrand’s initial offering was (which may very well have been truer to Mr. Rand’s design), it was probably manipulated and revised by the unskilled hands of the VP of Marketing at UPS.

   Thoughts?

7. Bennett Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 10:23 pm

   Nate, When I said that “Mr. Rand himself is part of the reason we peg such a mystical status and high price on the actual mark”, I wasn’t specifically talking about the UPS logo. I was more referring to his celebrity status and how he almost infused a magical and intuitive ideal to the making of a symbol. I doubt firms like Future Brand could charge what they do, if Rand (and a few others) had not elevated the logo to the status that it is today.

   Of course he also said, “The trademark is a symbol of a corporation, It is not a sign of quality . . . it is a sign of the quality.” and “A trademark is created by a designer, but made by a corporation.”

8. p.berkbigler Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 10:29 pm

   Responsible logo usage seems to be something that is always in question when dealing with clients – I suspect we each strive in one way or another to clearly communicate the many ways to maintain the visual and conceptual clarity & intent of logos as they were originally created, but Dave is straight to the heart of the matter in his observation that once a logo is officially out of our hands, it’s left to the care and feeding of its new owner.

   Nate hits another good chord on the “personality” of logos / marks by describing them as “characters” we develop for a client – they are that public persona that we’ve helped to craft and it equally seems a shame to beat up or mistreat / misuse a well-built spokesperson. They’re certainly easy to get very attached to after you’ve developed them yourself – likely because you’ve gotten to “know them” so well you really hate to see them go sour…

   I’ve always considered logos to resemble haikus in many ways – every element of them crucial to their overall understanding; both rely on a minimum of highly controlled elements to succeed; executed extremely well, they seem almost natural and effortless in certain ways – executed poorly in any way, they seem overexerted, heavy, or simply dull.

   Chris’s highlight of how they’re a condensation of so many other elements and aspects of design beelines for the reason they also seem to succeed or fail so persistently – they are, in many ways, one of the true measures of design craft, wit, intelligence, and grace: you can quickly see how focused a designer’s skill really is by how well they generate marks.

   All that said, Dave still nails the fact that the finest example of exceptional design in a logo still potentially falls into the incapable hands of a business who wouldn’t know what to do with a logo no matter what price they paid for it.

   On pricing, every discussion of logos / marks I’ve ever read brings the notion of reproduction rights into the pricing negotiation – duration of usage, variety of application, the scope of public exposure, the revenues of the company itself, and pure hours / materials / tools used in the execution of the mark all fall into the final price tag. The bigger the company, the more rights are included in the asking price (much of the reason the big fish go after bigger fish, though often some of the reason why the bigger fish still try to find some starry-eyed smaller fish to reduce the price tag to including only execution costs).

   On the discussion of Rand and UPS, I’ve always found that mark and his involvement in its creation to be such an epitome of the really, really artful development of a logo. We’ve talked about him before in terms of his willingness to thoroughly explore a design problem and then thoroughly defend / present a single, extremely successful, and somewhat rarified solution to that problem to his clients.

   UPS is such a textbook study on how he went about doing this, and though the tied-package at the top of the shield on his original is no longer a direct diagram of what UPS ships, the image of the package itself is now easily such a piece of visual vernacular indicating the simple idea of shipping that I don’t think it’s lost any of its punch or verve.

   Frankly the thing that just gauls me so much about the redesigned mark is that it softens and stylizes so many of the really sharp, concise, and witty elements of the original – I’m certain, as Dave mentioned, that there was some marketing individual somewhere in the flow that may have dodged right past redesigns that came right out and talked about the shipping business in the way that Rand’s version did in favor of a “techy, clean, modernized” symbol that just said UPS and little else…It remains a “if it’s not broken, why fix it?” question for me, and also strikes me as one of the many occasions when the changing of the corporate guard is accompanied by this sort of silly “banner”-changing as well – new CEO, new logo…

   I’m also very intrigued by the consistency and regularity of discussion we continue to have surrounding the Nike logo – it strikes me as one of the biggest bits of legend and lore in the design world. We all seem to know the story about the initially low price offered for its design (which I’ve heard refuted in a variety of different ways) and how much it’s still touted as a seemingly meaningless symbol that’s been imbued with meaning after meaning after meaning through marketing…I’d never heard it referred to as a checkmark, though – always something related to a stylized wing or an illustration of motion…

9. Bennett Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 10:40 pm

   DC1974, Funny you mention the whole string tying argument. Of course the idea of shipping has changed, but probably not as much as you would think. Rand had to defend the string tied package from the very initial stages of his design. UPS was already phasing out the string at that point. He made the argument that it was a symbol, not a literal interpretation of the company. Being so far from the string tying days, it should be even more obvious to everyone that is was a symbol. When the redesign was announced and I was reading the statements as to why they changed the logo, I laughed (or cried) out loud when one of the execs mentioned the string tying. To bad Mr. Rand wasn’t there to make his argument one more time.

10. Bennett Says:
    July 26th, 2005 at 10:55 pm

    This is the quote from the Nike link Donovan had in his post, My Favorite Design Urban Legend is True.

    “According to Davidson, Knight wanted a design that suggested movement.”

11. Dave Giunta Says:
    July 27th, 2005 at 1:30 am

    Is it me, or are the corporate citizens of today becoming more and more literal while rapidly losing the ability to grasp anything symbolic, conceptual or otherwise?

    I’ve spent most of my career working for small- to mid-sized organizations, but as of late (like the past year and a half) I’ve been working for a large, Fortune 500 company. It shouldn’t shock me as much as it does, but every time I’m faced with a presenting new creative to an internal client, I am nevertheless amazed by their inability to grasp basic concepts in their relentless effort to make everything idiotproof and utterly boring.

    I’m starting to think they’re just lacking in intelligence.

    In any event, these are the people who large organizations are entrusting their brand to. These people (who are shielded from blame by the padding of middle management) pose the biggest threat to Rand-ian brilliance. Not the $25 logo sweatshops. Because small businesses with little to no money need a service like a $25 logo design, but the large corporations can afford good design, all the time. They just don’t seem to listen, nor do they seem to care.

12. nate Says:
    July 27th, 2005 at 9:23 am

    Dave, I think corporate culture in general is terrified of creativity. To them , creativity means risk, and risk could mean losing their job. I think it’s safe to say that 90% of all day-to-day business decisions are based solely on the need to keep one’s job. That’s why companies that take risks are thought of as “exciting” and “cutting edge” when all they’re really doing is “trying something.”

    That’s in opposition to our industry, where most decisions are made on creativity, expression, and reason. I think that’s why we chafe with clients so often (though we just as often bow to their pressure to keep getting our own paychecks).

13. Dave Giunta Says:
    July 27th, 2005 at 12:41 pm

    Nate, amen brother… Not a day goes by that I’m not reminded of just how terrified the managers around me really are.

    Who needs a new job?

14. Adrian Says:
    July 27th, 2005 at 1:51 pm

    I can definitely relate to what you guys are saying. The fear of risk taking is a huge obstacle to overcome. I wouldn’t go as far as to paint entire companies that color, though. I would point at committees as the source of decisions that favor the watered-down and generic. I think it was Paula Scher (or maybe it was Seth Godin) that talks about finding the person who makes the decision and pitching your design to them. If you can get the real leaders to understand what you are doing, you bypass the committees, you can avoid all the compromises that devalue your design. If you don’t have that support, your designs get passed around to everyone and you end up with design suggestions from the secretary and janitors.

15. p.berkbigler Says:
    July 27th, 2005 at 2:18 pm

    Paula is dead right: you certainly need to have willing advocates to get great design off the ground, it seems – and/or try to establish as much of a one-on-one working basis with your clientele. Being a tiny, tiny operation, it’s been an extreme pleasure to work directly with single or generally at most double clients involved in the process – we’ve all tended to have a really, really enjoyable and creative experience in that format. Once you get too many cooks in the kitchen, though, you’re lucky if it’s even broth that boils out of the pot…

    I’m curious, though, if corporate culture will remain as staid as it always seems – I’m sure we’ve all bumped into one or more of the articles discussing the recommendation that business leaders look at an MFA vs. a MBA these days…Lots are arguing for the intrinsic necessity for creative, inventive thought cultivation in the “new economy / new marketplace”, and there seem to equally be so many great examples of companies succeeding through laudable innovation (Apple, Target, Dyson, etc.) and distinctive thinking…

    I suppose much of it is also determining how much risk we are willing to take as designers in turning down clients or killing projects that start to head down fruitless roads / uninspired directions – I definitely have the luxury of saying ‘no’ on one level or another to work or work-situations that don’t seem like they’re going to pan out, but that’s the flexibility of sole proprietorship and full-time employment other than studio management.

16. kons Says:
    July 27th, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    As i’ve heard the old UPS logo is a redesign by Paul Rand. He thought that the Logo should be modernised, but the time wasn’t right at that time. Now the Logo is for me a bit too American. As I come from Europe and have seen also a lot from America, I have the feeling that in the US the people want to have more a emotional connection to a logo than in Europe. Here people are mote bound to traditions expressed by strict type logos. You maybe know the logo of dhl, old style but new.
    I had some discussions about the new UPS logo, and all said that they can’t really connect to it, although everyone said that the old one should be modernised.
    But this is another side of the coin: Are marketing managers really able to deside on a new CD?
    I guess here in Europe designers know what they do not want as they want to find their own “international” style, but are not sure about what comes out.
    I had a lot of situations where US based Managers told me that every conzept would work in the whole world when it worked in the states. And they believed it. So i think for an international Logo as for the one of UPS there should be an international team to work on the conzept.

17. Dave Giunta Says:
    July 27th, 2005 at 7:22 pm

    Adrian – You’re right on the money when you say that it’s “committees”, not “companies” that are the root of the problem. Thanks for the clarification.

    However, with it’s infinitely tiered organizational charts containing umpteen levels of middle management and the HR department enforcing a strict “chain of command” approach to getting approval on anything, the corporations are sure doing their part in making everything committee-based. Walking a design into the Chief Marketing Officer’s office for approval would most certainly end in the designer looking for a new job, or, at the very least, a major tongue-lashing from each and every one of the managers, senior managers, directors, vice presidents and senior vice presidents that come between the designer and the CMO. Or at least that’s the situation at the Fortune 500 company I’m working at now.

    So, Paula Scher or Seth Godin (whichever it was that suggested to get directly to the decision maker and bypass all the underlings) are certainly right on… But their advice can’t be taken by every designer, everywhere, and there are certain forces at work in a large corporation (or any organization, really) that make this particularly difficult.

    Paul – That’s an interesting question you pose about whether or not the corporation is doomed to stay this way when examples of creative, fearless, design-minded, successful companies (ie – Apple, Dysun, etc.) abound. When I read that in your comment, a few words from the CMO at my job rang in my ears… We are in the midst of taking a new look at our brand and “freshening” it up some… which basically involved figuring out the company’s value proposition and assigning some personality to it. In a presentation to the entire Marketing staff, one of the senior VPs commented that “We want to take a look at what companies like Apple and Southwest Airlines and Target are doing in the market and see if we can learn from that.” To which, I applauded, along with much of the rest of the disgruntled marketing team. Five minutes later the CMO takes the stage and says “Well, maybe not Apple… they’re too niche. And Southwest has figured out their value proposition, but they’re dealing with a different audience than we are.” And thus began the string of literalist thinking that makes me think that at least this big company is going to always do what it’s always done.

    Kons – The international aspect is an interesting thing to bring up. I would agree with you that if a company has international relations, it should have a brand that speaks to all of its constituents. However, I feel like that’s the job of marketing and advertising and PR and the company’s behavior in the marketplace and all the other things that make a certain constituent (local or international alike) feel like this company speaks their language.

    The logo, is only a hint at the company’s identity. And, any meaning that’s attached to the logo is subjective at best. So, while I think a brand (which, in my opinion covers much more than simply the identity system) for an international company should have an international sensability, the logo does not necessarily need to be designed by a representative from each country the client touches.

    Besides, isn’t the ultimate goal of graphic design (especially with regard to something as abstract as the icon in a logo) to communicate universally without cultural boundries?

    PS – thanks for the lively discussion. It’s been one of the more interesting and stimulating conversations I’ve had about design in quite some time.

18. Kyle Heinemann Says:
    July 28th, 2005 at 1:27 pm

    This is all really interesting. I especially like the points on committees interpreting things literally. I am used to that in my workplace (in-house design department). Creative graphic elements are eliminated so that only the content remains. No extra lines, bars, etc. Only content. Unless, of course, a line aids readability, possibly between columns. I know some internal clients that are open to creative images and layouts (as long as they’Äôre within the corporate image) but once those people are in a committee, the ho-hum play-it-safe literal executions usually win.
    Has anyone seen the square poster with the beautiful script that says “Design by Committee¬í√Ñ√π with a small caption: ¬í√Ñ√∫words like this have never looked so good¬í√Ñ√π followed by a couple more lines. It accompanied a stock photo and type company’s mailing, and was advertising a specific typeface. I think it was from Emigre. I have it hanging proudly on office window. Hopefully someone can share a link to it or at least verify the name of the company? I won¬í√Ñ√¥t be back in the office to check for another couple of weeks.

19. JonSel Says:
    July 28th, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    The role of a corporations top-level management is really paramount to a successful logo design. I’ve worked with companies where the CEO was “briefed” after the process was mostly complete and it was an utter disaster. He had even hidden from the project’s managers that he was about to announce a merger that would, obviously, drastically affect the design. But on the flip side, the times a CEO has been more intimately involved has produced far better results. When the vision is clearly articulated from the top, everyone is on the same page and nobody is surprised, especially the design team.

    What I love so much about the challenge of logo design is that there’s really no room for faking it. You have, essentially, a 1″x1″ space in which to convey a certain aspect of the company. Every line, every curve, every piece of negative space, can mean something and needs to be considered. There’s no filler. And then comes the challenge of using at differing sizes, different applications. In many ways, you have the make the thing bulletproof so it always works, whether flying by on a truck or on your credit card.

20. Kyle Says:
    July 28th, 2005 at 3:08 pm

    By creating a logo especially for a specific business/organization, you can plan upcoming variations of the logo. (Just pointing out the obvious.) With a stock logo, would you have the rights to modify the logo to suit a sister company, or new product line?

21. Dave Giunta Says:
    July 28th, 2005 at 4:07 pm

    Kyle – the “Design By Committee” poster is from Veer and yes, it is quite beautiful! I know they used to carry a t-shirt with that graphic as well, but I can’t seem to find it on the veer site. Sorry.

22. Bruce DeBoer Says:
    July 29th, 2005 at 10:06 am

    I’m a huge design fan starting way back in RIT photography school and continuing onto my job at Hallmark Cards and board positions on AIGA/KC.

    I agree with your objection to the UPS change. Update it – yes – but keep what Rand built. Ultimately though, I doubt it will harm or help UPS in an measurable way. Start up companies, on the other hand, are a different story IMHO. They need all the help they can get.

    This was my post regarding the S. Godin logo comment:

    What’Äôs a logo worth?
    by Bruce DeBoer July 19, 2005 | Comments (0)

    This is the latest from Seth (Purple Cow ¬í√Ñ” Free Prize Inside ¬í√Ñ” Tell a Story) Godin. He states, ¬í√Ñ√∫all a logo needs, is to be GOOD ENOUGH¬í√Ñ√π when just a few weeks previous he wanted you to reject ¬í√Ñ√∫good enough¬í√Ñ√π.

    Ok ¬í√Ñ” perhaps he meant to say that your brand is built (or not) regardless of logo design. If that¬í√Ñ√¥s what he meant, I agree, but not at the expense of great design.

    Let’Äôs make this clear:

    A logo is your Brand Identity. It matters. The identity becomes the symbol for your brand image in the mind of the customer. ¬í√Ñ√∫Good enough¬í√Ñ√π is a well designed logo that will feel fresh for a long time. It¬í√Ñ√¥s one you and your customers won¬í√Ñ√¥t tire of in a few short years ¬í√Ñ” let¬í√Ñ√¥s say the first 10 – 20 years or so. A ¬í√Ñ√∫good enough¬í√Ñ√π logo is one that differentiates itself within its category and begins to tell the story before you know what that story is. It¬í√Ñ√¥s memorable. It¬í√Ñ√¥s distinctive. It¬í√Ñ√¥s representative.

    Nike is a great example. That swoosh was commissioned for $35 (they have since upped that payment significantly) but price doesn’Äôt always dictate quality. The swoosh logo gives the viewer a feeling of activity and motion before we begin to know the story of the brand. In ’ÄúGodin speak’Äù, it fits the brand story. I chose Nike because it’Äôs such an obvious example but there are many good ones: Kodak, Amtrak, Cotton, or I Love (heart) NY.

    A distinctive, well conceived and designed logo is worth every penny you can spend, but ultimately, it’Äôs only going to be as good as the brand you build around it.

23. DesignMaven Says:
    July 30th, 2005 at 8:08 am

    Adrian:

    “I think it was Paula Scher (or maybe it was Seth Godin) that talks about finding the person who makes the decision and pitching your design to them. If you can get the real leaders to understand what you are doing, you bypass the committees, you can avoid all the compromises that devalue your design. If you don¬í√Ñ√¥t have that support, your designs get passed around to everyone and you end up with design suggestions from the secretary and janitors”.

    This concept is not new. This is how Identity Design was practiced in it’s infancy during the late 1950s early 1960s. At the Multi National Corporations. Such as AT&T, IBM, Westinghouse, CBS, NBC (others)
    Most of the Design Services were provided by Industrial Designers, Identity Design, and Packaging were their respective expertise. Thus, Henry Dreyfuss, was the Design Consultant to AT&T. He hired Saul Bass to Design the Identity System. Eliot Noyes, was the Design Consultant to IBM, and Westinghouse he hired Paul Rand to Design their Identity System. As well, Eliot Noyes was the Design Consultant to Mobil, he hired Chermayeff & Geismar to Design the Identity System for Mobil. These Industrial Designers commanded the respect of Corporate America.
    Because of their reputation had access to the TOP MAN.
    The CEO in most cases requested the services of Raymond Loewy, Norman Bel Geddes, Henry Dreyfuss, Eliot Noyes, Walter Dorwin Teague. To include Saul Bass, Paul Rand Lester Beall, Herbet Bayer (others). Historically, most Industrial Design Consultancies were Product Design Specialist. Which was their major concentration. Other Industrial Design Consultancies such as Lippincott & Margulies, Walter Landor Associates, Donald Desky Associates, (others). Concentration was on Corporate Identity and Packaging which was Marketing, and Communication Driven.
    From it’s infancy, Graphic Designers played a major role in the development of Identity Design. As Industrial Designers became increasing interested in Product Design. The responsibility of Identity Design was left to Designers of International Repute and Identity Design Consultancies.The practitioners can be broken down into three separate categories, Design Gods, Professionals, and the rest.

    Early advertising agencies are reponsible for most of the early character driven Brand Icons. Developed by Leo Burnett, Young & Rubicam, (others). In the late 1960s early 1970s a new Consultacy was born. Dedicated to Corporate Identity only. Corporate and Brand Consultants understand everything in branding springs from the identity of the product and company, its architecture, interiors, print advertising, media communications, and e-branding. Advertising Agencies alone cannot comprehend clearly the nature of a corporation’s brand. Too many cultural, organizational, political, economical and psychological factors are involved for which advertising executives have no training. Identity Consultants employed sociologist, accountants, economist, psychologist, designers, marketing, trademark and patent lawyers.
    Today, far-sighted advertising agencies encourage their clients to use Corporate and Brand Identity Consultants where appropriate for Brand Strategy, Brand Research, Brand Positioning, Naming, Name Systems, Image Assessment, and Competitive Analysis.

    The Identity work of Graphic Design, Studos, Firms and Consultancies and Identity Consultancies are vastly different. The approach under-taken by Designers is generally a Formalist Approach. The work commenced by Identity Consultants is a Functionalist Approach.

    Formalist, Approach is without research and Design Driven. Functonalist Approach is Research Driven, combined with Marketing, Communication and Design. In the old days of Identity Design, 1960s, 1970s, it took a year or more to complete the internal research by Identity Consultancies. Today, and Identity Design can be rolled out in four months. In the old days it took four to six months or longer to Design the Identity Manuals. That’s where a large proportion of the money was spent. Identity Manuals could cost half the price of an Identity Program. The internet has changed the need for Identity Manuals.

    Backgound on FurtureBrand:

    FutureBrand is a spinoff of Landor Associates. Although not affiliated with Landor. It’s owner John Diefenbach was the President of Landor for approximately twenty (20) years. John Diefenbach partnered with John Elkins to form Diefenbach Elkins and its Europen subsidiary Davis Barron.

    Changed the name to FutureBrand. With John Elkins continuing to man the ship. FutureBrand acquired Coleman Worldwide. A Branding Consultancy Specializing in Category Brands (Packaging). Temporarily operated under the name FutureBrand Coleman. Coleman is now dropped from its name. Owen Coleman has since formed another Branding Consultancy Coleman Brandworx. http://www.brandwox.com

    John Elkins recently left FutureBrand to for a new Identity Consultancy TrueBrand.

    You can read some of my iterations of John Diefenbach on another Design weblog.

    Flip the Logo who cares. (Editorial)

    http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/001985.html#001985

    Comments (74)

    http://www.underconsideration.com/mt-static/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1985

    Side Bar, Paul Rand commanded astronomical fees for his Corporate Identity usually between one hundred thousand to three hundred thousand dollars. Those fees are unheard of for an individual Designer. At the same time, Paul Rand was loyal to the Corporations he Consulted. Meaning, in the old days he was on board for years. Performing various activity.

    The Professionals, The Identity Consultancies fees exceeded millions. Back in the day.

    Saul Bass, fees exceeded millions for most of his Identity Design Projects. Rockwell International fees were 1.5 million and that was back in the 1960s. Fees for Bell Telephone System and AT&T have never been disclosed. They are also unbelievably astronomical.

    Today the average fee for a Landor Identity Design is 3.5 million. Somewhere in that range for most First Tier Identity Consultancies.

    Identities used to last 20-30 years not today. They’re lucky if most have a five to seven year run.

    Identity Design is a Dying Artful Science. There are actually a handful of Capable and Knowledgeable Identity Designers on earth.

    JonSel, being one of them.

    Marketing Departments have Destroyed any preconceived notion in reference to doing exceptional work. Marketing Departments are the committe Designers must deal with to get their work approved. In most scenarios. Historically Marketing Departments and Designers never got along.

    DM

24. DesignMaven Says:
    July 30th, 2005 at 10:37 am

    Follow Up:

    The Nike Identity owe a Debt to several Identities before it’s time.

    Whirlpool, which incorporates a swoosh and orbit ring. Not as clearly defined as the others I’ll mention.

    http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/search/?query_id=2057597&page=1&brand_id=42809

    Skillcraft, Designed by Dixon & Parcels. Which was Designed in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

    Screen Gems, Designed by Chermayeff & Geismar, 1960s.

    http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/search/?query_id=2058017&page=3&brand_id=106525

    Security Pacific Bank, Designed by Saul Bass, 1960s. If you look at the outer element encasing the “S”. You will see a swoosh.

    United Airlines, Designed by Saul Bass, 1970s. If you look at the outer element encasing the interlocking “U”. You will see a swoosh.

    http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/search/?query_id=2058115&page=39&brand_id=33564

    Carolyn Davidson’s Identity for Nike is not an anomaly.
    The reason most people are not aware of this, because they have not done the research.

    DM

25. Tom O'Grady Says:
    August 5th, 2005 at 4:54 pm

    In my 25 years of design experience, I have come to believe it’’s not the logo that really matters,but rather the product, the service and/or the delivery of the brand that matters.

    Tom Wolfe is wrong and might continue to focus on architecure.

    The logo design process itself is not simple exercise. When done properly the use of focused research, clear objectives established between the client and the talent, the freedom to execute the identity within the framework of guidelines and the ability to differentiate the mark from the world of visual clutter are just minimal deliverables of a smart icon.

    When UPS introduced the new mark, the” what has brown done for you”? campaign broke and so the bropwn logo supported the message. Objective met.

    Paul Rand’s brilliant work unfortunately has not stood the test of time and most of the work today looks dated and oversimplistic.

    I think thje most successful designers today as as adroit as business people as they are in understanding core design pronciples and philosophy. Remember not so many years ago we were commercial artists and not graphic designers.

    I cheer on the changes of new talented young designers who are doing some tremendous work in in the field.

    TOG

26. Tom O'Grady Says:
    August 5th, 2005 at 4:54 pm

    In my 25 years of design experience, I have come to believe it’’s not the logo that really matters,but rather the product, the service and/or the delivery of the brand that matters.

    Tom Wolfe is wrong and might continue to focus on architecure.

    The logo design process itself is not simple exercise. When done properly the use of focused research, clear objectives established between the client and the talent, the freedom to execute the identity within the framework of guidelines and the ability to differentiate the mark from the world of visual clutter are just minimal deliverables of a smart icon.

    When UPS introduced the new mark, the” what has brown done for you”? campaign broke and so the bropwn logo supported the message. Objective met.

    Paul Rand’s brilliant work unfortunately has not stood the test of time and most of the work today looks dated and oversimplistic.

    I think thje most successful designers today as as adroit as business people as they are in understanding core design pronciples and philosophy. Remember not so many years ago we were commercial artists and not graphic designers.

    I cheer on the changes of new talented young designers who are doing some tremendous work in in the field.

    TOG

27. david Says:
    May 1st, 2008 at 12:46 pm

    “So, Paula Scher or Seth Godin (whichever it was that suggested to get directly to the decision maker and bypass all the underlings) are certainly right on‚Ķ”
    Actually, I believe this was said by Paul Rand.

Leave a Reply