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

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

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

“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

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.

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.