I LOVE LogoLounge. In a relatively short period of time, it has become one of the pre-eminent online and print resources for great logo work. One of the best things about LogoLounge is the dismissal of typical arbitrary logo competition restrictions: submitted logos don’t need to have been designed in a certain year or for a certain type of client. Hell, they don’t even need to have been approved by your client. They just have to be yours. And there’s the reason I’m writing.

We use LogoLounge constantly as a resource for what’s out there, what’s good, and who’s doing it. But I recently learned some information I felt compelled to share. Turns out that the logos you submit to LL just barely have to be yours. Brand behemoths like Landor & Associates have submitted (and subsequently had published in the LL books) logos that they may really only have tweaked. Or maybe they were just the ones who built the first Illustrator version. For an example, see the image above. The original Mercedes-Benz three-pointed star logo existed as least as early as 1930; Walter Landor didn’t even form Landor & Associates until 1941. But you’ll find the logo credited to them online and in LogoLounge II.

I talked with Bill Garder, the founder of LogoLounge, about this concern. I appreciated his response and his clarification of the philosophy of LogoLounge. To clear up the matter, he told me “I think every designer with a little bit of smarts knows that these were all logos that have been around longer than Landor. On the other hand, I know that Landor was involved in designing the version that they have posted. It may be a variation to the weight, or the proportions, or the surface, or the reflections, or the shadow, etc.” Bill then went on to expand on some of the thought process behind LogoLounge (including many of the things I noted above that I appreciated so much about it). He said that one of the decisions he made when starting the endeavor was that “LogoLounge would not be an arbiter,” and that he trusts the paying members of the site to be responsible in crediting work appropriately. (And added that “before Rockport publishes any logo, we must provide them a grant of right form signed by the submitter that states they are responsible for the image and the associated credits. At that point, any legal onus is put pack on the contributor.”)

So, did Landor “design” the Mercedes-Benz logo? That’s a judgment I’m not even going to try to make here. My main point is this: LogoLounge continues to be one of the best logo resources available. I would encourage everyone to continue to use the website and the books for comparison and inspiration on an aesthetic level. I just caution you about using the credits on an intellectual or educational endeavor. They may not be telling you the entire story. But perhaps that’s what makes LogoLounge what it is: it’s not about budgets, approval, clients, or even designers. It’s all about the LOGO.

And, as Felix Sockwell says in his review of LogoLounge II in the July 2005 issue of Communication Arts: “But is designer ownership really what’s important? Probably not, unless it’s yours.”

Comments (31)

JonSel said:

I find it a bit weird as well. This is not an uncommon thing, though. I’ve seen many logos, such as Mastercard, featured on several different brand consultancy websites in the past. Of course not every one of them did the logo. They may not have even touched it.

What surprises me most is that LogoLounge is not really that best site for a large agency to tout it’s branding work. Obviously, if they designed (and I mean designed so it looks VERY different from a previous incarnation) the logo, then it makes sense. But it doesn’t encompass all the other offerings that Landor or Siegel & Gale, etc. offer. I have no knowledge of the Mercedes project, but I imagine Landor did anything from model brochures to retail signs to behind-the-scenes strategy work. Putting a slightly modified logo up on LogoLounge really de-emphasizes the value of what the agency offers.

Regarding LogoLounge, I think the books are well done and the overall quality is more consistent than what you often find in one of these massive logo compendiums. But as a site, maybe I haven’t fully understood the business sense beyond being a site to browse and gain “inspiration” from, in which case I have plenty of other resources for that.

Posted on August 2, 2005

Bennett said:

It seems like there are varied reasons for being a part of Logo Lounge. The biggest of which seems to be getting in the book. It seems like some companies will submit their logo without credits or keywords, just so their logo is considered for publication. I would say that Landor is entering logos so they can win awards, but they seemed to be a little bigger than this. It’s not like people go to Landor to just get a new “logo”. After looking at the Landor logos on LL, is it company policy to not give the individual designer credit?

JonSel, Is there any logo resource as organized and searchable as Logo Lounge? I can’t think of any.

Another example of “whodunit” is the old VH1 logo. I remember reading some clarifications of this on the VH1 logo redesign thread on Speak Up. Adams Morioka gets credit for it, but wasn’t their role more of a brand guide than the original logo designer? I’m sure they tweaked it a bit and added the “music first” slogan, but does this deserve to be credited to them? With that said, IBM had a slab serif typeface and UPS had a shield before Rand ever redesigned their logos. At what point does a tweak become enough of a change for a person of company to get credit for it?

Posted on August 3, 2005

As far as I know, there’s no Landor policy regarding crediting work. Any submissions I saw credited all parties involved, all the way up and down the ladder. It’s very possible the logos on LL were submitted by a central marketing person and not the individual offices responsible for the work. The lack of credits is most likely due to that person not bothering to try to compile them. And yes, I can’t see clients being overwhelmed because Landor has some work in LL.

You bring up an interesting point, Bennett, regarding credit for updates or revisions to existing marks. In the case of Rand, I’d say he altered the IBM typeface so it read more as a logo than just typeset letters. And he injected concept into UPS’s shield where there had been little of value. Of course, I may have too high regard for Rand to see this clearly! To make this more personal, I redrew the word “Financial” for E-Trade’s logo, but I don’t take credit for the entire logo in my portfolio. That would be silly. I think the alterations must be somewhat significant. Adding dimensional gradients is not really owning the mark. It certainly is a grey area, though. Is the new NHL mark ownable by SME Branding because of the changes they made? I think so, but I could see the argument that it’s simply an addition of gradients and some simple type modifications.

DesignMaven said:

This is a very touchy issue. Felix contacted me personally to do the research in February 2005. At the time, my computer was being serviced. Was without a computer for three months.

Certainly, you can substantiate my claim with Felix. Anybody familiar with me will attest, First and Foremost I’m forthright.

I am one of few people on earth that can make an accurate assessment of what was actually commenced by said consultancy.

I have finished my research. I mentioned this on Speak Up to Bill Gardner. I have been in touch with Bill Gardner. Have not submitted my Research. Personally, I’m choosing not to write an Editorial on this subject. Because of the embarrassment to Logo Lounge and Landor.

I have found over twenty Identities mis-credited to Landor. Landor actually had nothing to do with other than Brand Enhancement or Positioning.

Landor, is credited with Design for Mercedes Benz Identity. Mercedes Benz Identity was Designed by Gottlieb Daimler, 1911. Landor only did Retail Environment and architectural Signage for Mercedes Benz. There’s no documentation that Landor actually revitalized Mercedes Benz Identity.

You guys only have one. Or at least you’ve posted one. I’ve got another twenty or more Landor had nothing to do with or moderately revitalized the Brand.

Furthermore, to solidify my research, I’ve been in touch with former Landor Creative Directors and Design Managers to confirm my research.

Think about the GE Monogram. Landor did not actually Develop and Conceptualize GE’ s Monogram. They reduced the size of the Monogram by redrawing it. The GE Monogram has been in use since 1896 when Thomas Edison was alive and founded the Company. The only reason Landor can take credit for the Monogram. They actually redrew with subtle changes. Insofar as ownership the Identity still belong to the Designer that actually Developed and Conceptualized the Idea.

Even Landor admitted the Original GE Monogram was a better Designed Identity than the revitalized Identity.

Adrian and Bennett:

Not criticizing you, just a professional observation.

I’m not in anyway upset that you broke the story before I decided what I was going to do. There is a serious credibility issue with Logo Lounge and Landor. Regardless whoever is submitting the work for Landor. Ethical, and moral obligation aside. I would not have posted an Editorial until I knew where the bodies were buried. Meaning, in possession of concret evidence to substantiate my claim. Most important knowing the twenty Identities Logo Lounge has mis-credited to Landor.

Each Journalist or Identity Design Commentator is different. I felt I had a responsibility to submit my research to Bill Gardner First and Foremost. Then we could decide the best course of action to take.

P.S. The most overwhelming example. Saul Bass Designed every aspect of Exxon Gas Stations from Traffic Flow, to Signage to Packaging. Saul Bass never took credit for Designing the Exxon Identity. It was Designed by Raymond Loewy. Although, Saul Bass streamlined the typeface. Mr. Bass never took credit for Exxon’s Identity. Exxon was showcased in Bass Yager’s Capability Brochures. Raymond Loewy’s Identity was never showcased as work commenced by Saul Bass. Although, he did streamline the typeface within the Identity. Now, that’s Honesty and Integrity, befitting a GOD.

On UPS, Paul Rand changed the Identity enough to call it his own. The Package Design above the shield made Mr. Rand’s Identity for UPS Proprietory.

Although, people say a shield existed before Paul Rand’s. I’ve never actually seen the shield. I have one of the most extensive databases on Identity Design on Earth. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. People saying a shield existed before Paul Rand’s are unable to provide an example.

Posted on August 5, 2005

felix sockwell said:

I think the reason Bill contacted Landor and personally loaded their files was so that there would be a few large players / logos involved with the site/book- to give the smaller boutique shops someone to stare up (or down) at. I actually pressed him to get Landor and others involved. As a freelance illlustrator/ identity designer I try to own or claim as much work as possible. Its a long and incredibly winding road… lots of strange turns, but fun.

thx for your research, DM.

we appreciate it.

Maven, check out this page from UPS’s web site: http://www.pressroom.ups.com/mediakits/factsheet/0,2305,1060,00.html

That should give you the abridged logo backstory, including the original incarnations of the shield. Don’t worry, I’m not hatin’ on Rand! I look up to him as much as you.

…

So, Felix, this is all your fault? ;-)

Felix:

Many thanks, I’m still going to present my findings to Mr. Gardner. It’s only proper and fair.

JonSel:

Many thanks, and Great Research. The shield looks so monolithic. Maybe UPS should be using the monolithic shield. Stone Age or Stonehenge.

Rand’s Identity is so radically different from what UPS was already using.

Similarities exist, granted. The end result Rand’s Identity went through a Metamorphosis.

To the public at large. This a very, very delicate situation. Which is why I’m not posting an Editorial, Reputations are at Stack. There’s serious credibility issue.

If I exposed my research we’d all be on the floor in Dead Cockroach position Crying Laughing.

The proper thing to do is save our profession more embarrassment. Allow Mr. Gardner to make the necessary corrections with Landor after I present my research.

Felix, you’re not to blame. You heart and mind was in the right place.

Every commission of Landor’s Services is not an Identity Design Project. An aweful lot of it is Naming, Brand Enhancement, Brand Extension, Brand Positioning, Identity Management Systems, Retail Environment, Signature Service. and Packaging.

Our compadre’ Monsieur Vit is going POSTAL about now !!!!

The superiority of Design Maven is evident yet again. Sarcasm intended.

DM, If you really were concerned about keeping this between Logo Lounge and Landor then why did you comment here? You certainly have added to the embarrassment of both entities in an obvious ploy to get credit for all of your “research”. You my friend, are no saint. Because of you, this post will be read by many more people and become a much bigger deal.

Nobody said we were trying to be professionals here. By the way, who ever said that delivering part of a story is unprofessional. Unless you are saying that we have our facts wrong, don’t get condescending on us. I’m sure Drew had no way of knowing there were twenty “bodies”. The research of contacting and clarifying with Bill Gardner should be plenty of “concrete evidence” to have a post here. Being unprofessional is saying that you have dirt on someone, but not having the fortitude to share the evidence. Mr Maven, The most damning part of this whole thing is that there were twenty logos in total. I doubt the specifics are going to make it any worse.

As far as Rand’s logos for UPS and IBM, I agree that he made very significant changes. Definitely enough to take full credit for both identities. I just threw that out there as food for thought.

JonSel, Nice link!

I don’t really see this as that big a deal. Obviously, credit should go where it is due. But if Landor touched the identity, then they can claim a credit on it. They have no legal obligation to detail the history of each and every mark they work on. That would be just too much to ask of anyone. And, if we’re really getting down to it, the only credit that truly matters is for the client that commissioned the work. They paid for it, they own it. Whether GE’s monogram is the original one or the revised version that Landor did in 1984 or the latest incarnation by Wolff Olins, it’s GE’s logo, not Landor’s, and not WO’s and not whoever designed it within those agencies.

Like I said in my earlier post, it doesn’t seem worth it for Landor to be entering into a logo-only portfolio. It greatly underestimates their capabilities and scope of work they normally do. And, as is obvious from our discussion here, it creates confusion regarding their role in working with their clients.

And regarding Monsieur Vit (shouldn’t it at least be Se±or?), even he would admit that he doesn’t have the market cornered on graphic design discussions.

Posted on August 6, 2005

Bennett:

Mud slinging aside. When I read the editorial. I was aware Felix was writing an article on Logo Lounge. This was back in February 2005. He did not acknowledge when the article was going to be released.

Neither was Felix aware of the Magnitude of what he was asking me. Although, he was skeptical of what was being presented.

Based on the information shed on this site under the GUISE of comparing and contrasting the two Identities.How much you enjoyed Logo Lounge. And the outright ignorance of the practice of Identity Design. Albeit, flagrant disrespect and regard for Ethics and Morality. Your lack of understanding of quality control of publicatons of this magnitude is no excuse. It is quite easy to print misrepresentatons. Unlike yourself, I have no intent to try to Sensationalize or become a Practitioner of Yellow Journalism. Neither discredit nor destroy another human being. Most important, I have no MODES OPERANDI.

My sole purpose of writing on your blog. Was to inform you and your readers, you were shooting blanks.

Better, UP THE CREEK, WITHOUT A PADDLE and A HOLE IN YOUR BOAT !!!!!!!!!!!!

One thing for certain Bennett, you’ll never get CREDIT.

Try rolling up your sleeves, instead of Whore Mongering for Publicity.

INFORMATION IS POWER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pun Intended.

DM,

“Mud slinging aside.” That will be the day.

Thank you for enlightening us all. Someday when I know as much as you, I hope that I am not as arrogant.

Kid:

That’ll be the Day!!!!!

You can LIVE AND DIE 25 LifeTimes and still won’t know what I know. !!!!!

You can work at all the First Tier Identity Consultancies for the rest of your life. And you still won’t know what I know.

Difference between YOU and ME.

THEY ALL COME TO ME !!!!!!!

Knowledge Reign Supreme Over Everyone.

See Ya, Wouldn’t Wanna be Ya.

Adrian said:

Geez, what is going on here?

DesignMaven, obviously we are going to get defensive when you question the integrity of our intentions. Drew easily did more than enough research before he made his post. If you have more research that can add to it, that would be appreciated. There aren’t any logo police that you can file a formal report with. There are very few people who would care enough to be an audience for this kind of thing, so you should use this as a place to spread your ideas rather than attacking the messenger.

My opinion is that LogoLounge is less important than they are given credit for. Yeah, they put out a nice book, and you have to pay a fee to join their club, but big deal. Considering the logos you submit don’t even have to be for a real client, I think that more than anything hurts the legitimacy of what they are doing. If you can submit fake logos for imaginary clients, it shouldn’t be a shock that you can submit real logos that you didn’t build from scratch.

the only credit that truly matters is for the client …They paid for it, they own it. - Jonsel

Bullshit. Theres a happy compromise. There has to be. If I worked on the FedexKinkos and/or Apple iTunes logos I’d like to be able, as a practitioner, to show that work to potential clients. But I can’t (or wouldnt be able to) - and that stunts my credibility/ authority as an identity designer. If I am only afforded “service- aka: work for whore” contracts what happend to our profession? Only clients matter? Do you really believe that, Jonsel?

If no one were allowed to speak about the work they do and “clients pay for and decide” what to do thereafter- then we’re much worse off. There should be an open dialogue after the project is settled. I understand non-disclosures are valid in reasoning - and essential to what we (er, they) do but c’mon.

Have some self respect.

DM: Quit badgering Gardner with e mails on the Logolounge/Landor “controversy”. If I were him- in charge of an identity book- I would want to reach out in whatever way I could to insure I got what I needed. True, Landor lied like a motherfucker on those credits. But I pointed that out rather firmly in the CA article/review. Don’t point fingers at me or him- it’s Landor you need to go after.

And good luck on that, my friend.

Ok, you’re right, Felix, there is a happy compromise. I wasn’t really considering the rights of the designer to use the work for self-promotional purposes. That’s just ridiculous when that’s not permitted. The client has a right to the work as much as we have a right to continue to pursue work. Denying that would be unfair.

Maven had made a comment about ownership Äì¬Ý“ownership (of) the Identity still belong(s) to the Designer that actually Developed and Conceptualized the Idea” Äì¬Ýwhich just isn’t true. Yes, you can “own” it to the extent that you can use it to promote your design/identity business. But you can’t own it legally. Ownership rights are transferred upon completion of the project. Maybe I’m naive about how this works? Is there a joint copyright shared by client and designer?

“DM: Quit badgering Gardner with e mails on the Logolounge/Landor ÄúcontroversyÄù. If I were him- in charge of an identity book- I would want to reach out in whatever way I could to insure I got what I needed. True, Landor lied like a motherfucker on those credits. But I pointed that out rather firmly in the CA article/review. DonÄôt point fingers at me or him- itÄôs Landor you need to go after”.

I don’t know what the F*** you’re talking about.

Gardner got in touch with me. After my posting on Speak Up. To begin addessing this Major Major Catastrophe, I’ve had dialog with Gardner once.

Need I remind you and everbody else. Gardner doesn’t know where bodies are buried. Neither do you. Some maybe. Not all of them.

Felix, next time get your Facts Straight before you speak publictly.

Adrian, If I were going to release my research, it would be on Speak Up or Design Observer First.

Since, I’m the only person other than Landor that know where all the bodies are buried. It’s between Bill Gardner and Landor. I will not betray that trust.

The research began with me and it will end with me.

Posted on August 7, 2005

Perhaps, the worst CRIME you can commit with me is to BLAST ME Publictly for something I did not do. Your CROSS TO BARE !!!!! Not mine. You should re-read the email you sent me February 13, 2005. Requesting my Expertise.

The examples you provided in reference to Landor. What they did and did not create. You are emphatically wrong.

Yes, Logo Lounge 2 has many mistakes in it with work in reference to Landor. Again, you don’t actually know what they are. Neither does Bill Gardner. I do. And everybody else other than Landor and Bill Gardner need to SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!

I can post your email online from February 13, 2005, if needed.

Bill Gardner’s letter to me.

From : bill gardner bill@gardnerdesign.com
Sent : Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:13 AM
To : the_marks_man@hotmail.com
Subject : Glad to talk to you about it

Hi Design Maven,

I’d be glad to talk to you about any issues you may have with the trends article or credits given to the work in the article. Keep in mind that all examples are pulled from logos that have been submitted to LogoLounge and credits are given exactly as entered by the members and not by myself. As the site has over 20,000 logos we rely on our membership for accurate claims of ownership.

Feel free to let me know what the issue is regarding Landor. I’m a pretty open guy and always glad to talk to just about anyone. Out of curiosity what is the previous mis-credit you intended to bring up in the upcoming editorial? Just as an aside the spelling on my name is Gardner. Hope to put a name to your moniker and talk soon. Thanks ever.

Bill Gardner
Gardner Design
3204 E. Douglas
Wichita, Kansas 67208

My email to Bill Gardner. As anyone can see and Bill Gardner will attest. It was approximately one month before I decided to contact Gardner.

I very reluctantly contacted Mr. Gardner. I did so out of professional courtesy. Because he emailed me the same day I posted on Speak Up.

Felix: word to the wise. DON’T BIT THE HAND THAT’s FEEDING YOU.

You contacted me for help. I didn’t contact you !!!!!!!

From :designmaven themarksman@hotmail.com
Sent : Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:33 AM
To :bill@gardnerdesign.com

Subject: DesignMaven

7-12-05

Bill Gardner

Gardner Design
3204 E. Douglas
Wichita, Kansas 67208

Bill:

Many thanks for contacting me. I am in receipt of your communication dated June 22, 2005.

Presently, conducting further research of the mis-credited entries in Logo Lounge 2. At a Glance there are at least twenty entries that are mis-credited to Landor. Not GD USA initially implied on Speak Up.

Initially, I stated I would contact you within two weeks. Actually, there’s no rush in reference to the time-frame of this material.

Writing you out of Professional Courtesy to inform you my research is forthwith.

Many thanks for the time you took to write. I’m longwinded. Nobody on Earth love Identity Design more than me. Finally, you have a real name for my Moniker.

real name

Ownership of Corporate Identity is implied via Copyright Law. The buyer own the Identity. Normally, there is a buy-out. Usaully with Identity work there is a buy- out.

Designer(s) can sell as much or as little of their Design to the buyer as they want.

If there is not a buy-out. A Designer can sell as much or as little of the Design as they want.

Meaning they can sell and Identity Design for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, three years whatever.

This pratice doesn’t make sense. Usually does not happen. Because the buy-out fee is so astronomical.

(EDITOR’S NOTE; Design Maven’s name has been removed from this comment)

DM:

I love y’buddy but don’t call my house in a threatening tone. Youre acting out of line here and pissing people off. Me included. You wanna have a beer and discuss things in the city sometime? Fine. Youre blowing things out of proportion.

For the record, I didnt contact you for any type of “service” as you infer. I simply e mailed you to double check the research I had completed.

Lets move on, shall we?

Best,FS

That’s all you GOT.

Thanks for putting out my name. (EDITOR’S NOTE; Design Maven’s name has been edited out of the previous comment) I can use the Publicity to BOOST MY CAREER and make some MONEY. Controversy sells.You actually did me a FAVOR. In spite of thinking you CUT MY THROAT. I ain’t made a cha.

You know Felix, Irrespective of you posting my real name online. I going to be the Bigger Man amd Publictly inform everyone online that you’re really a Piece of Shit.

And you have a personal vendetta against Landor for whatever reason. My name is no big secret. Not that much of a problem.

If you ever have worked for Landor. Which you’ve no doubt lied about every time you open your mouth.

Landor, should actually Sue your Ass for Deformation.

For the record, I called to ask that you explain your comments that you wrote online.

Piece of Shit that you are, you weren’t man enough to return the call. Much less answer the phone.

I’m pissing people off Felix.

What can you do about or anybody do it? Posting my name online is totally a SUCKER MOVE.

And people that know both of us really see you for what you are.

You have as much Credibility as Bill Gardner. Although, you’ve lied on serveral occassions to Protect Gardner, and his involvement.

Bill Gardner is just as Guilty as Landor.

Which everyone fully understand except you. And Bill Gardner is in Denial.

If I were Gardner, I really would question why you wrote a disparaging article discrediting Landor in the first place. Without coming to him to discuss your concerns. I have yet to see your article.

Your letter goes up in the morning, bud.

Posted on August 8, 2005

——- Original Message ——-
From: “felix Sockwell”
To: “designmaven” themarksman@hotmail.com
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 11:32 PM
Subject: lounge article

hey frank-

doing a piece for CA.
wanted your quick input… though
you probably havent seen the book…

just wanted to double
check my facts here on landor’s lies. if i’m wrong
please follow with personal research on Landor.

pls give it a read and bless it… be good, f

—— —

LogoLounge 2- the sequel, is equal if not better than its predescesor. A compilation of “2,000 international identities by leading designers” this volume strives simply, without too much verbal-for-visual swapping. Not a ton of branding hooey either- a real designer’s logo book.

Proper dedication went into finer things too; sizing, centering, printing-details not overlooked when considering which book to enter and add to the shelf. Its designed in a sturdy, easy to navigate grid with pull out articles (by Cathy Fishel) with the designers on process.,

Before Logolounge, there was Graphis Logo, which cast a wider net but had long habit of mistreating, miscrediting or recoloring the art. Ditto for PRINT Magazine. With logolounge theres a viable, cheaper, respectable offering. The first LogoLounge book (released in February of 2003) sold out in 45 days. It was the largest selling design book for Rockport Publishers in recent years. Its obvious theres some staying power with this Lounge idea. So its got that going for it.

On its down side, the credits are lackling. Lately, the trend has regressed; ignoring the indiviual and simply naming the firm. I have mixed feelings on transparency, but if there is one obstacle with Logolounge 2 (and the website) its crediting. Landor (a well-known leader with loads in the book) claims Coca-Cola, Disney, Mercedes, Kellogg’s, Coors, Johnson & Johnson, and Levi’s - all of which were established well before the firm existed! Roughly half their credits are either flat out lies or huge stretches of the imagination.

Clients and young designers with little sense of history may be fooled into thinking otherwise. Will this kill your visual buzz? Probably not, unless its one of yours.

Confucious say behind every good logo is great copyright lawyer.

not the greatest bit if wrtinig but screw it -not my job!

My return email to Felix.

From: designmaven themarksman@hotmail.com
To:felix@felixsockwell.com
Subject: NO LOGO
Date: Feb 14, 2005 5:38 PM

Unfortunately, I ‘m not on my computer. Having a new operating system put on my my system. Upgrading from windows 98 to to XP Home Edition. Think I was hit by a virus too. Using a computer at the local library. Went to D.C. Public Library, Friday. Signed on to use the computers at 12:20 pm Couldn’t get access to a computer to surf the net until 8:00 pm. I waited until 3:30 and left.

I wouldn’t accuse Landor of anything. As JonSel said in a recent Speak Up Posting. The trend has been if you Tweak the Design, you own it. As he said he doesn’t agree with that Theory.

“if there is one obstacle with Logolounge 2 (and the website) its crediting. Landor (a well-known leader with loads in the book) claims Coca-Cola, Disney, Mercedes, Kellogg’s, Coors, Johnson & Johnson, and Levi’s - all of which were established well before the firm existed! Roughly half their credits are either flat out lies or huge stretches of the imagination”

I would end the sentence after the exclamation mark. And leave out accusing Landor.

You’re not accurate in your assessment. Landor did indeed revitalized Coca Cola’s Identity. They also revitalized Disney’s Identity in the Late 1980s or early 90s. Landor also created the original Identity for Levy Jeans. Which was published in Walter Landor’s Book. Idea Special Issue 1978 a JAPANESE PUBLICATION. Insofar, as Kellogs Landor did packaging don’t think they actually created the Identity. For Mercedes Benz, Landor only did Retail Environment and architectural Signage. Landor has always had the Johnson & Johnson Account. Will need further research to confirm the Identity. They Designed the Identity for Miller Lite. I would assume Landor created the Identity for Coors. They have done packaging for them.

The other logo books were;

David E. Carter, American Corporate Identity. Which actually existed before Graphis Logo.

Art Direction Books released five volumes of Corporate Identity Books during the 1980s They were Developed and Designed by Al Cooper. Those were Great Books. Mysteriously, they were not continued.

The Japanese essentially cornered the market on Corporate Identity Books. To Get a list of these books and all Corporate Identity Books. Visit, American Corporate Identity.com

On David Carter’s site. He has a list of the best published Corporate Identity Books ever published. Listed under Logo Books. Or Corporate Identity Reading list.

Aware you don’t like David Carter. Based on you comment on Speak Up. But this list is essential. Check out his site.

Hope this tidbit of information help. Check out David E. Carter’s site for the Logo Books or Corporate Identity Reading list. It is awesome. Most of the books, I’m already familiar.

Don’t write back. I won’t be able to use this computer again. One time Courtesy !!!!!!!!!!

I should have my computer back by Friday, this week.

Regards

Maven

P.S. I was at Boarders in D.C. Pentagon City Looking for the new Logo Lounge Book. Did not find it on the shelf. When I do, I will report my research on Landor.

“PERSONAL RESEARCH”????.

Well, I dont save your COUNTLESS e mails but that sounds rather out of place for me and in the context of that particular e mail. Doesnt it? Did you forge that? Wouldnt suprise me.

OK, lets say i did ask you to research. So what? You wanna get paid or sumpn? I think I got $82 for that article!

“If you ever have worked for Landor. Which youÄôve no doubt lied about…”

Now Frank. C’mon. I did the identity for their Cinncinati office. its on my website! You did the research on me right? Call Dick Westendorf and badger him about it.

Tell him you are Design Maven, the blackbird of designÄî not Frank Briggs, the high priest of identity babble. And tell him I sent you.

“Tell him you are Design Maven, the blackbird of designÄî not Frank Briggs, the high priest of identity babble. And tell him I sent you”.

I’m as PUZZLED as you Felix. Why on EARTH would a WHITE BOY have to come to a BLACK MAN for anything ?

The evidence is overwhelming.

The issue isn’t money. You don’t have anything I want or need. It is a credibility issue. Based on Trust and Mutual Respect. Which you’ve destroyed.

And explaining that to you is like explaining to you a JACKASS HAS EARS.

Can we be done with the personal attacks (I know … I am to blame as well). Has everyone got out their dirty laundry now? It would be great if we tried to keep the rest of the comments limited to new thoughts on the issue at hand. Landor, Logo Lounge and the overall idea of who can take credit for the design of a trademark.

I love y’ Frank.

Don’t be hatin’.

We’re on the same side.

Drew Davies said:

Wow.

Not even sure what to say, but I feel compelled to add something to this derailed rollercoaster ride.

First, to Frank: please don’t criticize Bennett and Adrian for something they didn’t do. They established this design blog as an unmoderated forum for a group of authors. They have generously placed their trust and faith in us, counting on our judgement and professionalism. They did not write the post regarding LogoLounge. I did.

Furthermore, this is a space for opinions and observations, not npr.com. I’d seen something interesting about LogoLounge, did the amount of research and background I felt was necessary, and then posted my thoughts. I’m sure I would’ve approached the process differently if I’d been tasked with covering the story for the New York Times. You can all rest assured there was no story “scooping” going on here.

Lots of other things I could comment on, but I think I’ll let most of them be. But as a legitimate point of discussion, I’d like to make a note on something you said, Adrian. You said that “If you can submit fake logos for imaginary clients, it shouldnÄôt be a shock that you can submit real logos that you didnÄôt build from scratch.” I’m not comfortable with your suggestion. I wholeheartedly agree with the general point being made that logo showcases don’t really underscore the business value of design; all they do is celebrate the artifacts, not the thinking. Designers love these showcases, but I’m afraid they may do the understanding of our value more harm than good. But to suggest that a designer submitting logos they did for a client, which subsequently didn’t get selected, is the same as submitting logos you didn’t actually design, that’s just not correct. LogoLounge is unique in that they allow you to do that, and I think it’s great: there’s really valid thinking and design behind a lot of “no go logos” which is still worth showcasing. But no designer should ever get to take credit for work they didn’t do.

Lastly, Frank, I hope eventually you’ll complete your research and publish your findings on LogoLounge. I’m sure that all of us would be very curious to hear the secrets you know.

Bennett and Felix, thanks for your support. I think at its core, this is a really valuable discussion.

Posted on August 9, 2005

Ahhh. Calm waters.

THx Drew.

per “real logos not drawn from scratch”… I think Bennet has a case (ie: Debbie Millman’s Burger King logo)Äî Its not the most elegant thing, but it seems to work OK.

Posted on August 10, 2005

dan said:

wow what a marathon reading that back and forth pettyness! I would have expected better from recognised names in the online world of posting on everything design!

Posted on September 13, 2005

ralphnasr said:

philosophy of any brand should be create according the target or a philosiphical point of view where we can applicat it on a architectural design.

Posted on October 7, 2005

Be A Design Group

Be A Design Group

BE A DESIGN GROUP is an invitation to all people to participate in design. It is a place where designers can test new ideas, share observations, and comment on cultural trends. Our definition of design is intentionally broad so that the subject matter of our posts can be diverse and unlimited.

LogoLounge Whodunit

by , (31 comments)

Sponsored by:

Comments (31)

JonSel said:

Bennett said:

JonSel said:

DesignMaven said:

felix sockwell said:

JonSel said:

DesignMaven said:

Bennett said:

JonSel said:

DesignMaven said:

Bennett said:

DesignMaven said:

Adrian said:

felix sockwell said:

JonSel said:

DesignMaven said:

DesignMaven said:

DesignMaven said:

DesignMaven said:

felix sockwell said:

DesignMaven said:

DesignMaven said:

DesignMaven said:

felix sockwell said:

DesignMaven said:

Bennett said:

felix sockwell said:

Drew Davies said:

felix sockwell said:

dan said:

ralphnasr said:

Post a comment