Logo New(s) 8: Inter the Future
It has been a huge week in logo redesigns and it looks like the next couple of weeks are going to be even bigger (and flashier)! First MasterCard and Payless, and now three Rand and one Bass logo. No word on which branding firms took these on, but from the look of the designs, the list is pretty short. Westinghouse gets swooshey, United gets transparent, IBM becomes ibm and ABC rounds it all out. Isn’t this your worst identity nightmare?
Ok, ok . . . These are not real! As far as I know, none of these logos are in the process of being redesigned either, but this would be my worst nightmare. I created each of the above redesigns in about 15-30 minutes of Illustrator and Photoshop “magic”. There is no real thought behind them . . . just swooshes, bevels, perspectives, gradients and transparencies. I did these as an attempt (albeit a weak one) to convince others to not mess with these logos, at least not in this way. So many great and timeless logos have been scrapped for the shiny new logos of today. So much could be done with the supporting visuals to enhance a brands identity, that many times there is no need to destroy the classics. Maybe the usual suspects (the few mega-branding firms who handle these types of rebrands) will see the above designs and scrap their first round of ideas, and push on to create some innovative identities and not the easy solutions that we have seen so much of lately.
The Current Logos
To quote a recent Speak Up editorial by Armin Vit . . . “that Payless’ new logo is not good. It’s bad. And worst of all: It’s not amateur-bad, it’s professional-bad. Just like AT&T, UPS, Aflac, NWA and many, many more.”
I know I am probably preaching to the choir here, but maybe, just maybe if we sing loud enough, the branding firms that make these decisions will hear our song of reason and make the right decision. If we are going to redesign a classic logo (or design a new one for that matter), lets stand up for good design and actually do something innovative instead of relying on bevels and drop shadows applied to someone else’s genius.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:54 am
OhMyGod! You scared the sh*t out of me for a second there. I sat in my chair for a minute just cringing and clawing at my eyes (really, I did). It took my room-mate pointing out that none of them were real for me to start to come down.
On a totally unrelated note; ever thought about making a horror movie?
July 7th, 2006 at 2:51 am
I’d be much more interested in seeing what you(or anybody else complaining) thinks one of the many recent defiled logos should look like. How about UPS?
“I wouldn’t have changed it at all,” is not an option. That discussion has already happened, and the decision reached. Your job is to make it work.
Yes, it’s amusing to actively create a crap logo by mindlessly aping what you consider cheap/tacky visual tics, but don’t try to spin that out into some meaningful statement. The above is much closer to a fart joke than satire.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:17 am
That’s not funny.
O.K., maybe a litle.
I do agree with Su’s point. What should have been done in these cases? But, I suppose, that’s something one can’t tackle in 15 minutes.
July 7th, 2006 at 7:03 am
“I wouldn’t have changed it at all,‚Äù is not an option”
Of course it is. LEAVE A GREAT LOGO ALONE.
BTW, I freaked a little too when I saw these logos. My first reaction was, “Wow, and they thought the Payless logo sucked”…
Something tells me that in a few years we will have a “modern backlash” and everyone will be going back to revive the classic logos in an effort to stand out among all the beveled and 3-D looking cereal and snack food logos.
Let’s hope it comes soon.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:25 am
wow.
awesome post.
My heart stopped for a few seconds there.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:31 am
…and just because I can tell that I have a headache doesn’t mean I have to perform brain surgery on myself.
It’s OK to point out when something’s wrong without having a solution of your own.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:01 am
ChrisM70:
Should a “great logo”(subjective opinion) be left alone, even if what it visually represents no longer applies and hasn’t for a very long time?
Regardless, my question stands. I’m sure at least one person working on the UPS redesign thought it was an example of Platonic(Randean?) Logo Perfection and someone above them had already decided it was changing. Put yourself in the position of at least trying to not let someone else screw it up. Whatever it takes; but opting out is not viable.
If UPS is too touchy, then try Payless. I don’t think anybody liked that one in the first place, and the complaints against it are largely similar, minus the god worship.
July 7th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Okay…you got me. I actually thought these had been changed right under my nose. The saying that good humor has to have a kernal of truth to be funny applies here, as these knockoffs are believable enough with what’s going on now to be mistaken for real. Good job.
July 7th, 2006 at 11:01 am
wow, you stressed me out for a second…i was on the verge of going to grad school and changing industries…
July 7th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Su, My point is that it takes time and thought to come up with good solutions, and what I did, doesn’t take any time or thought. So my answer to your question is fairly simple. Just spend some time on the concept and the execution and you will end up with something much better than my renderings. There are good examples of identities that are being done, it is just that the biggest rebrands get the worst solutions.
I also can’t change what has happened at UPS and AT&T and I have no idea how the approval process went. I am just using my small platform to try and affect the outcome of future rebrandings. I think both of those logos could have been slightly tweaked and the rest of the identity could have reflected the changes occurring in the corporations. There is no need to rely on cheap tricks when time has proven that good design lasts much longer.
Fart Joke? It’s at least a fairly good knock knock joke!
July 7th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Oh man, this post is evil. I saw the logos and almost crapped myself that IBM would trash their identity like that. This would have been a great 4/1 post, but out of the blue like this was unsettling. Kudos to you for illuminating what is so wrong with all the major rebrandings and logo redesigns lately, from Kodak to UPS to AT&T to Intel to MasterCard…. What your fake marks show so well is the tragedy of applying current styles to classic identities, which fixes them in a moment of time that has little relevance to the actual product or company. I may be a modern designer, but I have a respect for the equity that a mark can build up over time, and I don’t have an immediate need to trash that for something trendy for the kiddies.
July 7th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Bennett, I don’t disagree with your last comment, but I am a little nervous about just putting emphasis on “time and thought” as what is needed to make a better logo. I would rephrase that to put an emphasis on experience and visual sensitivity. Many great logo solutions are created in a split second. And thinking doesn’t help you at all if you don’t have experience.
I am on the fence about Bennett’s logo updates, though. Whether we like it or not, logos are no longer flat shapes that sit politely at the top of letterhead any more. Today they are going to be used in countless different ways. The drop shadows, gradients, 3d’s, and the animations are partly a response to the increased demand of the internet, TV and better print technology – not necessarily the result of bad design. If a logo is going to survive this “abuse” there needs to be a great logo beneath the polish. Common sense might lead the uneducated to think that the current climate requires a complex visual – like the MasterCard or Payless garbage. This is where the designer needs to explain why that solution is bad design, and ultimately a devastating business solution. To survive the demanding environment a logo needs to be more simple, not more complex! That is why a great logo like ABC or whoever have been able to survive so long. Their simplicity made them adaptable. The simple logo allows infinite variation without suffering. That is why I don’t mind B’s “upgrades” that much.
A simple logo is a hard sell to a client who is expecting special effects. The great thing about Armin’s post on the Payless logo was that he put the blame on the designers. We can point fingers at the clients, but ultimately these bad logos are giving all designers a black eye. It is our job as designers to change the equation. Bennett’s post makes the point that if we don’t do something then there is no end to the corporate comb-over logos. The only solution I can see is education. We need to educate our clients, and continue to shout at the top of our lungs every time a bad logo is released.
July 7th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Many great logo solutions are created in a split second. And thinking doesn’t help you at all if you don’t have experience.
True . . . to an extent. I agree in that good ideas can come quick and also because a lot of labor can’t save a bad concept or poor skills. I also know that Bierut and Scher came up with the Citibank logo almost immediately. Of course the designer doing the actual crafting of the logo, might have taken days or weeks just getting it just right. Good ideas can come quick, but good craft usually takes time.
The drop shadows, gradients, 3d’s, and the animations are partly a response to the increased demand of the internet, TV and better print technology – not necessarily the result of bad design.
Can’t they be a response to technology and a result of bad design at the same time? I’m not saying that all gradients in logos are bad, but so much of what is done is used as a crutch.
Every time a major logo is redesigned with 10 different effects it makes our job harder. It is hard enough to convince clients that bevels and 3D effects don’t equate to good design, but it is just going to get harder and harder as the trend become more ubiquitous.
I’m just hoping that we see more solutions like Sprint and less like at&t. Just compare the versatility of the two. 3D effects and gradients are often backed up with the idea that they are necessary for animation on web and TV, but the new at&t logo animation is weak in comparison to the Sprint logo.
I think a good example of a dimensional logo that doesn’t depend on the 3D aspect of the logo is Cingular. It works in a one color application, but it is also good in all of its animated glory.
July 7th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
*”Good ideas can come quick, but good craft usually takes time.”*
Yeah, a logo is going to take time, but that doesn’t mean we should just charge by the hour. A bad designer can spend his life and never produce anything better than the new at&t logo. Time really has little to do with it. More time does not guarantee a good logo. That’s the point I was trying to make.
*”so much of what is done is used as a crutch.”*
Exactly. If it is used to hide a mediocre logo, then it is a terrible idea. I just don’t think it is necessary to outlaw shading (or drop shadows, or gradients, or animation, or whatever) just because it is abused by people who are unskilled. That is blaming the technique – not the designer. I would like to be able to make a great 4-color logo without fearing the backlash of the design community. Is that not possible?
July 7th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Su, My point is that it takes time and thought to come up with good solutions, and what I did, doesn’t take any time or thought.
But that admission is precisely where this post falls down. You don’t mean it. What you did here just plain doesn’t apply, even if it is a bit amusing.
If you don’t like the redesigned logos, that’s fine. But they did not just take 15-30 minutes of Photoshop twiddling. Many of these rebrandings have involved timespans involving the word “year.” Not that time is really a consideration in the ultimate sense, as you’re already discussing with Adrian.
Every single person, not just designers, is entitled to say, “That’s ugly.” (I’ve done it lots.) It’s even enough, if you admit that it’s just an opinion. But saying that a new logo fails, etc. is something that needs to actually be backed up.
For one thing, the rebrandings are justified(I’m not saying justifiable) with explanations which even if you don’t agree with them at least generally make some sense. (That people in the redesign threads are passing judgement almost invariably without such information is a problem on the other side, also. Speculation is fine if you admit it’s speculation, but the comments tend to sound like the word of God.)
Why did you change the Westinghouse blue and put in a swoosh rather than just angle the pill shape? Why was IBM made lowercase? And so on. I doubt you can answer me with anything other than, “just cuz.” And that’s why I said it was a fart(or knock knock) joke and not satire. You’re not actually saying much; you’re just making fun.
[Re UPS/AT&T] I think both of those logos could have been slightly tweaked and the rest of the identity could have reflected the changes occurring in the corporations.
The fact you’re even saying this is a step in the right direction. And you’re possibly right. At the very least, it could probably be made to work.
(From here down “you” refers not to you, Bennett, but whoever has complained about redesigns)
I’m fully aware that many people think these logos shouldn’t be touched, but the simple reality is that they have and will be changed. What I’m asking for(re ChrisM70 above) is not for you to deny the situation, which is pointless, but to fix it. Fine, you hate the new logo. Here’s your chance to show what “should” have been done. (And, yeah, probably get to watch everybody skewer your thoughtless redesign.) If UPS had come to you and you thought redesigning was stupid, there’s a chance you’d be able to talk them out of it. More likely, they’d just go with someone else who’d do what they wanted, which puts you right back where you are now looking at a logo you hate. That is why, “I wouldn’t change it” is not an escape route.
Adrian I would like to be able to make a great 4-color logo without fearing the backlash of the design community. Is that not possible?
Why not answer the question yourself?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think I saw too much griping over the number of colors in the Bahamas logo.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I liked your United better than the real United logo. The abc logo looked good to me too.
July 7th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Bennett:
Ole Saying, Don’t Quit your Day Job!!!
Oh, this is your Day Job.
Just Breaking Balls. Nevertheless a GOOD FAKE OUT on the Identity Revitalizations
Allow Me to Take you and BA’s Community At Large to School.
The Argument that Logos are NO Longer being Created Flat is a Fallacy and Misunderstanding at Best.
2 Dimensional Logos are Far Superior to 3 Dimensional Logos.
The Argument that Logos have to Adapt to all Media has always been true and they always worked when they were
2 Dimensional.
3 D Logos are Simply a Trend. The Trend is Dying.
In order to make an Identity Transcendent it has to work in all Media. Many of these 3 D Identities only Look Good, on Screen.
I keep hearing this Argument about how these new Marks must work in all Media. They are not working in All Media.
It doesn’t matter if a Trademark is 2 Dimensional or 3 Dimensional. However, for the Record, I prefer 2 Dimensional Marks, Regardless. Television is still the most Powerful Selling Medium of All and that will not change.
2 Dimensional Trademarks have worked on Screen for Television since it’s inception. The Computer Screen or Cell Phone Screen is no Different.
Traditionally, Trademarks were Conceived and Designed 2 Dimensionally. The Better Designed 2 Dimensional Marks always had VISUAL IMPACT. It was Mandatory by Designers and Clients that 2 Dimensional Trademarks Translate to Kinetic Media as well as Print. Without question Successful 2 Dimensional Trademarks Performed beyond Expectation in all Media.The Overwhelming Characteristic of Successful and Well Designed Identities is that the Trademarks on which they were Conceived and Implemented keep those relationships in mind.
A well Conceived, Developed and Designed Identity has to be Recognized at a Glance. As well when put through several Distortion Test Showing Movement, Motion, Reduction and Enlargement. Successful 2 Dimensional Identities adhered to this Standard, Successful 3 Dimensional Identities will not. Because they are not Reduced to their BAREST ESSENTIAL.
The Argument about Designing for the Web and Cell Phone doesn’t hold water. A well Conceived, Developed, Designed and Implemented Identity System Works Best.
Not the Latest Scott Kelby Dirty Commercial Art Tricks.
No Disrespect intended to Scott Kelby.
That’s what Corporate Identity is Fast Becoming if is does not Remember its Past. When I hear the younger generation of Designers start talking about Designing for the Web and Cell Phones. Whether you know it or not you’re talking about Commercial Art. Where the emphasis is on Rendering and Technique.
Which is Essentially Cosmetic and has NOTHING to do with Communication!!!!!!!!!! Which is Imperative to Identity Design because Communication is an Identity Problem.
The Essence of Corporate Identity and/or Identity Design is Reducing Symbols, Glyphs, Pictograms, Monograms, Monoseals, Seals, Ideograms to their BAREST ESSENTIAL!!!!! Not Ornamentation and Software Filter Quackery.
Imparative to Identity Design and Graphic Design is Organizing, Clarifying, Synthesizing and Disseminating Information.
The 3 Dimensional Craze works BEST with Brands, i.e. Product Design.
It doesn’t Dress well Impersonating a Corporate Coat of Arms and Trade Dress.
Even with Mergers and Acquisitions Identities are Designed with Longevity in Mind, 10-20 years or longer.
The Game hasn’t changed. Just the Players Don’t know how to Play the Game. This wouldn’t happen if Clients Dealt Directly with Designer(s) instead of Marketing.
Most important, just about all these First Tier Identity and Branding Consultancies are Operated by MBA’s, Marketing, and Communications Professionals. Gone are the Days when said Identity Consultancies were Operated by Designer(s).
Therein Lies the PROBLEM!!!!!
Not one of the First Tier Identity Consultancies own themselves (Solvent). They are a part of a BUY OUT of a Global Communication Conglomerate and Network of Creative Services. Such as OMNICOM, WPP, Interpublic, Publisis Groupe, Dentsu, Havas, Grey Global Group, Incepta Group, plc, etc, etc, etc.
What Boggles my Mind why any Corporation would give the Creative Development of their work to any of these BUY OUT Identity Consultancies when the BEST Identity work was always Commenced by Saul Bass, Paul Rand, Chermayeff & Geismar, Vignelli Associates, Monigle Associates, BrandEquity International, ONOMA, and Pentagram continue to remain Solvent and Independent.
Pentagram is the only Worldwide Identity and Design Consultancy Operating Today that has the COJONES to remain Independent and Solvent. Not be Suckered into SELLING OUT!!!!!!!!
Because of Competition and the Lure of Working for ALL OF DADDIES 200 Clients and not having to look outside of the of the Parental Global Network for Assignments.
The aforementioned is what has Destroyed Coporate Identity???!!!
Mergers and Acquisitions of Business.
For the most part Acquisitions of Identity Consultancies
by POWERHOUSE Communications Conglomerates e.g.
OMNICOM; WPP; Interpublic; Grey Global; Incepta Group plc; Publicis Groupe; Havas; Dentsu; etc, etc.
Most important, the Lack Of Design Combat Experienced Trained and Qualified Personnel Manning the Ship.
As I said for three (3) years IDENTITY DESIGN IS IN A RECESSON.
There has not been any Milestone Identities Created Since the Deaths of Walter Landor 1994, and Saul Bass and Paul Rand 1996.
The Talent Today does NOT Exist Compared to the Old Days. They Craft Aspect of Identity has NOT BEEN Passed Down to the younger Generation of Designer(s).
I don’t see the Landscape Changing anytime soon in reference to the Plethora of LAME Identities.
Statement of Fact.
Smaller Identity Firms as Mentioned Earlier has always Commenced the BEST Identity work, Bar None.
There are PLENTY of Independent Identity Designer(s) and Consultant(s) Capable of Solving the Problem far Superior to these BUY OUT Identity Consultancies.
The only Reason Corporate CEO’s Retain the Largest Identity Consultancies is because of Penis Envy.
They want to Brag about having The Biggest Dick!!!!!!!!
Back To My Jan & Dean CD
DM
July 7th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
As a sidenote, Bennett, Marian’s mentioned a similar “tweak rather than slash/burn” approach in the SpeakUp Payless post’s comments.
July 7th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Bennett, at the risk of flaming this fine website, you really sound like a bitter golden-ager.
Advertising is basically created through the collaboration of two groups of people: designers and marketers. Historically these groups have always been at philosophical odds with each other. However, now more than ever, the two groups have created a large rift. It’s like if eggs and flour had an argument about the best way to make a cake.
The Argument that Logos are NO Longer being Created Flat is a Fallacy and Misunderstanding at Best. 2 Dimensional Logos are Far Superior to 3 Dimensional Logos.
The problem here is that, as with the majority of what you said, this is totally subjective. Personally, I love old, flat logos created by Saul Bass, Paul Rand, et al. But I’m a formally trained designer. You’re a formally trained designer. Chances are that everyone reading this is too. We are all sitting in a locked room spinning our wheels about the glory days of logo design without even bothering to tap our friends, the marketers, on the shoulder to ask them what prompted the rejuvinations in the first place.
You see, the only real and true measure of a logo’s superiority is the brand retention that results, which in turn reflects on a company’s market share. In other words, does the logo sell widgets or not? Logos are not museum pieces, they are not fine art, and the only thing they accrue over time is brand equity IF they are working. A good logo 50 years ago may sink a brand today if a.) the nature of the company’s business has changed or b.) the nature of the company’s market has changed.
Do you think that the Telco industry is marketing the same way and to the same people it did 50 years ago? Hell no. So why should the logo be considered sacred? Although, like the rest of you, I don’t like the new AT&T logo, I can perfectly understand the need for it. Remember, when Saul Bass was designing his masterful logos, they were considered NEW and DIFFERENT, too! They would have never worked if they looked 50 years old THEN. Why should we assume that, 50 years later, people’s reaction to flat shapes and simple colors has stayed frozen while automobile design, architecture, fashion, and art has changed significantly?
For the record, I quite like your new United and ABC logos as well. I think it gives the brands a breath of fresh air that is needed for today’s audience. A logo needs to be well made and well crafted, but it also needs to be SEEN. The average Joe Shmoe in 2006 does not look at a Saul Bass or Paul Rand logo and think “wow”. At the end of the day, this business is about putting eyeballs on your stuff.
July 7th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
I Got this Bennett:
Maven
To Bobby Dragulescu:
The Comments that you Culled are not Bennett’s Comments they are Mine. I’m sure Bennett and My Comments Cross Pollinate.
“The problem here is that, as with the majority of what you said, this is totally subjective”.
The Majority of what I said is a Statement of Fact.
Lets Begin with this Premise, Logo Design is NOT Corporate Identity.
Corporate Identity is NOT Logo Design.
The Differences between Corporate Identity, Advertising, and Branding.
Different from Advertising and Branding, Corporate Identity is the Equal Synergy of Communications, Marketing, and Graphic Design.
It involves Strategic issues, Identity Design must last 20-30 years or longer, unlike Advertising, which is more often Tacticle in nature.
Advertising is Tacticle because you do campaign one year and you may need to do something else the following year, perhaps even six month later. You also have the option to re-examine, adjust, eliminate, etc.
With Corporate Identity, Consistancy and Repetition are crucial. You begin with a modest franchise of Recognition and Understanding, and that Value become Greater and Greater as Recognizability increases, as it gets attached to more and more events, more and more Products and Services. After time, it begins to take on Layers of Meaning and Reassurances and Recognition, that together become almost Irreplaceble after a period of time.
You have to be Damn sure that what you started with was right, because as the years go by it becomes more and more difficult and COSTLY to Rectify a Mispositioning or a Miscommunication.
Branding addresses Trust Relationships in Customer Product Experience with a Brand Reinforced when Positive Experience Consistently Meet or Exceed Expectations.
Branding in its simplest terminology denotes a name, logotype, or trademark and was originally used to signify ownership as with the Branding of livestock. The above terminology is used as the essence of a Brand and not the essence of Branding per se.
Branding refers to the added value that a Brand brings to a product. Products may or may not have Brand Values. Product Brand Values are manufactured by marketing and communications experts whom make them memorable. These values are fashioned in the mind and not the production floor. These are synthetic attributes. Whereas Products made in the factory, Brand Values exist in the mind. Brands can be timeless in a way Products may not be.
Branding is a marketing term it’s mission is to analyze, strategize, develop and position products, services and corporate mission. Branding focuses on equity, image, promise, mission, values, style, culture and customer experience.
“You see, the only real and true measure of a logo’s superiority is the brand retention that results, which in turn reflects on a company’s market share. In other words, does the logo sell widgets or not”?
There Emphatically is NOT a way to Measure the Effectiveness of a Logo i.e. Trademark or Identity Qualitatively or Quantitatively.
It’s Never Been Done!!!!!!!!
It is Feasible to Measure the Quantitatively Recognizability
and Association. What you cannot Measure is what an Identity or Trademark may add to People’s Understanding and Feelings about a Corporation.
I’ve measured Identities Quantitatively I’ve ReDesigned for said Corporation where the Recognition Level after two years Rose from 41 percent to over 70 percent. That is people saw the Identity System and Recognized it Represented the Manufacturer.
The Economic Value of a Trademark and Identity is Elusive.
There is not any Systematic Means of Arriving at a Figure.
The overwhelming Rationale, Logos, Corporate Identities, Trademarks, Service Marks are Meaningless.
The Logo is the Tip of the Iceberg what Drives an Identity is Communications, Marketing, Advertising,
It is Impossible and Improvable to Measure the Effectiveness of a Trademark, and Identity without Measuring the Effectiveness of Communications, Marketing, Advertising, Sales Promotion, Distribution, Packaging, and Pricing. All which are Independent of theLogo i.e. Corporate Identity and Trademark.
Generally when a Value is Placed on a Trademark or Corporate Identity other than Development, Design, ReDesign and Revitalization is during Infringement Cases.
Those Figures don’t seem unreasonable generally are based on Sales.
“Do you think that the Telco industry is marketing the same way and to the same people it did 50 years ago”?
The Game hasn’t changed. Just the Players Don’t know how to Play the Game. CEO’s getting BAD, Uninform, and Unintelligible advice from their Advisors.
As Stated Earlier, The Talent Today does NOT Exist Compared to the Old Days. The Craft Aspect of Identity has NOT BEEN Passed Down to the younger Generation of Designer(s).
Remember, when Saul Bass was designing his masterful logos, they were considered NEW and DIFFERENT, too! They would have never worked if they looked 50 years old THEN.
There are Trademarks today working today that are over 100 years old, with only a minimal Nip and Tuck.
Saul Bass and Paul Rand were Anomalies.
Bass and Rand were very Different Designers.
Saul Bass was a Functionalist.
Paul Rand was a Formalist.
Do you UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE???!!!
Every Identity Paul Rand Designed was a Bulls Eye and not a Buck Shot.
Every Identity Saul Bass Designed was Memorable and Raised the Bar of Expectation. Albeit being Trend Setting
That Level of Identity Design is NOT being Practiced Today!!!!!
Why, Both Bass and Rand had a thorough Understanding of Semiotics.
An Aspect of Symbionics Highly Regarded, Least Understood, and not Taught Today to the Current Crop of Designer(s).
at the risk of flaming this fine website, you really sound like a bitter golden-ager.
BTW, I’ll Assure you, I’m a MAN of 50 years of Age. Look half my age!!!!!
And can Competitively Compete and Hold my own with the World’s Sartorial Best Dressed Men, George Hamilton and Alan Flusser.
At the same time, adapt to changing conditions, wearing something appropriate to meet with Eve, Remy Ma, Shwanna, Diddy, Paul Wall,
Snoop.
Back to My Dennis Brown CD
DM
July 7th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Fractured Sentence.
Need to Add the below Bold Comment for Clarity.
I got Distracted.
The overwhelming Rationale, Logos, Corporate Identities, Trademarks,
Service Marks are Meaningless
In and of Themselves.
DM
July 7th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Man, these are some quality posts.
I have a comment about a rather central point of contention. To quote Su, partially quoting Bennett:
“If you don’t like the redesigned logos, that’s fine. But they did not just take 15-30 minutes of Photoshop twiddling. Many of these rebrandings have involved timespans involving the word ‘year.’ Not that time is really a consideration in the ultimate sense, as you’re already discussing with Adrian.”
Yes, many of these rebranding efforts DO only take 15-30 minutes, in terms of the time it took to crap out the design that wins the lottery that (all too often) is today’s corporate rebranding effort. The “year” piece of the equation Su speaks of is waiting for corporate to decide which of the myriad 15-30 minute hack job “redesigns” to use, then going back and adjusting the Pantone one number or making the tagline one point bigger, over and again.
I think that many times, bad logos result from too much aesthetic “input” by people with limited visual sensibilities. In my opinion, anyway, logo design should never entail giving the client a million slightly different options. That lends itself to page after page of half-thought-out visual concepts. It’s like a do-it-yourself logo hobby kit with some of these design firms. It’s like they’re content to say: I’ll just give you a bunch of pieces, and you pick the combination you like best.
That’s putting design in the hands of non-designers. That’s being lazy on the part of designers. That’s designers acting like slot-machines, not creative professionals.
Here’s the hook:
What are designers for? To provide Pantone swatch formulas and punch-card design elements? Or to make decisions that truly reflect the best image a brand or business has to offer?
If it’s the former, the design world can bugger off. I’d rather do the latter for Mom and Pop Corner Store down the street than the former for WorldWide MegaCorp. At least then the designers get a bit of respect for their efforts.
I should like to think that logo designs are crafted more carefully, and only the results worth displaying should be shown to the clients. Not a bunch of half thought-out permutations to “beef up” the presentation.
If a designer is any designer at all, he or she is not going to show something half-done in hopes that an exec will like some element of it. Those decisions should have been made at the drawing board, and worked in to the presentable pieces.
I think it’s time to draw the line between where client simply doesn’t have the right to stand over the designer’s shoulder as he works. There’s got to be some element of trust that just says: you’re the designer, you figure it out.
Logo design, identity design, branding, whatever you call it, should never take a year to complete.
And it wouldn’t if some more designers would grow some juevos and make executive decisions about their own work (oh, and use paper and pencil to do concepts once in a while).
July 7th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Logo design is not subjective, people. It isn’t art. It isn’t a matter of opinion. Just because you lack the verbal and visual proficiency to explain why one logo is good, and another is bad, doesn’t mean I can’t. Designers need to gain a backbone and understand that good design is measurable and real! Otherwise what are we doing besides farting in the wind?
Bobby, to say that a Paul Rand logo can’t work on a modern company is just not true. Great things were still being done with the At&t logo right up until the day they murdered it. Being flat had nothing to do with it – it was a good mark. The new logos aren’t bad because they are 3d, etc. they are bad because beneath the gloss is a mark that doesn’t work. As for your sentence “it gives the brands a breath of fresh air that is needed for today’s audience,” it sounds like you could write the fluff that these companies fill there press releases with. We need to talk about logos without the metaphorical crap. We aren’t critiquing paintings here. At the risk of agreeing with DesignMaven, we need to own the identity business and take it back from the marketing consultants and all their empty phrases.
To the people who don’t mind the United or ABC logos, don’t you realize that the reason they survived the makeover is because they retained enough of the integrity of the original to still be a good mark? That’s what I am talking about. The technique doesn’t matter as much as the underlying design.
July 7th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Cute Adrian, I’ll let you have your Moment. (LOL)
Seriously, lets take a Fictitious Company.
Lets say Zandandu Group Worldwide Communications Conglomerate, The Parent Company of:
1. Ten (ten) Worldwide Advertising Agencies. Each Agency own no less than 150-300 Ad Agencies Worldwide.
2. Twenty Five (25) Worldwide Public Relations Agencies.
3. Seven (7) First Tier Communications Consultancies.
4. Seven (7) First Tier Worldwide Corporate Branding Consultancies.
5. Six (6) Crises Management Consultancies.
Lets say the Parent Company has 500 Clients.
That’s Lure enough to Sell Out. Most Principals Retire after a Buyout because Buy Outs are Lucrative. Once the Company is Sold the former owner if she/he stay aboard may have little or no say in how the business is operated.
The Benefit, said Consultancy now has the Opportunity to work for all of Daddies Clients.
Furthermore, never has to look outside of the Parent Company for work.
The Trade Off, Said Consultancies are NEVER Operated the way they were before they were Bought Out.
This is why Chermayeff & Geismar, Vignelli Associates, Monigle Associates, BrandEquity International, Malcolm Greer, Bart Crosby, Sterling Brands, Pentagram (others) have not Sold Out. Because of their Commitment to the Integrity of Design as a Problem Solving Activity and Commitment to their Employees.
After Acquisition by the Parent Company these Identity and Design Consultancies are Destroyed if the Owners or Principals Retire.
Speaking of Nepotism.
Who Do You Think Get Those Jobs???!!!
I can tell you Horror Stories!!!!
The Overwhelming Reason these Communication Conglomerates are Buying Out Identity and Branding Consultancies. They were Suffering Economically and NEEDED more Streams of Income.
DM
July 7th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Bennett: Please excuse the misdirected response. That should have directed at DesignMaven.
Now then.
Every Identity Paul Rand Designed was a Bulls Eye and not a Buck Shot. Every Identity Saul Bass Designed was Memorable and Raised the Bar of Expectation. Albeit being Trend Setting
I’m sure. And Michelangelo never cracked a piece of marble, and Einstein never made a computational mistake, too.
Bobby, to say that a Paul Rand logo can’t work on a modern company is just not true.
Never said it can’t work, I just said that it’s not always the right answer.
One of the biggest problems in the design community that I’ve noticed is that there is no system for coming up with a definition of what “works”. I have absolutely no problem with “the classics” but I think it’s problematic to be using them as the precedent for everything.
Additionally, logo and identity design is not art for art’s sake. It’s a tool, a marketing tool. If you want to make art for art’s sake be a fine artist. If you don’t want to make friends with the world of marketing then you’re depriving yourself of a broader understanding of your industry.
The new logos aren’t bad because they are 3d, etc. they are bad because beneath the gloss is a mark that doesn’t work.
Is it that they don’t work or that we’ve been trained to insist that they don’t work? Can you explain in objective terms why they don’t work, or is this just the mantra of the high brow design community? Why don’t we let concrete numbers decide if they work, since everything else is just, pardon my French, masturbatory theoreticizing.
To the people who don’t mind the United or ABC logos, don’t you realize that the reason they survived the makeover is because they retained enough of the integrity of the original to still be a good mark? That’s what I am talking about.
And that’s exactly what I was talking about when I said “A logo needs to be well made and well crafted, but it also needs to be SEEN.” Logo rejuvinations are not the same as logo redesigns. It’s SUPPOSED to be the same logo. It’s like when someone walks into a room with a new haircut and you think “hey, did you lose weight?” This is not a blanket defense for 3d, drop shadows and perspective skews. I’m simply saying let’s stop the delusion that our craft is anchored to an era or approach. It’s not the logos that get bad, it’s the world that changes around them. I love looking at Rand and Bass’s works (whom I DO realize are different people, thank you very much), but much in the same way that I love Victorian portrait photography. It’s getting to the point where some (not ALL) of these classic marks need to take a well deserved retirement into the grassy retreat of our precious design books.
July 8th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Just as an overall comment to this conversation . . . There is nothing wrong with just talking about the formal elements of logo design. I cannot presume to guess what goes on in brand strategy meetings or what is written down in the design briefs. But, I can tell when a logo is poorly crafted. No matter what the brand strategy, there is no excuse for poor craftsmanship, outdated trends and plain/unispired design. What we see in some of the largest rebrands is just bad design. Period. Sorry if that sounds elitist. Using trends that are already out dated (swooshes) in a year long branding project, just shows the lack of respect for design. Using transparencies and gradients to cover up forms that just can’t stand on their own is just bad strategy.
So I guess my problem is not really with gradients and transparencies (although I am obviously not a huge fan), my main problem is trite solutions to some of the great design challenges of the day.
July 8th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Thanks, DesignMaven. You paint a depressing picture, that’s for sure.
Bobby, I really like your last comment. While I ripped on your earlier metaphor, I rather liked this one: “It’s getting to the point where some (not ALL) of these classic marks need to take a well deserved retirement into the grassy retreat of our precious design books.”
Maybe I am fooling myself if I think I can convincingly explain in objective terms why a good logo works better than a bad one – especially in an environment that is saturated with the empty phrases that usually accompany logo redesigns. That’s not going to stop me from trying, though. For those of us that are most vocal against the recent redesigns, our hatred for these marks comes from a deep conviction that good design *does* exist – even if it is hard to quantify. The empty marketing language that is getting the bad logos sold doesn’t spring from similar convictions. They know they are selling fluff, they just don’t care. Designers care, and we should have the courage of our convictions to sell *substance* as an alternative to the frosting. Maybe not everyone will choose our *truth,* but the marketers can’t fool all the people all the time. That is where my hope comes from, and that’s why I won’t accept the pessimism that DM presented.
July 8th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
I’m sure. And Michelangelo never cracked a piece of marble, and Einstein never made a computational mistake, too.
Actually, Michelangelo NEVER Carved a Piece of Marble.
To be Truthful he did about 10-25 percent overall. His input was the Likeness.
His Artisans did 75-90 percent of all the work and NEVER Received Credit.
Einstein Failed Math when he was a student.
NO MAN is Infallible.
Not Pessimism BIG “A”.
Just a Reality of the Business.
Somewhere Between October and December we should SEE the NEW Citigroup Travelers Umbrella Rollout.
Will it STAY or GO???
Will they Adopt an Aspect of Pentagram’s 1999 Identity Program for then Citicorp now Citigroup,
The Parent Company of Citibank.
That should Raise some Brows and cause a Ruckus. Can’t Wait.
Of Course you KNOW one of the Mega Identity Consultancies have it.
My Lips are Sealed, I’m SWORN to Secrecy.
DM
July 9th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
You really had me going there, I was pissed. Im so glad it was fake though. And I must say the United logo you did actually isnt to shabby!
July 10th, 2006 at 10:30 am
“Logo design is not subjective, people. It isn’t art. It isn’t a matter of opinion.”
I totally disagree. This very thread of comments proves that you can’t please everyone, be it someone in design or a layman.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Back to the original “redesigns”¬†-¬†these logos aren’t good solutions because there was no thought put into them. Gradients, swooshes, 3-dimensionality-they only work when there is a reason to use them. A lot of logos I’ve seen use a swoosh or some other contrived design element because the designer doesn’t know what else to do. The designer knows it. The client should suspect it. Bad logos make it through because the designer is good at BS or the client is stubborn.
Give us a legitimate reason why a gradient was used. Or why the logo should be 3-dimensional. And remember that just because you say it or write it down does not make it a fact. Your peers will see through it, if not the client.
Ideally, logos should look good on everything. In color and black & white. On envelopes and billboards. Shirts and iPod screens. Cheap parlor tricks like Photoshop filters or Illustrator effects will NOT stand the test of time. We’re directing ourselves to a slow, painful extinction if all we’re designing for is the web or TV.
Design is problem solving. The client has a problem and it is up to the designer to come up with a solution. Two different designers can come up with completely different solutions. Our job is to please the client and attract the masses. Sometimes accomplishing both is very hard to do. It is up to us to sell the client on our idea. Paying attention to classic logos and current trends (to avoid, or follow, depending on the client) is common sense, and in my opinion, socially responsible. When that happens, we don’t force people to look at crappy design work.
July 12th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Excellent thread. It reminds me of the time when I was designing every logo in black, with the intention of colouring it later. But when later came, all my attempts to put some color seemed to look less good than the black version.
Anyway, DesignMaven, why are you using all those CAPS in your writing? It makes it hard to follow, you know.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:50 am
http://www.tv-ark.org.uk/international/us_abc.html
It’s not like messing with ABC’s logo is a new thing, though. If you look at that link, you’ll see many of the revisions that the logo has seen throughout the years. Also, there are quite a few that aren’t listed on there. I distinctly remember a version of the logo that looked remarkably similar to Bennett’s redesign, with yellow and black lettering, and the 3D tilt. Just thought I’d throw that out there. This has been a useful and informative discussion, and I’m new around these parts. Great site, and keep up the good work.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:24 am
I fully agree with you. Being a practising graphic designer and great fan of legends like Paul Rand, Saul Bass. I feel the new millennium has restricted graphic designers to the “computer monitor” only. All those lolly pop styles and colors have taken the place of the deep thoughts. Now what really counts is how much proficient one is with the softwares. maybe it’s the demand of the time. But I wonder why every logo has to be a bitmap stuff now?
July 13th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Funny, I just saw a video on Homestar Runner about this. Here’s the link if you’re interested (Flash):
http://homestarrunner.com/sbemail153.html
July 13th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
PixelHustler, Very interesting link. While the treatments have changed since Rand designed the logo in the ’60s, the starting point for all of those treatments were the original logo. I think ABC has done a descent job of keeping the original mark, but keeping it fresh with animation and effects while still included the flat logo. This is a good example of not completely redesigning the logo, just adapting it to follow the trends and technology. If the original logo was not so simple and clean, there is no way that it would have adapted to all of those changes.
sundayreader, Actually the most recent post on Be A Design Group (by Nate Voss), is a link to that very Homestar Runner video. Very entertaining.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Personally, I think Bobby Dragulescu is on the right track with this. When I first saw the redesigned logos, three thoughts crossed my mind.
1. The United and abc logos are actually not that bad. If I had to pick the best one, it would be United. I think the subtle work actually makes it a better and more modern mark. The abc one is also quite good, and since it appears mostly on TV, I can just imagine how good the yellow gradient will appear on HDTV
2. The Westinghouse redesign is absolutely pointless. That is a logo where I would agree that the use of a swoosh and some gradients is not justified, and makes the logo look “too cool for its own good”.
3. If IBM changed their logo to that then I would most certainly protest. I think this is one of Paul Rand’s best works and one of the few ones that I can confidently say still works well in the market after all these years, especially for me as a consumer. I am glad, if not surprised, that IBM haven’t joined the bandwagon and changed their logo. For once, I’m glad they’ve kept it. Maybe some large companies have design sense after all? We can certainly hope!
July 13th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Contemporary lighting effects aside, I feel the new UPS logo exhibits enormous economy of shape. Very distinctive, yet very simple and clean.
In terms of evolution from the previous iteration, it is well executed.
This logo will last at least a decade (even if they do move to a less contempo/dimensional approach).
Plus, UPS now refuses to deliver packages that are tied with string (they get caught up in the sorting machinery), so it HAD to be re-designed.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Plus, UPS now refuses to deliver packages that are tied with string (they get caught up in the sorting machinery), so it HAD to be re-designed.
Here is the funny thing about that argument . . . Paul Rand heard the same argument when he first designed the logo. UPS was not accepting packages with string back when he designed it. It is a symbol and I doubt anyone really takes it literally (besides CEOs). Maybe UPS wanted to get beyond just shipping packages, but that is an entirely different argument. I must admit that the UPS logo is executed much better than the new at&t logo, but why did they have to include a swoosh (aka the Golden Combover)? That dated it before it was even released.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
*”There is just one lesson from the past that should be learned for the benefit of the present. It is that painstaking, refined craftsmanship appears to be dying out.”* Ladislav Sutnar (1959)
DM isn’t the first one to bemoan the lack of depth in logo design. It looks like there has always been a lack of designers willing to invest the time, talent and collaboration necessary for great work… even in the Rand/Bass Golden Period.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:52 am
I think the UPS redesign was well worth it, and the AT&T one was decent too. Payless does seem better than the old logo, but still seems a little weak.
My opinion is only coming out of my eyes though, Payless probably sells most of their shoes to women, and women might be prefering the softer less stand out look these days for places they want to shop. It will probably make Payless seem like a more inviting place and maybe they’ll start to open up a market to people who are willing to spend a little more. They are a big chain anyways, why not increase profit?
July 18th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Good thread.
Even though in the effort to support or launch a brand/product, I don’t see logos living in a vacuum. They are but one aspect of a brand’s total identity, albeit an important one. Ultimately though, the logo can only do so much if a brand goes astray, (as BD alluded to).
BD: “…is the brand retention that results, which in turn reflects on a company’s market share. In other words, does the logo sell widgets or not? …they accrue over time is brand equity IF they are working.”
A POV worth discussing further.
Ultimately it’s the number of times we’re exposed to the logo through advertising and point-of-sale that builds the equity in a logo and its brand. I don’t see how we can have one without the other.
A great logo seen one time will do nothing for brand equity like an average logo will that’s seen for 25 years, or even longer.
Take the swastika, had we seen it one time in 1939 on a war poster on a street, may have reminded you of the Hindu symbol, (doubtful unless you knew art history). So the rest of us average Joes would have gone, ‚ÄòHmm, ok, war poster, whatever. Next?’ And then went on our way.
FF >> 60+ years though and that symbol is synonymous with evil to this day. The Nazi ‚Äòbrand’ behind it changed its by making it the face of the party, and putting it out there through repeated exposure.
In this case, you might say the brand destroyed the logo, but worse, that logo, (while basically a symetrical pattern used for centuries), had the misfortune of now carrying the burden of the negative attributes attributed to it by the brand it represented.
I’d even go further and say that while a logo ultimately represents a brand in its advertising, packaging, communications, etc, once the the equity is built up, its role changes to one of simple reinforcement.
If the brand building efforts have been successful, the logo no longer has to do the heavy lifting.
For example:
Midas Muffler. Pepsi. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mac. Wonder Bread.
No logos shown obviously, but everyone knows those brands. (I touched on celebrity because I think it ties in with what an unknown brand has to do in order to get recognized: exposure.) Regardless, unless you live in a cave, you know them because of the multiple branding efforts and PR that went into each over the years, resulting in the household name recognition each one has now.
And you will always know them – without ever having to look at their logos again.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
makethelogobigger,
I follow your examples of Midas/Wonder Bread, etc. to the extent that these are all brands that have been built up, and are for the most part, instantly recognizable. My question to you is, say Wonder Bread decides to change their logo to a slightly skewed, 3D bevelled logo with a Milennium Swoosh encircling it…what would that do to their brand equity? People would still read/hear “wonder bread” and think it’s the same bread that they’ve eaten for years, wouldn’t they? Or would the new logo suddenly imply something different, and they would be forced to rebuild the brand equity over the course of however many years the new logo lasts? At what point does a logo have -enough- equity to be considered a “successful” mark that no longer does the “heavy lifting”, as you put it, and it becomes synonymous with the brand it represents? Keep in mind, your points are good, I just want to keep this discussion going, as it’s very interesting.
July 19th, 2006 at 8:41 am
Good points PH…
I feel once that brand equity is established, you can afford to make subsequent small modifications to your brand’s look without sacrificing anything.
In the case of UPS, going to an all-brown look as your main visual cue wasn’t necessarily to change the p[erception people have of the brand, but rather, a move that just cemented what people already associated UPS with – a color. So the color was personified and became the basis for the campaign as we all know, (What can brown do for you?)
(The brown campaign also served double duty because it helped bring new customers into the fold who may not have thought of UPS as being more of a full-service company.
As for Wonder, it stands for ‘wholesome family values’ or some such marketing speak, and I wouldn’t see them being perceived as changing based on the logo enhancements you mention.
Even if they did upgrade the look, I would expect they would go out of their way to make sure people knew the product was the same.
The ‚Äònew’ recipe debacle for Coke Classic is still fresh in marketing minds, and a whole lotta people buy Wonder because it’s good old plain white bread – nothing more.
BUT, if they got caught up in some food tampering/mishap scare, no logo redesign will save them. Look at what Perrier and Tylenol had to go through in that very same scenario. Neither changed their logos, which I would expect them not to. In a time of crisis, you’d want to project stability to the consumer.
Then, it becomes a PR issue, not a logo design one.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:55 am
I hate it when huge companies modify their logos. I get confused and think for some time (before I learne that the company in fact has changed its logo) it’s just another company trying to be similar to the famouse one.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Hey you guys get real worked up so easy!!
The logos chosen are great to start with. Graphic, flat stand-the-test-of-time types.
The 3-D treatment is not done supergreat…BUT: it could be used well. You could do a treatment like this say…take the abc logo: on a commercial or video the logo could come alive and spin and look really great like that… or as a button on a kids site or something. idunno, doesnt mean you would ever replace a standard great graphic shape logo but this type of treatment can support an already good design and be used to add fun/interest in certain cases, I think.
3-D doesnt always means bad. Just an indicator of our times and the variety of media that logos are a part of these days. Also the idea that brands have to appeal to so many, the fact that a logo can be used flat or 3-D is a strong indicator that it works. Like the apple logo: sometimes shiny and bubbly or gradiated or colored, but the standard is its flat graphic shape that everyone knows.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
3D or 2D What the aim of a logo is to be a simple as possible,with the name prevalent,and the symbol supporting the impact in a name.
It should work across all mediums too,and fit comfortably within all mediums.
Like for example, a logo designed with computer effects, shouldn’t look like it doesn’t belong in print media, because if it’s the case then the person designing the logo didn’t create a successful solution.
Also a logo with too many unnecessary elements looses it’s effectiveness, for example that scenario where Wonder Bread would give it’s logo a bevel and an oval swoosh, I think many people would object to that because,it would I cause people to think that Wonder Bread is less focused on their product and more focused on their looks. Since their image of being plain and simple would be erased. Further more adding things such as a swoosh and bevels starts give less focus on the name itself and more on whats ‘dressing up’ the logo. Which is what making a logo is not about.
Plus what would the reason be for beveling and adding a swoosh? Would this make the logo somehow better? Does it reflect a change in the company? A change in how they do service? Or how the state of the company is today? What the use do this if your going to make and sell the same type of bread as before you changed the logo?
Why would you spend money to have a new logo if your company hasn’t changed,or that the logo isn’t outdated looking, and your success wasn’t from how you looked but the fact you sell nutritious bread. Would this some how bring new customers,or better profit?
Logos mainly change because it usually has to do with something different with the company, difficulties with the current logo be it in image due to age, perception, or how it translates in different media.
Anything besides that, like for reasons such as “oh the logos too boring”,are pretty much invalid for redoing the logo.