The Nets are moving. No, not waving in the wind–the NBA team formerly known as the New Jersey Nets have a new home. And with the move to Brooklyn they are getting a new brand.

Unveiled on April 30, the new brand is inspired by 1950's style New York subway signage. The brand colors are black and white, which aids in the classic feel. The primary logo kept to its predecessor by using the same shield shape and basketball with the iconic Brooklyn 'B' imposed over it. The throwback, retro brand was supposedly 'designed' by minority owner Shawn Carter (a.k.a. Jay-Z). But how much involvement he actually had in the process is unknown.

The new look is said to be different than other teams' looks, just as Brooklyn is different than anywhere in the world, says team CEO Brett Yormark. He also says they will be the only NBA team with only black and white as colors and describes the new look as simple, crisp, classic and urban.

I agree that the classic look and colors will differentiate itself from the rest of NBA teams. It is refreshing to see a sports team go away from the pack of swoosh-whiz-bang visuals to a place uncharted for decades by using simple, non-obtrusive branding. It's a nicely designed opposite-thinking type of design; one that looks like it is having a positive effect on sales, as NBAStore.com reported that sales of apparel on the unveiling day alone were higher than it sold all of last season.

I applaud the original look and intent to differentiate. I enjoy the visuals from a distance–not overdone and perfectly simplified. But does it have what it takes to be timeless and sophisticated? Looking closer at the primary logo, it seems to have some odd tendencies. The text NETS feels steamrolled and thrown on (the S looks as if it has been steamrolled twice in opposite directions). The space to the top left of the N and to the to right of the S is very strange–the whole word would feel crisper had it followed the shape of the outer shield. The basketball lines, although accurate, would fit better with the iconic look if the line weight was the same throughout. With the addition of BROOKLYN placed under the shield, it makes the whole logo feel like it is going to tip over due to the relationship between the shield and BROOKLYN text being disproportional. Decreasing the size of the shield would benefit the look.

Although most of the elements in the primary logo don't have the cohesive quality that an NBA team deserves, I still rather enjoy it. I like it for the fact that it doesn't look corny, cheesy or multi-shadowed. It could use some fine-tuning, but the overall feeling of the retro throwback brand makes me feel like they know where they came from. I give it a B for effort (and Brooklyn).

Will the required footwear will be black and white Chuck Taylors?

By: Justin Leatherman, Art Director

In recent years, we have seen a steady growth of mobile devices being used to surf the web, and as a result, a steady rise in clients requesting to have a mobile version of their site. Designers and developers alike responded by creating a desktop and mobile version of a website. This approach was effective for a while, but with the ever-growing landscape of the web, it became more of a problem than a solution. Ethan Marcotte explains:

“Mobile browsing is expected to outpace desktop-based access within three to five years. Two of the three dominant video game consoles have web browsers (and one of them is quite excellent). We’re designing for mice and keyboards, for T9 keypads, for handheld game controllers, for touch interfaces. In short, we’re faced with a greater number of devices, input modes, and browsers than ever before.”

Enter responsive web design. The dictionary defines “responsive” as reacting quickly and positively. In web speak, responsive design refers to a website that reacts according to the screen size, platform, device and even orientation. The advantages are centered around cost-effectiveness and user experience. For designers, it allows us to streamline the design and development process by using a mix of flexible grids and CSS media queries. Creating one design and a few stylesheets allows us to shorten the time it takes to create a web site.

For clients, visitors enjoy an improved user experience no matter what device they use to view a website. Gone are the days when slideshows looked beautiful on big screens but become a nightmare to navigate around when using mobile devices. Now we control what information is delivered and what is hidden within the same page depending on the size of the screen.

Responsive design is continuously evolving, and new projects aimed to improve upon it are developed everyday. Ultimately, the decision to have a responsive site is influenced by factors that go beyond the technology, such as overall web strategy. Just because something is cool doesn’t mean it will be effective. Designers and clients should not treat web site design like pet projects where we test out things and hope it works out in the end.

By: Emilio Servigon, Web Designer, Indicia

For the past several years, consumer attitudes towards American-made products seem to be improving. The public seems to be more conscious of where things are made and aware of the positive impact that it can have on the good ol' U.S. of A. Lying largely in the high end sector of the market, the American made trend is finding comfort in the clothing, furniture  and food industries. Larger companies like Pendleton, Woolrich, and L.L. Bean play up their heritage which plays in to the trend. In fact, in a survey of 1,300 affluent shoppers conducted by Unity Marketing, the US ranked highest on the scale measuring quality in luxury goods manufacturing.

On an unexpected side of this industry, Best Made Co. has turned a simple chopping tool in to a strikingly sought after product. When Peter Buchanan-Smith and Graeme Cameron founded Best Made Company in 2009, the operation was strictly about axes. Handcrafted from fine grain steel, Appalachian hickory and painted with bright, vibrant handle stripes, these axes have become as popular with designers as they have with real lumbermen. Even in this digital age, Best Made's founders argue that everyone should own an axe—regardless of its use. "The axe is a symbol," says Cameron. "It forges our building and quite possible our thinking blocks." And what better way to honor the age-old tool than by enhancing it with attractive design?

Buchanan-Smith is an award winning design director at Isaac Mizrahi, which explains the thoughtfulness behind the Best Made Co. brand in every aspect. This is the type of experience that shows how impactful a brand can be when it has been truly considered before implementation.

Upon entering the Best Made Co. website, expect a greeting with white space and a no-nonsense approach. The Best Made logo is a bright red X which stands out because of its simplicity and utilitarian approach. The X is also used as a way to spell AXE on their products, which provides a subtle, yet powerful brand extension. The product photography is simple, and perfectly shot on a white background to flow with the website.

In a different setting, this site might be considered bland, but for the manly, utility-type goods, it only intensifies the function of the brand. Best Made Co. sells products ranging from first aid kits to badges to maple syrup and of course, axes. Many of these items are manufactured by different artisans throughout the country who specialize in crafting each tool. Even the first aid kits are manufactured right here in Kansas City.

So next time you're looking to buy some new gear for your outdoor toolkit, or even if you just need an excuse to get something down right cool, visit bestmadeco.com to see how American made is making a stand…and a good one at that.

Neil Ryan, Senior Designer

Flipping through WOOD Magazine, a simple column ad layout caught my eye. The ad said "TUB O' TOUGH" and the full background was yellow. The main visual was a large cylinder 'TUB' of towels. I thought to myself, “well, that's cheesy.” But because of the ad’s simplicity and undertones of a construction feel, I was intrigued to find out more.

With a quick search I found out that these are heavy-duty wipes and have a pretty hefty claim—taking off anything from adhesives to lipstick, tree sap to permanent marker. The website gloats a bigger (10 inches by 12 inches), tougher (muscle-weaved) and soaked with a knock-your-socks-off cleaning solution. I guess these aren't for cleaning your kids’ diaper messes. If I heard these claims and saw the previous package design, I might have laughed. But with the new design, it makes me think these are all plausible.

The new package is bold, bright, and eye-catching in a simplified way. The logotype uses a thick slab serif font which gives it a heavy-duty feel. The typography is large and in your face, and some dimensionality is portrayed with two large liquid drops in the background. The use of yellow is an interesting color choice—it makes me think of a dingy stain, but paired with black it helps the brand exude a 'get-it-done' feeling. It makes me want to puff up my chest and boast about using a wipe (for a greasy stain of course), even though  the brand’s advertising says, "Don't call 'em wipes, wipes are for wimpy jobs."

The aesthetics of the package make the brand claims believable, while the use of clever slogans and advertising makes me want to try them. Whatever I'll be cleaning, I'll be sure not to call them a wipe.

—Justin Leatherman, Art Director

On a recent trip to Target, I was taking my usual route to grab the essentials: toilet paper, paper towels, and laundry detergent. As I entered the laundry aisle, I knew I would be grabbing the name brand that was on sale, or at least whichever was cheapest. As I reached down to pick up a bottle of Gain detergent, I literally did a double take as I noticed the midnight blue Cheer bottle resting on the shelf.

For the first time, I had actually noticed that Cheer existed. Apparently, the P&G brand tried to be noticed several times in recent years, as this redesign was their third attempt at a different look. I'd have to say that this is definitely the best rendition, and in my opinion, the best looking bottle on the shelf.

The new design is clean and simple with a beautifully bold color palette to liven things up. The teardrop label contains a triangulated pixel pattern of the color palette, the refined Cheer logotype and a small tagline that reads "Stay Colorful". The bright colors pop perfectly against the dark blue of the bottle, while the white space with the Cheer logotype provides just the right amount of simplicity to contrast the colors. Typically, I would disagree with the use of the lowercase "e" in the Cheer logotype, but in this case, the angled crossbars seem to add the necessary "cheerful" touch.

The folks at Landor provided the brains and skill to create the revamped Cheer brand, striving to connect with the untapped Gen-Y consumer. It seems smart, in my opinion, to grab hold of a younger demographic in an industry where it hasn't necessarily been done. Gaining loyalty among college students could easily result in a lifetime connection with the Cheer brand. Landor has managed to create the brand by utilizing classic design sensibilities with a modern, bold approach to color and package design. Overall, I think they've married the two very well and have gained a new customer on this end. Oh yeah, did I mention this stuff smells incredibly good?

Neil Ryan, Senior Designer

What is it about the repetitive motion that captivates us? We, as humans, seem to enjoy a continuous rhythm in music, a monotonous movement of the rocking chair, a captivating frame progression of an animated GIF.

What? Animated GIF?? Are you talking about those cartoons of a smiley face that winks , or a color-shifting acid mushroom, or a cat with a machine gun?

Most, by default, will react negatively to these “pioneers of web animation”. It seems like they’ve been around to annoy us ever since pre-AOL times. That is correct – they are very “oh so 90’s”, and they are back.

Animated GIFs have been on the Web since it’s beginning. They were fairly easy to make and they brought some motion to the “prehistoric” static web pages. They represented our mood (smileys), creativity (cartoon GIFs), thoughts (photo GIFs), secret thoughts (porno-GIFs), and humor (weird guy dancing). Those 3-to-30 frame animations, at times, helped us express ourselves on the Web better than words did. They brightened our browsing experience and never failed to annoy us.

Animated GIFs got pushed away with the arrival of FLASH, online video and JavaScript-driven motion content. Although, there has been an interesting GIF revival lately. Some designers out there have been secretly practicing their guilty pleasures – resurrecting the animated GIFs. Carefully crafted GIFs have started to pop up all over the Web. The ones that deserve attention are actually fun, not so annoying, and even beautiful! Common thread in most of them – they are nostalgic. It isn’t just the content that makes them nostalgic – it’s the actual idea of an animated GIF, it’s historical significance to the Web. It’s like looking at some old artifact that looks strange, but you can’t look away.

With FLASH animation being actively pushed away from the Web, there isn’t much surprise that the designers are researching other options. The “old school” GIF just happens to be one of the alternatives. My best wishes to the GIF to long live. I just want them to be crafted and placed responsibly – it does get annoying to see something like an animation loop of Macaulay Culkin.

By Max Kunakhovich, Web Designer

Recently while visiting one of our favorite sandwich shops, I noticed something a little different about the environment. My experience felt a bit more well-rounded. As I did a 360 around the shop I began to realize that there were lotz of things that were a bit different. The new furniture, new signage and a common theme on all packaging made it clear that this would not be a typical square meal.

If the catchy title and terrible puns in the opening paragraph haven't given it away, we are talking about the new branding effort put forth by Schlotsky's. The new brand, or re-brand plays off of the circular shapes of the bread (or buns) that have made the Austin-based restaurant chain so successful. The 'Lotz Better' campaign is meant to present the visitors with a fresh, bright and contemporary feel.

The integration of the character attributes to each of their chip and hot sauce (that sweet-sweet hot sauce) packages adds personality at every customer touch-point. The simplicity of the character attributes are what are the strengths of each element of packaging. The franchise is blatant about the consistency of the circle that adorns the new decor and products. By adding horns and a devilish goatee to the circle on their hot sauce bottle, to onion sprouts on the circle on the sour cream and onion chips, to a bold black jagged line through the circle on the cracked black pepper chips, and the line art of a charcoal grill on the BBQ chips,  it brings more interest and entertainment to the dining experience. The personality of the product is completed with the catchy saying 'bags need chips, not shoulders.'

A true testament to the rebrand was when I witnessed a group of patrons interacting with the new packaging. They were holding the chip bags and hot sauce bottle while turning them around, viewing all that the new look had to offer. This is gold in the branding world. The longer that someone interacts with the brand and/or the more impressions you can garner generally equals better returns. Admittedly, I do not think that they were checking out the caloric values, so something must have caught their eye.

And as promised, 'Every Bite' was 'Lotz Better'...especially with the hot sauce.

Josh Christie

PRINCIPAL/BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

They may be mounted on your house, stuck on your mailbox, spray painted on your curb, or painted on your garage door. But the fact is, you have them and so do all of your neighbors. No, not Gerald your garden gnome—your house numbers.

I love typography and numbers. So it only seems natural for me to look at and analyze peoples' house digits. These small but powerful pieces of communication combine both function and form.

People focus on many different aspects of their home, but forget about the style they can inject into their house numbers. This simple typographic selection is the first 'branding' of sorts that visitors will see upon arrival. Think of it as a logo for your house; the numbers your house sports can portray a variety of attributes about your household. Choose a geometric typeface like Neutra and your house may look modern; choosing to use spray painted numbers on the curb may show that you are apathetic or indifferent. Whatever the case, they will be seen by passers-by, visitors, and of course, the mailman.

House numbers not only show your personal style, but originated out of pure function. According to www.ideamarketers.com, the history of formal mail service in the United States dates back to 1639, when the state of Massachusetts established the first government-authorized drop-off point for mail. Today, the USPS delivers to more than 141 million homes and businesses every day. Without those numbers, this wouldn't be possible.

So if they are large, small, brass, wood, backlit, painted or metal—house numbers must reflect your address and be visible on the front of your residence (unless, of course, you live in a Homeowners Association or neighborhood that specifies something different). The rest is open for interpretation,  so take some creative liberty and show some style. Are you due for a numberical makeover? Take a look the next time you pull into your driveway.

Justin Leatherman
ART DIRECTOR

DISCLAIMER: We generally reserve this section for a true Thought on Design. Unfortunately for both of us, my team thought it would be a good idea to throw me into the mix (while I was out of town and unable to defend myself). Please send all complaints to info@indiciadesign.com with the subject line: 'JC is Way Better at Marketing.' 

Anyway, here we go:

As a brand experience firm we spend much of our time helping our clients develop their brand. We perform positioning studies with our clients' executives and employees to determine what message should be communicated, how it should be communicated and who it should be communicated to. With some of our clients it is rare that we would have the opportunity to experience the true brand message in play.

Roughly a month ago, such an opportunity arose that allowed me to experience one of our client's brand personally. Somehow, while playing 'Horsey' with my kids, I injured my back. Being the stubborn male that I am, it progressed to the point where simple activities became challenging. One morning, as my wife was putting my socks on for me, she remarked that when our third child arrived in a few weeks that she would have 4 kids to take care of. Everything came to a head when my back seized up in our parking lot. As our Art Director wheeled me into the office in one of our chairs, I knew that it was time to get some help.

After a quick call to our client liaison with Pain Management Associates, he immediately made an opening the same day and set the ball rolling. The scheduling person contacted me within 20 min. She was compassionate and added a light-hearted 'so I hear we've got some back pain' comment to ease a stressful situation. Upon arriving at the clinic, I received a welcoming shout from the receptionist. The doc took his time assessing my situation and determining what could be causing the pain (including a handy visual aide). He spelled out options for treatment, short-term and long-term. One thing that my doc said that set the tone for their brand message was that 'my goal is to manage the pain, so that the pain doesn't manage you.'

After a series of two epidurals, some medication and rest, I am happy to say that I am pain free after a month. My doc took time to check in on me to make sure that the meds were working and the pain was under control.

The perfect closer to this experience was when my doc referred me to a physical therapist. He pulled out a beautifully designed referral kit for Elite Physical Therapy, another Indicia client. Looks like I may get another opportunity to experience a brand in the family.

My kids now have their 'Horsey' back, my wife only has 3 kids to worry about (sometimes she stills says 4, but it has nothing to do with my back), and the only time my Art Director pushes me in the chair is the occasional Friday afternoon chariot race.

Kudos to Pain Management Associates for delivering on their brand promise.

Joshua Christie, principal of business development and marketing, Indicia

Today, according to the National Eye Institute, about half of all Americans over the age of 19 have poor vision, myself included. CooperVision has been my brand of choice for contact lenses for over 10 years. Although they haven’t enjoyed the mainstream popularity of brands like Acuvue or Bausch + Lomb, they have maintained a high reputation with optometrists and eye care professionals alike. This March, CooperVision introduced a new brand identity designed by the global agency, Siegel+Gale. The new logo certainly draws more attention and flaunts significantly better typography. However, at first glance, I found myself questioning the head of cabbage floating above the logotype.

After exploring the various brand elements, the meaning behind the logomark became more apparent. Although the attempt at creating a watercolored contact lens was a far fetched idea, the use of watercolor throughout the website, advertisements, and collateral made all the difference. The brand utilizes a painting and illustration style using bright hues and playful themes, which has a very personable and relatable feel. Diversifying with six different colors for the logomark, each “lens” is painted differently, giving a slightly different appearance to each mark. This casual uniqueness seems to subliminally show the confidence and swagger with which the brand lives.

This is a great example of how CooperVision’s brand experience feeds off of every element involved. If the logo had been created with no supporting illustration or theme, using only photographs or simply typography, the rebrand would probably be negatively accepted. The logo could have been criticized for being remotely reminiscent of a contact lens, looking more like a rock or some type of vegetation– instead, Siegel + Gale created a bold brand with an idea that will surely be noticed. The bright colors, combined with a handmade aesthetic, leaves little to dislike.

“Overall, the system is designed to capture the vividness that exists in the everyday world, be as visually refreshing as CooperVision’s refreshing way of partnering with practitioners, while also bringing global consistency to a visually fragmented organization and establishing CooperVision as a clear masterbrand.”

Siegel + Gale Project Description

Overall, the logo is a stretch for CooperVision. The mark will be difficult to reproduce and surely not last as a timeless mark. However, what can be appreciated here is the strength of confidence and follow-through within the brand experience. This campaign will surely bring attention and recognition from many consumers, clearly putting CooperVision right back into focus.

By: Neil Ryan, senior designer

Every morning when I wake up, I open my eyes to see a ceiling (since I normally lay on my back for a while, trying to wake up). My ceiling, as most ceilings are, is clean, white and free of any clutter. For me, it represents a "clean start of the day," the day that will start getting cluttered as I move along towards the night. I get this similar "clean start of the day" feeling when I open my Internet browser, because the first thing I see is the Google.com start page.

As most of us know, Google is one of the most popular and most powerful search engines on the web. In fact, it is so popular it has become a slang term, for ex. "I Google-d my landlord before I moved in." Behind its simple and stark clean homepage, Google packs a powerhouse of options for virtually any possible use of the Internet.

So what is the deal with this simple 1996-ish homepage? Honestly, I don't know. But allow me to address my opinion on it (please note: I am not going to go into the whole nitty-gritty of what Google can do for you, just the opinion of its homepage). I like it. As mentioned above, Google is the start of my daily web browsing.

By default, Google’s home page contains a logo, a search box, and a handful of links. You could customize it with all kinds of other information if you'd like (I don't). Yahoo (another popular search engine), on the other hand, immediately spits out a World (literally) of information, plus banners and ads. And Bing (the search engine option from Microsoft)… well, not only do its search results shock me with its "over-intuitiveness", but it's "Microsoft-ness" makes me slightly uncomfortable.

I'm a web designer, so my job and my life are intertwined with the Internet. In search of relevant information I browse through multiple pages, portals, websites, blogs, forums, videos, emails, social outlets, unsocial outlets, and many, many, many etceteras. By the end of the day, I am loaded with all kinds of necessary and unnecessary information. So when I take my first step on the path of daily info web-quest, I prefer for it to start somewhere clean, clear, and direct. 

I'll stick with google.com, simple as that. I like to start my day off with a clean slate. I love it--at least for now. (Please note, again: I do not, by any means, promote Google as your browser's home page. This is just my personal opinion. Happy browsing!)

Max Kunakhovich, Web Designer, Indicia

Recently the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) announced its branding of a new technological buzzword—HTML5. HTML5 is the newest markup for website building, meaning it is the newest code version that gives websites structure. It touts the ability to build stronger, richer web applications without the use of Flash.

It may seem a little strange to be branding a publicly available, open source markup language, but the W3C doesn't see it that way. None of HTML5's predecessors (HTML 1, 2, 3 or 4) sported an official logo. So I have to ask, why is HTML5 worthy? As the most recent update since 1997, HTML5 adds many new features and streamlines functionality to render add-ons, rather than using plug-ins like Flash, Silverlight and Java, thus making your computer work less and deliver a better user experience. So, needless to say, HTML5 is a big deal.

The logo is simple, powerful and bold. It's personality seems to belong somewhere between a new tractor trailer brand and a superhero badge. It is progressively iconic, and will work at almost any size, which is very important on the web. The crispness is refreshing, and the subtle dimensionality of the mark is quite nice. It is good to see some dimensionality that doesn’t use the cliché web 2.0 glassy look. Designed by Ocupop, they say it "follows very strict geometric rules providing an incredibly adaptable yet stable and stylish identity."

Aesthetically, the shape of the logo lends itself to a web application, where it might be displayed as a badge of honor, visually similar to a coat of arms or crest. Something that seems to be quite important for users to know that a website is built using HTML5. And even if it is a little out of the norm for an open web platform to have a logo and brand, it works purely for uniformity of recognition. You can't buy anything, you don't call a phone number, but you can download various logo formats (including vector) of the logo for use under the Creative Commons 3.0. It's a non-traditional way to brand.

All in all, the logo works well–even if it is a brand for a publicly available markup language. It doesn't try too hard to be noticed, while at the same time demanding attention due to its visual strength. But wait, there is one problem—where is the '.1' going to go when the upgrade is issued?

Justin Leatherman, Art Director

By now, you've probably noticed that Comedy Central has unveiled a brand new logo…that is, if you are as obsessed with Tosh.0 and Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia as we are. The twenty year-old network publicized their fresh, and very different, logo (designed by the talented New York based group, thelab) in December of 2010.

First reactions were, of course, negative, as most corporate rebrands are. Many complained about its lack of character and its ties to the copyright symbol – two qualities that actually seem to be making it stronger. The new mark is, simply put, a “C” nested inside a backwards C. Even Comedy Central jokes about its likeness to the copyright symbol on their Twitter page by saying "The only difference between our logo and the copyright symbol? The gap." Accompanying the mark is a logotype set in a bold sans serif typeface. The words play off the mark, flipping the word Central upside down and backwards. Sure, the copyright symbol has been around since the beginning of intellectual property rights, but this allows for Comedy Central to be clever with its use – and they are doing just that. In their promotional video, as well as icons of characters from shows, they have placed the “CC” icon exactly as the copyright icon would be used. Armin Vit from Brand New puts it perfectly, "While the copyright symbol demarcates as ’hands off,’ Comedy Central's logo demarcates as ‘this is funny shit.’”

Opinions on the mark's so called "lack of character" and "boring" characteristics are to be expected from the typical television audience, who are constantly flooded with shiny surfaces and drop shadows. The strength in the new mark is its simplicity – not dullness – and its memorability. The humor in it may be a bit dry, but the backwards "C" and flipped "Central" provide just enough absurdity to give the mark relevance. Chances are, the next time you see the “CC” logo on the street, you won't think of how boring it is, but you'll remember the last time you laughed while watching the network.

In their promo commercial, Comedy Central is using the mark with energy and wit, which gives it all the life it needs. Accompanying this cleverness, the new branding has utilized an elegant italic serif typeface to present paragraphs of copy. They use it playfully, not giving the viewer enough time to read what is actually written. In my opinion, this is smart marketing, driving the end user to find the video, pause it, and read what is actually written, which in turn drives the brand strength even further.

All in all, it seems thelab has hit a home run for ComedyCentral with the new branding. They have developed a mark that stands apart from the crowd, yet subtly embodies ComedyCentral perfectly. Who said being funny can't be sophisticated?

By: Neil Ryan, Designer, Indicia

Remember when the trend was to wear clothes sporting your favorite brand? Whether it was GAP, Ralph Lauren, or some other brand that you thought would gain you status, the look was plastered in large letters on the front for everyone to see. It built brand awareness as it became the latest “must-have”. Today you can still find brand logos on your clothes, albeit in a much more subdued manner. One company, however, is taking a very different approach.

Freshjive, a 1989 born streetwear company, is planning to remove all logos and branding from their clothing, starting in 2010. In the same fashion, their website will not include the logo either. In an interview on www.thehundreds.com Rick Klotz, owner and designer of Freshjive (or should I say the clothing company that shall remain nameless) says, “The name of the company will still be Freshjive, it’s just that none of the products will have any logos or even a name on them”. A brandless brand? It sounds like an interesting conundrum (and perhaps a distant cousin to circular reasoning).

Without a name, how will people be able to recognize the brand? On www.hypebeast.com Klotz says, “When I see kids wearing company logos it reminds of people who are trying to be a part of a ‘tribe’ or ‘gang’, as if they need to be part of something, which seems to go against the idea of individualism in style”. So in an effort to not brand the clothing and bring back individualism, Freshjive plans to use a black box with a white border on their clothing tags and on their shirts, without any reference to the text “Freshjive”.

So if this black box will be used on all of the clothing, on all of the tags, and all in the same way, wouldn’t that become the recognizable brand? The one thing that Klotz is trying to stay away from? The answer is yes. Absolutely. Anything that is identifiable and common from one piece to the next becomes the brand–in this case accomplished without using any text. If the shape of the box was something relevant and recognizable to Freshjive, I could see this working. But, in this case I don’t think Freshjive is culturally iconic enough to pull this off.

In a world of screaming brands vying for the world’s attention, I think the understated has a place and I admire Klotz for what he is trying to do. But to achieve what he wants, Freshjive would have to eliminate any identifiable aspect to the clothing–patterns, color, buttons, patches, tags, and even the little black box. Each one would need to be a generic, almost handmade item; something that is not very realistic. Klotz wants people to think twice about buying a product soley for the brand name and personally I think he is trying to do too much with his decision to remove the name. I don’t think a nameless shirt will make anyone step back and say, “I shouldn’t be buying a brand for brand’s sake”. Let’s put this on the shelf as a good concept but bad reasoning. Now, if you will pardon me, I need to go buy a new [insert brand name here] shirt.

—Justin Leatherman, art director

As a young, female car owner, I find myself often lost in the mess of my machine's inner mechanism and in the vastly growing market of car products. I don't know much about how my car runs, why things go awry or why I need my air filter replaced after every oil change; what I do know is that it always costs me a lot to maintain my car. And when high-prices are the case, (and they are, more often than not) I like to know where my money is going.

Since the 70's, GM Goodwrench has stood for honest, no-jargon mechanics sure to get your car back on the road in no time. The old Goodwrench logo was a classic mark; set in Futura, it was sturdy, heavy, and sharp. It communicated a certain weight reserved for bulky metal instruments and power tools (see: DeWalt, Stanley, Bosch), but as technologies advance—and cars fall under such a category—a new look is in order for this company.

Mimicking the ubiquitous power button, Goodwrench's new icon looks to the future of cars, and anticipates its close relationship to computers. The mark's glossy effect adds to this, but also emulates its predecessor, the GM block. The logotype's new, and slightly modified, letterforms (particularly those with bowls, like the "G", "o", "d", and "e") have discarded Futura's geometric limitations, and have transformed into something stronger, more advanced. Previously, the "e" had served as a relief from the monotonous letterforms, supplying a little bit of personality in the cold sans serif bunch; Now the slanted "e" has been carried over for traditional reasons, as it is identifiable for the brand (its the little things that count!).

The new Goodwrench brand doesn't stop with their identity, as is evident in a series of new television commercials that feature a “Web 2.0” reference. Mirroring the look and feel of most Apple products, everything appears on a muted color background with a mirror-like effect beneath it and takes note of new icons for "Tires", "Oil", and "Repairs." It's like watching a website in motion: clean, user-friendly, and information-rich.

The computer-related brand evolution is an interesting and smart move for GM. Not many other auto care providers have taken this forward approach (i.e. Midas, Firestone, Meineke, etc.). Goodwrench is presenting the internal combustion engine as more than an archaic device—one that hasn't changed since 1905—and is giving us a glimpse of the future of the auto industry. Finally, it just makes sense if you're going to sell luxury cars as fine-tuned machinery, that you would have mechanics to match the description.

By the time cars become more like computers, I'll know even less about mine. Even so, I know I can rely on Goodwrench to fix it—especially with an identity like this one.

—Ashley Allen, designer

This past February, Watson’s, the largest leisure product retailer in the United States (according to the company’s web site) launched a re-brand to reflect the changing focus of their products and service by becoming the Family Leisure brand—“Where fun and family come together!” Since the company sells more than pools, spas and tanning beds, (including pool tables, game tables, bar stools, bars, and patio furniture), the new name is meant to suggest an expanding line of leisure products. However, not only is the new name overly generic and uninspiring, it seems entirely unnecessary.

Over the last 15 years, Watson’s had built valuable brand equity through its distinct, albeit annoying, television commercials. Featuring Jennifer “the Watson’s Girl” Foley and her step-father as spokespeople for the brand, the immediately recognizable and highly memorable spots always closed with the tagline “That’s Watson’s!” The old Watson’s brand was simple, unique and memorable, consisting of a hand-rendered script set beside a “W” within a red circle. The new brand, “Family Leisure” is set in Cooper Black type, a font that was over-used on packaged goods in the late 1970s and 80s, and immediately dates the mark. It is neither forward-thinking or nostalgic in execution.

Consistency is lacking in the launch of the new brand, and the messages that are being communicated are contradictory: in explaining the name change, the website touts that the products it sells are for a “family-focused leisure lifestyle,” yet a few paragraphs later describes the company as “a toy store for adults.” When I think of an adult toy store, I think of something entirely different than a wholesome family environment. Additionally, not all Watson’s stores have transitioned to the new brand, and there are still two web domains users can go to online, Watsons.com and FamilyLeisure.com. Both utilize the same cold and impersonal look and feel. In some cases, the red “W” mark is used with the new store name (as seen in this 4th of July promotion).

So what should Watson’s have done to help communicate the shifting focus of their product line? What was needed was more of an evolution of their existing brand, not a complete revolution and name change. Most retail brands change their look every couple of years in order to stay relevant in the minds of consumers. Perhaps a simple change in Watson’s tagline or a revitalized positioning statement would have been a better course of action. Even “Watson’s Family Leisure” would have been a better change to make.

Only time will tell if the new Family Leisure will be a successful brand, or if it will fade into obscurity. Watson’s was at least memorable and unique. This name change has essentially forced the 40 year-old company to start over in terms of brand equity and customer perception.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Thinking outside the box when it comes to recreating a brand identity is generally a good idea; jumping completely outside the “jack-in-the-box,” especially when it comes to an iconic brand, may not be so strategic or beneficial. That is exactly what happened shortly before the new year, when the west coast-based fast-food franchise Jack in the Box revealed its new identity. With little ties to the original, it seems this brand may be veering too far from the equity they’ve built over the past 58 years.

The new logo is quite a departure from the old. It features a teetering box with bubbly typography in which letterforms tend to ooze into one another. The new logo contains few elements from the old, only referencing the red box. New elements such as the scripty “Jack” and the detached, futuristic “in the box” clearly take the brand in a new direction. Some argue that the swoosh descended of the “k” resembles a smile…like a clown, perhaps? Or maybe it is meant to resemble a more literal silhouette of the well-known “Jack,” the spherical-head with pointy hat? The a-symmetrical balance of the new logo is also unsettling; I can’t get past the visual awkwardness created by the two-point perspective of the box and flatness of the logotype, along with the disjointed “in the box” tacked on at the bottom. While the dimensional box is an interesting take on the original flat shape, it bears an undeniable resemblance to the lesser-known burger joint, White Castle. Had the brand name not been split up, with “in the box” outside the box, I feel that much of the awkwardness of the new mark could have been resolved.

Though the new mark itself doesn’t satisfy my visual taste buds, I do like its integration into various applications, including new packaging patterns. The icons used to signify the cow, chicken and fish are a nice, modern touch, and clearly reference the type of meat that each package contains. The bold, saturated colors of the icons are also very appropriate and fitting for fast-food. The fact that the icons themselves have no dimension in relation to the box shapes behind them doesn’t really bother me; the boxes actually read better as abstracted objects rather than more literal ones.

While I appreciate Jack-in-the-Box’s recognition of brand revitalization, and their attempt to revamp their identity and implement new graphic elements, it seems a simple facelift could have sufficed without overhauling the logo completely. Some have attributed this re-brand to be more in line with that of a toy company or entertainment brand—and I tend to agree; it seems a bit too retro to become a timeless icon for the brand. Regardless of the new logo, nothing will ever be able to change my love for their deep-fried egg rolls and thick, Oreo shakes.

—Kelly Campbell, Designer

Many people might not care about getting a slick, modern-looking box of dryer sheets when shopping…I'm more of a bargain shopper myself. The new identity and Bounce brand packaging however, compelled me to not only think more about my dryer sheets, but to also probe deeper into the redesign of this iconic brand.

At first glance, I really enjoy the new look and experience very little disconnect between the old, established look that the product has had for years. It has some elements that work quite well, allowing it to stand out from other, orange, competitors on the store shelf, while others leave me questioning whether the re-brand really matters.

The more I look at the design, the more I think we could easily be examining a rejected chewing gum package that was resurrected to become the new "rock star" of the dryer sheets aisle. For example, the minimalist approach to the package design is quite refreshing—by removing the blue call-out window and charts that used to live on the front of the box, the result is a much cleaner composition.

Photos and color are used to differentiate between the various types of dryer sheets. I also like the halftone pattern that has replaced the old sunrise motif. I do like that the new product logo is more "bouncy" than that of the original. The lowercase “b” and ligature between the "u" and "n" makes sense, suggesting the swirling path this product travels while in the dryer.

Both the front panel graphics and type treatments could have more depth to them, as it looks a little flat. Perhaps bringing back the blue outline around the type or adding a drop shadow to the white border would do the trick.

I am curious about Procter & Gamble's motivations—was one of the objectives to reach a younger audience? Is that demographic doing more laundry these days, feeling the need to be “cool” while they throw the whites into the dryer? This might explain the new type treatment of the logo. While I understand wanting to be hip when dealing with electronic products or junior wear, perhaps this tactic is too much for the laundry aisle. Overall, however, I think that the new package design is very effective at “bouncing” into shoppers’ field of vision and subsequently off the shelf.

  —Chad Wagner, designer

As a fan of horror and science fiction movies (both good and bad), I find myself flipping to the SciFi Channel often. The cable channel has been very successful over the last 16 years of creating a world of its own, where viewers and fans of the genre can come together and experience original programming such as Battlestar Galactica, Stargate Atlantis, and studio-released sci-fi blockbusters and “B” movies as well. As we approach 2010 (“The Year We Make Contact”) SciFi is on the verge of a rebirth as SyFy. I believe the decision to launch a re-brand is a good one, especially since the organization wants to trademark its brand (due to the ubiquitous nature of the phrase “sci-fi,” the current name is not legally protect-able).

Looking at the current identity, one thing I will miss is the distinctive planetary mark. I always thought it was well crafted, so much so that whenever I see a silhouette treatment of Saturn, I instantly think of the SciFi Channel. I do like how the type treatment for SyFy is not too far removed from the original logo, as it suggests more of an evolution of the brand instead of a revolution, and that any fears of too much change are unfounded. I have to disagree with some of the bloggers who say the channel is in the midst of an identity crisis. On the contrary, the new tag line "Imagine Greater" is a strong statement that says exactly where they are going…up.

Based on early press releases, SyFy will keep the color purple as the primary brand color—which is good since I also have associated the color with the channel. I am curious to see if they will expand their accent color palette, since most current promotional spots are rather monotone. As simple and selfish as it sounds, my biggest fear of this re-brand is that SyFy will do away with the weird and quirky TV shorts they play during commercial breaks and in between shows--these shorts are of better production quality than half of the movies that are currently aired.

From a business sense the SyFy re-brand is a great move. Expanding into other areas while protecting oneself legally is never a bad idea in my playbook. I just hope that SciFi Channel doesn't forget who got them where they are now… those possessing an "inner geek" like me. Of course, TV does give them a very big platform to beat the new identity into the heads of its fans.

—Chad Wagner, web designer / syfy nerd

If you haven’t seen it on your grocer’s shelves, Pepsi has gone through possibly the largest rebrand of the past year. PepsiCo said it would be spending nearly $1.2 billion over the next three years on significant changes to every aspect of the brand. They will also be updating the Gatorade brand by creating a contemporary identity in which the entire line will be based on the “G” of Gatorade. In addition, Tropicana orange juice, also a PepsiCo product, has revamped their packaging line, but we will save that for another day.

The main concern of this article will be on the new Pepsi soda logos. If you haven’t seen the logos (Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Pepsi Max, Mountain Dew) they have undergone a complete renovation. They continue to use the red, white and blue palette of the previous logo, however, the white band has been formed into three different shapes (smiles) to represent the different sodas. When I read about these “smiles” in the report from AdAge.com, the first thing I thought after reading the article was “What smiles?” AdAge stated that a “smile” will characterize the brand Pepsi, while a “grin” is used for Diet Pepsi and a “laugh” is used for Pepsi Max. Even with knowledge of these “smiles”, I still struggle to see them within the marks.

Although the new logos are a detachment from the previous Pepsi logos we grew up with, I respect that Pepsi is pushing toward simplicity. I feel brands today need to move away from the gaudiness of the 90s and early 2000s. They need to gravitate towards an uncluttered, honest approach to their product which in turn will create brand loyalty. However, the minimalism of the new packaging almost seems effortless and uninspired. Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, and Pepsi Max are based on a series of gradients and a new typeface reminiscent of the seventies. The new elements seem cold and uninviting, instead of cold and delicious. On the other hand, the company has also rebranded Mountain Dew to Mtn. Dew. The new packaging houses a decent type treatment and an interesting illustration of mountains. The white space seems planned and intentional, leading to a successful package. However, the abbreviation seems slightly forced and unnecessary.

I remember as a child how a new logo of a product was so exciting for me simply because it was NEW. However, it now frustrates me to see so many companies pushing for new identities when the logo itself was not the problem. In my opinion, Pepsi could have done a simple redesign of their packaging without changing the logo with excellent results. Take Coca-Cola for example, who kept the classic “Coca-Cola” script, cleaned it up a bit, and created beautiful new packaging. It is rare to find a secure brand with a heritage these days, which is why so many are disappointed with this refresh. Nevertheless, I feel we will be seeing the old logo again once this trend passes.

—Neil Ryan, designer

Last August, Best Buy opened a new 45,000 square foot store in the Mall of America. Along with the introduction of the store to the largest mall in North America, and a rockin’ performance by NKOTB (that’s New Kids on the Block for those of you who came of age in the mid-80’s), Best Buy unveiled a more modern and upscale logo. Crisp, clean, and refreshing, the new logo is sure to become as immediately recognizable as its predecessor. This is not to say that it is without flaws, but overall, this is a very nice re-brand for such an iconic store.

The old logo, in use since 1989, consisted of a giant yellow tag, like those found on clearance, sale, or bargain-priced items. This suggested to shoppers that they were going to get the lowest price and best possible deal on their electronics purchase, and became an icon of the brand itself…it is used to show pricing information throughout the store, as a repeating pattern and texture in print ads and commercials, and is instantly recognizable among all other competing electronics superstores.

Set in Futura Extra Bold typeface is the company name, nicely contained inside the shape of the yellow tag. Because the logo is a compact unit, it is highly versatile in applications: on buildings it is enlarged to gargantuan proportions over entrances and can be placed on just about any background color or image (although it almost always appears on blue backgrounds—a nice visual tie-in with employee uniforms, which are blue polo shirts and khakis). The only limiting factor to the old Best Buy logo is how small it can be reduced—if shrunk to business card size or smaller, the bold letterforms would fill in (particularly on the newsprint circulars found in Sunday morning newspapers).

The new logo alleviates some of these reproducibility issues with a slimmer, more modern typeface that now resides to the left of the tag. While removing some of the weight from the logotype was a good thing, too much bulkiness was removed from the yellow tag…it is now too dainty and gets lost as an outline. This is particularly evident when appearing on a white background— simply making the tag all yellow would draw a more immediate connection with the old identity, without diluting the almost twenty years of brand equity that has been established.

While the new logo does address certain reproducibility issues, it creates new problems as well. For example, the new identity is very horizontal. While this may work in most instances and applications, what happens if a more vertical or square format is required? The tag mark does tuck nicely under the “y”, but how does that translate to a stacked version?

Overall, the new Best Buy brand is an improvement over the old. The heavy Futura typeface always bothered me, all too similar to and reminiscent of Bed, Bath and Beyond. By separating the logotype from the mark, both elements can be used apart from each other, opening up more graphic possibilities. This is one brand update that I can get attached to.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Walmart recently unveiled their new logo sporting a hyphen-less, one word logotype with smooth, round letterforms and a yellow asterisk. This may go unnoticed to the casual viewer, but some are wondering, why the change? Walmart will most likely be spending millions of dollars to change store signage and truck graphics over the next several years, and all for a simple logo change?

At first glance, the new logo may seem boring and intentionally safe, exactly what one would expect from a powerhouse, mega-company trying to soften their image. In comparison, the previous logo was stamped with patriotism; a red, white and blue palette with a star to replace the hyphen. The updated logotype has been set in lowercase, rounded, and the colors have been toned down to a gentler blue and marigold.

These particular changes may go unnoticed by some, but it will be hard to not notice that their local store has taken a step toward the “softer side”. This can be interpreted as an attempt by Walmart to let the public know that they are "going green", which in fact, they are trying to do (I can’t help but be impressed by the company’s efforts to reduce energy use, maximize fuel efficiency in their trucks, and reduce packaging.) The logo may look generic or safe, but in some ways, Walmart is exercising clever tactics by employing the typical "green marketing" attributes like rounded letterforms and natural colors. They recognize the style of current product packaging and labels, such as those found in the natural food market, and are taking advantage of those trends to influence prospective customers.

While average customers may notice the new logo, or at least its resemblance to an organic food product label, the modified mark will most likely not deter them from shopping at Walmart. However, it may influence prospective customers to visit the store after seeing the softer, cleaner, friendlier brand. If, in fact, Walmart understands that the majority of the public will interpret the new logo in this manner, the refresh would be quite intelligent.

Overall, I feel the previous mark was not the strongest, most successful logo, but it had a strong recognition value. It said, "We are Walmart, we're huge and we know it." Throw that star in there, and it says "Yep, we love America just like you." The new warm and fuzzy sunshine logo will obviously become well known because of the establishment behind it, but looks like it could be found for sale on a logo creation web site for cheap. Don’t get me wrong, I believe Walmart may have made an intelligent move by taking the safe route: a generic logo that is in line with current trends; but I do think the new logo could be drastically improved by removing the tacky sun/asterisk/flower element, allowing the logotype to do the talking.

  —Neil Ryan, designer

Just yesterday, while rifling through my daily pile of junk mail and local ads, I briefly paused at one flyer. I saw fish and rice, hushpuppies and even some grilled skewers of shrimp but could not determine what restaurant was being advertised. Upon closer examination I saw an unrecognizable logo advertising a company I was quite familiar with: Captain D’s. While I’m not a fan of fried fish, I’ve always been familiar with the logo. In fact, any member of my family could spot it mounted on a steel pole from any highway in the country. My curiosity piqued regarding this new logo and I wondered if Captain D’s was perhaps re-branding their entire chain, so I did a little research.

In August 2007, Captain D’s revealed their new brand. No longer marketing a kitschy fast food restaurant using bold colors like red and blue, D’s is now moving in a different direction altogether. With changes to the menu (additions of grilled seafood and pasta), a remodeling of their restaurants (now decorated with sophisticated graphics and beautiful hardwood floors) and the new look of D’s printed materials and website, it’s no wonder a completely different logo was implemented.

The logo itself is a successful tie in with the new brand experience. The subtle orange and light blue are uncharacteristic of fast food, and lend themselves to suggesting a finer seafood restaurant. This aligns exactly with the new changes made franchise-wide. The silhouetted fish hovers at the center of the mark, leaving no question as to what food is being offered at this business, while the older mark was far more ambiguous. Also, the words “seafood kitchen” are placed right below the fish, giving the restaurant a more sophisticated appeal.

The only real drawback to this new logo is a lack of a visual enclosure of the mark, something to separate it from the background. With a box insinuated from the squared edges of the blue waves and white, negative space defining the top corners, I feel the elements of the mark are a bit floaty. This was particularly obvious when I scanned the ad—each coupon seemed a bit cluttered and the logo was indistinguishable from other visual elements.

With an admitted dislike for fried fish, my new interest in the“Seafood Kitchen” could most likely be attributed to my attraction to the neutralized colors of the new brand and love of hardwood floors. And, between the new menu items at Captain D’s and the overall feel of the franchise, this restaurant may find themselves serving me more frequently.

—Kelly Campbell, designer

Atlanta Bread Co., hailing from, you guessed it, suburban Atlanta, is a casual bakery-café franchise offering fresh, quality food fast. Originally started as a small sandwich shop in 1993, the company has since franchised into approximately 100 locations in 24 states. As they have expanded, Atlanta Bread has not only enhanced the retail experience of their cafés, but updated their brand identity as well — a process they have been slowly rolling out over the past few months, here is an early look at the change.

The old Atlanta Bread logo was a very heavy mark consisting of detailed wheat stalks (indicative of both bread and baked goods) rendered on a black background, with a roughened yellow border frame that divided it into two, almost equal halves. The typeface, American Typewriter Condensed, was clunky, set in all caps, and looked dated (even when it first came out). These criticisms aside, the old Atlanta Bread logo projected a handmade quality that was appropriate for the audience and the type of establishment that it is, and all within a nicely contained, immediately recognizable mark.

There were, no doubt, certain reproduction challenges due to the level of detail of the old Atlanta Bread Co. brand, particularly in smaller sizes, or in embroidery applications on employee uniforms. Perhaps in response to these issues, the company decided to implement a much simpler identity for the brand, as evidenced by their recently adopted “Bread Man” logo.

Consisting of an abstracted, asymmetrical figure embracing a circular “bowl,” this new identity looks like it is straight out of an aboriginal cave painting, and more appropriate for an Outback Steakhouse. In fact, it reminds me of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games logo. According to the company web site, the Bread Man “represents the heart and soul of Atlanta Bread… part global traveler, part old school baker and part next door neighbor.”

OK, the “global” part I get… as I mention above, this seems very “Aussie” to me. The “old school baker” is a bit more of a stretch, unless that circular shape is supposed to be a bread bowl. And I certainly don’t see the “next door neighbor” in the new mark, unless you are supposed to get that impression from the personable feel of the new logotype. The casual, handwritten script is certainly an improvement over the old brand’s typewriter characteristics, and the burgundy and olive green color scheme is very nice.

In my opinion, Atlanta Bread’s new brand has been heavily influenced by Panera Bread, their largest competitor. Panera’s brand (shown above, which has been in use for several years) features an abstracted person holding a loaf of bread. A similar type treatment, with almost identical typefaces, has been used. And if you compare the retail environments of both restaurants, you will see similar color schemes, patterns, and graphic elements. It seems to me that Atlanta Bread was too busy trying to emulate and become the alternative to Panera Bread, that they simply implemented an identity that has very little, if anything, to do with the organization’s roots.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

MeadWestvaco, a global supplier of paper products, packaging and chemicals (and subsequently a resource used by many designers… for the paper, not the chemicals) on March 24th unveiled a new brand that shortens the company moniker to “MWV,” introduces a new ribbon element that is animated in a cheesy Flash presentation on the corporate website (more on this later), and incorporates the presumptuous tagline “How brands take shape.”

According to chairman and CEO John Luke, Jr., “the new MWV brand identity… clearly states to customers that MWV… is uniquely positioned to help their brands take shape.” Really? On their own, the letterforms of the new mark communicate to me that the company has given up its rich heritage as the combination of the Mead Corporation and West Virginia Paper Company (and its many highly recognizable consumer brands such as At-A-Glance, Day Runner, Cambridge, etc.) for a more generic acronym that when rendered, resembles more of an old-fashioned telephone cord than anything else.

The new ribbon element that MeadWestvaco (sorry, MWV) uses is graphically interesting, and is a definite improvement over the much-dated look of the typeface ITC Eras that constituted the old logo. Because it is set in all caps, however, the new logotype sacrifices readability in favor of the clean and modern look of Helvetica… as a result, “Mead” is virtually indistinguishable from “Westvaco.” This is probably an intentional part of the redesign given the press release and CEO comments. The other aspect that bothers me is the extreme horizontalness of the brand; I am curious as to what a stacked version of the logo might resemble, and if it would be as effective.

In the promotional video introducing the new brand and explaining the positioning “How brands take shape”, the ribbon flies across the screen to New Age “space sounds” music, twisting and turning at right angles as it moves between foreground and background, and around short blurbs of text shown in perspective. For a moment I had flashbacks of the movie “Tron”, with all of its cheesy, “cutting edge” CGI graphics and animation (which was really cool back in 1982!).

The new positioning tagline for MWV is “how brands take shape.” While on the surface this proposition seems harmless enough, as a practicing designer (and a member of their target audience), something about it rubs me the wrong way—perhaps it is my conviction that brands are more than just great logos or clever packaging… or perhaps this blanket statement seems too arrogant for me. In the end, though, it is not necessarily what I think about this new MWV/MeadWestvaco brand, but about how customers perceive it.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Sunglass Hut International, a purveyor of fashionable sunglasses and eyewear, is in the midst of rolling out a new brand identity to its 1,500 retail stores located in malls and other high-density retail areas around the globe. The new identity, developed by everyone’s favorite, Wolff Olins and retail specialist FRCH Cincinnati, has already been unveiled in Europe, and is only now just starting to make its public debut here in the United States, replacing an interim identity plaguing some applications, like the web site. The result has been a confusing image for an iconic sunglass retailer — one that is not nearly as distinctive as the one that it replaces.

One simply needs to visit the retailer’s European website and then the North American version, to see how confusing the Sunglass Hut identity has become. When Sunglass Hut was acquired by the Italian company Luxottica, which owns and licenses several premium and luxury sunglass brands, the identity underwent an overhaul, perhaps to match the other brands within the company’s portfolio. The result was a poorly executed, confusing logotype that baffled not only customers, but employees of the company as well. Sunglass Hut International became “SGH,” set in some custom Eurostile Extended-like lettering, with “sunglass hut” set in lowercase in a geometric sans underneath — definitely nothing to write home about.

The final redesigned identity is composed of a simple, silvery circle mark that resembles a tinted optical lens, with all lowercase letters set in a unique, albeit very trendy typeface — that actually looks an awful lot like Kate Moss' typeface. While the silver and black color scheme connotes premium quality and is representative of the luxury sunglass brands the store sells, what appears to be missing is reference to sunlight, which is something that the old mark communicated very well.

The original Sunglass Hut International logo was not a complete travesty — after all, it helped catapult the retail chain into an icon within the industry. The yellow and blue mark, with an abstract sun and ultra condensed typeface, simply and effectively communicated the essence of the brand: selling protective eyewear. When the company decided to sell watches within some of its retail stores and at stand-alone kiosks, it adapted its successful identity to the Watch Station brand by simply changing the sun to a watch face, and replacing the name in the same typeface. In this way, the old identity became a victim of its own success.

What makes the “new” new identity for Sunglass Hut (a la Wolff Olins) so bad is that it doesn’t retain any of the quirky or personable characteristics that made the original one so successful. In their quest to create a luxury, premium brand, the designers instead created one that appears cold, lifeless, and very trendy. Add in the fact that the new brand is being rolled out at separate times and in different geographic areas, this is one brand update that needs some definite clarity.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Ruby Tuesday, the international restaurant chain known for its casual dining menu and impressive salad bar, has been implementing a new, “fresh” (a word emphasized over and over) identity over the past several months to coincide with an update of the brand’s interior. Gone are black- and white- checkered tablecloths and the hodge-podge of sports memorabilia that adorned the walls and were reminiscent of Applebee’s or TGI Friday’s In their place is a more upscale and elegant look and feel.

For the most part, I am impressed with the work of DJ Stout and team from Pentagram, Austin. The new identity represents a more sophisticated eating establishment, and features some great brand extensions, such as the “RubyTueGo” take out service. While the green used on the RubyTueGo cups, billboards and bags are a little garish for my taste, they effectively communicate the idea of freshness. The burgundy, though not much different from the old, is warm and inviting.

RubyTuesday’s new logotype is set in Clarendon, a nice, slab typeface that feels somewhat contemporary yet friendly and approachable. Unfortunately, I think that the designers missed the opportunity to add some sort of embellishment to make it more unique—some minor tweaks could have also resolved the unusual kerning between the T and u of “Tuesday.” As bad and over-the-top as the old logo was, at least there were decorative touches to the tail of the R and S, as well as the ascender of the D—these resembled steam, suggesting good things to eat and making it more memorable.

In reading the Pentagrams’ blog and the description of the project, you would think that they were so proud of themselves for coming up with the idea of merging the restaurant name into one word… according to DJ Stout, “The idea of running the words ‘Ruby’ and ‘Tuesday’ together in the logotype came to me one day when I was sitting in the reception area… waiting for a meeting. I overheard the operators answering the phones and they would routinely refer to the company as “RubyTuesday’ as if it was one word instead of a two word name.”

Well, excuse me, but duh! I have always called the restaurant RubyTuesday, not Ruby [pause] Tuesday, or simply “Ruby,” or even “Tuesday” for that matter. What is interesting to point out is that on the restaurant’s signage (mock up shown on the Pentagram blog), the logotype does not run together to form one word, with Ruby being stacked on top of Tuesday — so much for the one-word ingenuity. Obviously the new identity has some limitations due to its horizontal nature.

And speaking of signage, you might have noticed in the Fresh Look link from the first paragraph that another logo — not the old foxy one, nor the new one — adorns the façade. Somewhere in between the new and the old, this logo made a brief and confusing appearance online and on TV ads. So, perhaps not the smoothest of transitions for Ruby Tuesday. Overall, there are very few things that I can find fault with in this new Ruby Tuesday identity. Pentagram’s “simple” and “fresh” perspective has elevated the sophistication of the brand and added a little more “snob appeal” to a chain known for its casual, affordable menu.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

These Girls Rock is the "brand platform" launched in 2005 to support the positioning and five-year plan of the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA), and mid-way through that plan the LPGA has unveiled a new identity. Well, in addition to being a little chauvinistic by labeling the women of golf Girls (or is that just me?) the new identity developed by SME doesn't necessarily Rock.

While conceptually a new image that projects "power, strength and athleticism" and "highlights [LPGA's] international membership and global business" seems like a good idea, the resulting "swinging lady" identity reminds me more of an Olympic Games logo than that of a professional golf association. And it is difficult to get over how amazingly similar (and ironic) it is to Greg Norman's "Shark" logo (the highly successful businessman and professional golfer from Australia). The new brush strokes are much more feminine than the old, but something is not quite right.

The brush strokes look a bit forced in some areas, or as if they were drawn by different people. For example, the hair, arm and highly accentuated backside have all been rendered with very elegant curves and careful attention to the thickness of the strokes. The golf "swing" and legs, in addition to being a little disproportionate and stubby-looking, are very mechanical and perfectly computer-generated. And what exactly is that supposed to be for the head? The unkempt hair (that resembles more of a mop top or even a duck's head) seems to contradict the association's professional and polished image.

Typographically, the LPGA's new brand represents a huge improvement over the old. The serif LPGA within the green box has given way to a more contemporary sans serif typeface that is unique and forward-thinking, but not too cheesy or "futuristic." My only complaint is that the strokes appear to be too thin—making them bolder would aide in reproducing the brand at small sizes.

Speaking of reproduction issues, one of the goals of the new brand, according to Bill Susetka, the LPGA's chief marketing officer, was to create "a logo that we could easily reproduce on merchandise, billboards and signage" — and judging from the amount of stuff in the newly minted LPGA Pro Shop (do note the These Girls Rock badge there) — then I think they picked a very difficult one (anyone who has ever sent a multicolor job like this to an embroiderer can tell you that this is no picnic to stitch onto hats, polos, etc. and if anyone is into hats, polos, etc. it's golfers).

All print collateral, even their business cards and letterhead, will have to be printed in full color as opposed to just one or two, meaning more expense (granted, in the quantities that they produce them, this probably is not an issue). And then there are consistency issues when dealing with different vendors and different versions of the logo: when printing on a white or light background, the logo uses blue strokes and type; when on dark colors (see the new LPGA site), the blue is reversed to white. The resulting logo loses its effectiveness as the white overpowers and competes with the other colors.

These Girls Rock might be an appropriate description for the ladies of professional golf, but unfortunately it is not necessarily the case for their new brand: Too Olympic-like, too similar to another male golf icon's brand, the LPGA's mark could have been a little more refined in its execution. Granted, it is a dramatic change and long overdue (the previous iteration had been in use since 1992). I will even go so far as to say that it is an improvement over the old, but definitely not a hole-in-one.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Shopko, a department store chain with approximately 135 stores throughout the Midwest, Mountain and Pacific Northwest regions of the United States, recently shed its very masculine image in favor of one that softens perceptions about the retailer and appeals to its primary customer base — women (much like the Sears campaign of yesteryear). Shopko provides “quality name-brand merchandise, great values, pharmacy and optical services” — which at quick glance is not what the old identity communicated.

The old Shopko brand, if anything, evoked Wal-Mart’s “Buy American” promotional campaign of the 1980s and 1990s (back when Wal-Mart actually bought and sold products that were made in America) through its patriotic use of red, white and blue color scheme. Although dissected into two halves by a white rule, the logotype was bold, distinct, and had some personality to it through the curved serifs. But, while graphically effective, the old logo just sent the wrong message about the type of goods sold at Shopko.

Because Shopko is more than just a discount superstore, featuring an in-store pharmacy and optical shop for busy families, the new identity needed to be more sophisticated and reflect more of its customers’ lifestyles. Under the supervision of Jack Mullen, Shopko’s new Senior Vice President of Marketing, the new brand has been radically overhauled from head to toe, with the help of Columbus, Ohio-based Chute Gerdeman Retail to design the logo as well as the stores — or, at least, a prototype store.

Set in all caps, the name is harder to read at first glance than its predecessor, particularly since the K is no longer set to the same height as the S. The letterforms themselves are too thin, while the cutesy terminals on the P and leg of the K are a little too much. Kerning between the ko is not consistent with the rest of the word, and the O’s appear to be tilted the wrong way. Simply put, the logo reminds me more of a trendy Asian restaurant than that of a department store. Despite the logo, the other elements of the Shopko re-brand appear to be a revolutionary improvement (based solely on the web site, as there aren’t any stores in my neck of the woods), and the manly, “Buy American”, big-box, discount superstore image has been softened to reflect a more feminine aesthetic… based on the previous, this is quite a makeover.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Three-letter cable channel identifications seem to be all the rage lately. One merely has to channel surf to find plenty of three letter abbreviations for different networks: CNN, TNT, TBS, TLC, TNN, A&E; and the list goes on. Apparently network execs think that their viewers don’t have the mental capacity or intelligence to recall their favorite channels — or perhaps this trend is the result of an instant gratification society in which the proliferation of instant messaging has diminished our ability to read, write and think in complete thoughts and sentences.

The latest example of this “dumbing down” of channel identifications can be seen through The Biography Channel’s new brand. Reduced to “bio” and set in all lowercase letters in a slab serif face, this new identity is a far departure from its former incarnation; one that is crisp, clean, and simply executed. Whereas the old typeface was an elegant serif set within a pill-shaped field, the new characters are more pronounced and easy to read, as well as friendly and personable.

One of my biggest complaints, typographically speaking, is that the square dot of the “i” is clunky and seems out of place—a more appropriate solution would have been to mimic the shape of the circular period after “bio.” And speaking of periods, I will never be able to look at a red dot at the end of a word or sentence the same way again thanks to the Kotex® feminine hygiene commercials that aired a few years back—and, unfortunately, it is the red dot that is supposed to link the old and new identities.

The black and white lozenge shape has disappeared from the identity, which is a major improvement. What exactly was that supposed to be, anyway: a pill? A paper clip? It didn’t help that, until August of last year, Biography was also a documentary series that aired weekly on A&E network (“Biography” started in 1962 on CBS to chronicle the lives of historical figures, was picked up by A&E Network in 1987 with new episodes, and then was finally spun off into the cable channel in 1999). The old Biography Channel logo had to be different from the television series of the same name, because other types of programming, including mysteries such as “Murder, She Wrote” were aired (and who doesn’t love Angela Landsbury?).

Instead of differentiating between the two, the channel and the television program shared the exact same logotype and color scheme. The only difference was that the TV series logo had a red field behind “Bio” and then the rest of the type was reversed out of the background or a black field. The new mark, on the other hand, utilizes gray instead of using all black and white, which subconsciously makes that suggestion that when it comes to history, things are often open to interpretation through the lens of the culture in which we live.

Though not perfect in execution, the new Biography Channel identity is a vast improvement over the old. It pays homage to the original television series brand by once again calling attention to the “bio” in biography (after all, these are not full blown, Benjamin Franklin length documentaries, rather short “bios” on current individuals). It appeals to a target audience who may not be as intellectual as past viewers (those who see things in only black and white, fact or fiction). And even though I hate to see more damage done to the English language by catering to the IM’ing crowd, this is one identity that is short, sweet, and to the point.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

“Go ahead. Stare.” That is the challenge posed by the new tagline for Armor All, a product used by millions of car enthusiasts to clean, shine, and protect their dashboards, steering wheels, and tires. And by spending some time staring at this newly revised brand we can see definite improvement in its execution, as well as some potential pitfalls.

If the intent of the new look is to project the strength of the Armor All brand, then this quality has definitely been achieved through the completely redrawn Viking character. Upright and stoic in his pose (complete with a new, shiny and polished shield), he has certainly grown up over the past thirty years. Originally the brand featured a more cartoon-looking Viking, drawn by “Big Deal”, shielding himself from the force of a lightning bolt — besides looking like clip art, the original character looked surprisingly weak for a “protector”; he is on his knees from the force of the blow, as if cowering and unable to fight back.

The most recent version of the brand was much more masculine and aggressive-looking, with bulging muscles and weapon at the ready. Perhaps some felt that this rendition of the character was too aggressive, or his portrayal was insensitive to the Vikings — because as the politically correct might say, “not ALL Vikings were the village-burning, women-raping kind.” Whatever the reason, the new execution of the Armor All Viking has been sanitized of anything that might be considered a dangerous weapon; the spike on the shield, the spiked arm band, the axe — even the horns on his helmet have been turned inward so as not to hurt anyone.

Overall, the visual metaphor of a warrior using a shield is highly effective at conveying the protective nature of the Armor All product. The message that might get lost, however, and subsequently be the rationale for the re-brand, is that the product also restores automobiles to their original “shine.” While the new brand embodies the essence of both cleanliness and shine, perhaps there is too much emphasis on “clean”-and the result is that it might be mistaken for a different product altogether. It bares a striking resemblance to both Tide Laundry Detergent and packaging for Bounce fabric softener. The outer glow and rays of sunshine emanating from behind the Viking make him look more like Mr. Clean instead of the staunch defender of your car's interior.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

In April, Unum, a leading employee benefits provider in the United States and the United Kingdom, unveiled a new identity in an attempt to better communicate the company’s core competencies and focus. Formerly UnumProvident, the company’s new logo, designed by The Gate Worldwide, is visually superior to the old — while at one time the highly patriotic logo probably appealed to companies based largely in the United States who desired to “buy all things American” (and who doesn’t love the logo’s ode to “Ole’ Glory’s” stars and stripes?), the company’s products and services have expanded well beyond the borders of this country and into Europe. And in today’s geo-political climate, looking “American” might be considered a liability and unpopular with an international audience.

By adopting an identity that incorporates more of a European design aesthetic, Unum has distanced itself from its more American heritage. While the refreshed logo uses a contemporary, stylized typeface and simple shapes to communicate the company’s image, is it really effective at telling their story? To someone not in the insurance or benefits industry, this critic included, there are no visual clues as to what the company does. What is slightly more puzzling is the fact that a new tagline, “Better Benefits at Work,” was also adopted the same day as the new identity, yet is noticeably absence from the logo and company web site. This vital piece of information would have been incredibly helpful in communicating the company’s message.

According to the press release and Joseph Foley, senior vice president and chief marketing officer, “The new Unum brand represents a shift… from being an insurance company to being a true employee benefits partner.” Oh, well — why didn’t you just say so, perhaps by using a tagline in conjunction with the logo?

Once you realize what the company does, and the fact that they are supposedly “focused on people,” the logo begins to make much more sense. The rounded, lowercase letterforms are fun and whimsical (maybe too “fun”, resembling something more suitable for a toy company), and offer a refreshing change from the Palatino-like typeface used before. There are three business units within the company, represented by three circles; closer scrutiny reveals that these shapes also visually complete the bodies of three highly stylized figures, perhaps distant cousins of the ubiquitous Helvetica Man. However, these gender-neutral people look more politically correct than those adorning bathroom door signs, and therefore more appropriate for a professional office environment.

While a vast improvement over the old UnumProvident logo, one that is unique and memorable (perhaps for all the wrong reasons), the new identity fails in communicating the company’s core competencies. Perhaps the designers of this new brand assumed that everyone knew what Unum was, and the products and services it provides. Or perhaps the thought of “ruining” the European-inspired simplicity of the mark with something as mundane as a tagline was unbearable. Regardless of the reason, it leaves one to wonder how much more effective this identity could have been.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Yellow Transportation and Roadway recently joined forces and became YRC Worldwide. With most new ventures, a new logo is needed—hopefully something to communicate the core values of the combined businesses, or be relevant to the type of service that the new business provides. Unfortunately, the new YRC logo appears to have missed the mark on both accounts.

Representing the marriage of the two companies, the new YRC logo incorporates the Swamp Holly Orange from the old Yellow Corporation, and blue from Roadway. According to YRC, customers will be able to see familiar branding elements once the combined company identity is rolled out. While this is true with the orange and blue color scheme, the “swooshes” that incorporate these colors seem to have no relevance to either the old logo or the new venture. In what might be more relevant as a logo for boomerangs, these do nothing to build on existing brand equity, making the identity feel more whimsical than serious, which can be considered a negative when referring to a professional, multibillion-dollar transportation company. Lose the color “swooshes”, and the remaining gray shape is quite nice, as it evokes reference to the shape of the old Yellow logo.

The typography might be the greatest downfall of the new YRC logo. Typography in any logo should be legible, leaving no question about the company’s moniker. In this case, the "R" does not read well and the "C" does not match the width of the "Y" or the "R". All three characters are severely modified and look awkward and clunky. If you asked Fred Flintstone to design a typeface for a corporation, it would look like this—not exactly the professional image a company of this caliber needs.

I have to wonder if this is an example of corporate bullying: did the executives of YRC push themselves into the lead creative role when developing this new identity? While there should be a balance between the client’s goals and desires for a project, and letting the creative agency utilize their expertise to establish a logo for a company, sometimes this line is compromised, which doesn’t always end in a good solution. If so, this could explain the final solution, which is eerily similar to the Dairy Queen logo. I would expect a better solution from one of the largest transportation service providers in the world.

Overall, the new logo says very little about transportation or shipping. Maybe the slanted letters are intended to hint toward a forward motion, with the swooshes indicating a start and stop point and a return to the beginning – shipping to and from locations. It seems that more refinement could have been made to show the true nature of the business. In comparison to a similar company, the FedEx logo contains a very clever arrow between the “E” and “X,” which speaks directly about what they do—transport with speed and precision. Unfortunately, the new YRC logo is something that the world has to look at, although it might be well worth the risk to closing your eyes while passing one of their tractor-trailers on the road.

—Justin Leatherman, senior designer

As we near the end of 2008, we look back on some of the brands that have taken shape. As a designer, it’s sometimes easy to make a snap judgment about a new brand identity shortly after its introduction, without giving it time to resonate with the audience. In this issue of re:marks, we look back at a brand that has had a year, or at least an entire season, in the market.

Major league baseball has always been an American tradition and a venue continually providing family-friendly fun. This fact must have, to some degree, impacted the Tampa Bay Rays’ move away from “Devil Rays,” and into a new brand focused on the best the state of Florida has to offer: sunshine. No doubt “devil” can be a good thing, especially when one speaks of eggs, but the franchise has more than struggled until 2008, spending much of their time in the AL East cellar. All that changed this past season when the new brand hit that stands and fans seemed more than accepting.

The new brand for The Rays is not a complete departure from the old, yet the use of the homonym for congruence seems a bit of a stretch. A vicious devil ray is not easily translated into a soft beam of light, and while there may be a subtle reference to a devil ray’s tail in the “R” extender, there seems to be more of a disconnect than a merger of identities. Similarities between the brands can also be seen in the color selection, namely the navy blue. However, the new logo ushered in several changes from its original form, the least of which is the use of a serif typeface and more obviously, the kitschy baseball diamond.

The Rays showcased not only a new brand this past season, but also a new team, in many respects. With better pitching and defense, a shot at the World Series didn’t seem like a complete fluke; a promising lineup paired with a new brand had the potential to be a winning combination. While it’s hard to rationalize an ALCS pennant due to a new logo, it’s undeniable that a new brand can do wonders for any company, even a down-and-out sports team. And while re-designing a franchise identity can be risky (costing lots of money), much money can be made from a good brand. In this respect, the Rays new brand can be considered successful—merchandise sales were up this year throughout MLB, but considerably more for the Rays. The conclusion one could draw is that the new brand is better than the old but not necessarily good design. The push for the new brand has even gone so far as to the Rays ownership issuing $1 fines to media members found using the former Devil Rays name (which reportedly goes to a Rays’ sponsored charity).

It will be interesting to see how the Rays continue to build on the brand they’ve established. With a generic typeface and lack of a fierce representative team mascot (it is unclear what animal would relate to rays of sun), the Rays may need yet another new identity in the near future. Perhaps the Rays can find a way to capitalize on their growing fan-base and unique geographical location to establish a relevant brand that will catapult the franchise into extra innings.

—Kelly Campbell, designer

Just yesterday, while rifling through my daily pile of junk mail and local ads, I briefly paused at one flyer. I saw fish and rice, hushpuppies and even some grilled skewers of shrimp but could not determine what restaurant was being advertised. Upon closer examination I saw an unrecognizable logo advertising a company I was quite familiar with: Captain D’s. While I’m not a fan of fried fish, I’ve always been familiar with the logo. In fact, any member of my family could spot it mounted on a steel pole from any highway in the country. My curiosity piqued regarding this new logo and I wondered if Captain D’s was perhaps re-branding their entire chain, so I did a little research.

In August 2007, Captain D’s revealed their new brand. No longer marketing a kitschy fast food restaurant using bold colors like red and blue, D’s is now moving in a different direction altogether. With changes to the menu (additions of grilled seafood and pasta), a remodeling of their restaurants (now decorated with sophisticated graphics and beautiful hardwood floors) and the new look of D’s printed materials and website, it’s no wonder a completely different logo was implemented.

The logo itself is a successful tie in with the new brand experience. The subtle orange and light blue are uncharacteristic of fast food, and lend themselves to suggesting a finer seafood restaurant. This aligns exactly with the new changes made franchise-wide. The silhouetted fish hovers at the center of the mark, leaving no question as to what food is being offered at this business, while the older mark was far more ambiguous. Also, the words “seafood kitchen” are placed right below the fish, giving the restaurant a more sophisticated appeal.

The only real drawback to this new logo is a lack of a visual enclosure of the mark, something to separate it from the background. With a box insinuated from the squared edges of the blue waves and white, negative space defining the top corners, I feel the elements of the mark are a bit floaty. This was particularly obvious when I scanned the ad—each coupon seemed a bit cluttered and the logo was indistinguishable from other visual elements.

With an admitted dislike for fried fish, my new interest in the“Seafood Kitchen” could most likely be attributed to my attraction to the neutralized colors of the new brand and love of hardwood floors. And, between the new menu items at Captain D’s and the overall feel of the franchise, this restaurant may find themselves serving me more frequently.

—Kelly Campbell, designer, Indicia Design

It used to be that all one needed to succeed in sales was a great smile, a firm handshake, and an impressive business card. If a person had these three attributes, they were pretty much guaranteed an audience in which to pitch their product or service. This personal interaction allowed for questions to be asked, concerns to be addressed, and a certain level of trust to be established between the consumer and salesperson—the very essence of branding.

Unfortunately, in today’s highly competitive marketplace, building brands through a charming personality and great looking business cards is not enough—consumers have been inundated with marketing and advertising messages, a seemingly endless selection of products to choose from, and increasing demands for their time. Therefore, a well-designed logo or brand is no longer enough. More and more, people are turning to the web in order to make purchasing decisions.
The Internet offers a pressure-free environment in which consumers can explore a company’s products or services at their leisure, and without eager salespeople trying to close a deal. A well-designed web site allows companies to communicate their brand essence—the qualities, benefits and value that resonates with their target audience. Regular email communication and promotions, as well as community forums, allow for the organization to create an emotional connection with consumers. In this capacity, the web has truly become the entry point for the brand experience.

Even though online communications are becoming essential to business success, this does not necessarily make printed collateral, such as brochures, sales kits, or direct mail pieces, obsolete. In fact, this is quite the contrary. Any type of Internet marketing effort, whether it is an informational site (referred to as an “online brochure” or “static site”), an email marketing campaign, or an electronic newsletter, must still be supported through traditional marketing and promotional activities.
Brands are more than just an organization’s logo, brochure, or even a web site. The brand experience encompasses all aspects of communication between a company and its target market or audience. Therefore, it is important that all touch points associated with your brand must have a professional look and feel, and communicate a consistent message. It just so happens that now the most important first impression is your company’s web site.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

Update, 06.18.2008: It has been brought to my attention that The Spalding Group's McCainStore.com "is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee," and that the merchandise sold is representative of their own version of Sen. John McCain's campaign logo (and not the official one). I had received an e-mail announcing the new store the day after John McCain's interview on ABC, and I made the assumption (in part based on a visit to the company web site) that the campaign had indeed updated its brand. I apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.
— Ryan Hembree

Now that the dust has settled on the Democratic Presidential Primaries, the general election for the office of President of the United States has finally begun. Senator Barack Obama, with his populist message of hope and change for America, will challenge Republican senator John McCain for America's vote. Between now and November, signs, banners and billboards will proliferate across the land, from shop windows to front lawns, pitting neighbors, families and friends against one another as politics take center stage.

In terms of branding, Obama has a clear advantage over McCain. His iconic "sunrise within an O" mark is symbolic of hope and the dawn of a new day in politics. Until recently, McCain's brand, while more conservative in execution, was very appropriate to the candidate's background, drawing inspiration from a naval officer's uniform. McCain himself admitted during a recent interview with Charlie Gibson on ABC's World News Tonight that he has a "brand issue" to contend with and, because of it, is clearly the underdog.

In response to this admission, the McCain campaign has launched a new identity, one that we can assume is meant to help improve his image with younger voters and Independents, two demographics that will make a difference in this year's election. One of the biggest issues each candidate is campaigning for or against is the war in Iraq, which has become quite unpopular among constituents. It seems that McCain's new brand is meant to downplay the aspects of his military background, as well as the idea that he would continue the "war mongering" policies of President Bush.

Motivation for the brand revision aside, it is interesting to note the differences between the graphic qualities of the old and new brand that make it, in my opinion, more generic and much less effective for the candidate. The new McCain identity was developed by The Spalding Group, a firm that has designed campaign identities for the past six Republican presidential candidates. As such, it falls back on the conventions of "politics as usual" by incorporating a single, flattened star with drop shadow as the brand's logomark (not a very unique solution). This star appears in varying sizes depending on application, sometimes overshadowing the candidate's name, and contrasts with the old, dimensional star that looked as if it came right off of a general's uniform.

Eurostile is used as the logotype (along with a fake small cap for the "Mc"), apparently to make it look more progressive or innovative — and, as designers know, Optima is not a popular choice. And while the white and yellow on a color background color scheme has been maintained, it is not used in all applications, falling victim to the patriotic red, white, and blue color scheme preferred by every politician running for elected office.

Will this new, "improved" campaign identity for John McCain help him connect with the younger, more sophisticated voters that he needs to win the White House this November? Or will this new brand that downplays his military background and conservatism be seen as an attempt to manipulate voters? Only time will tell.

—Ryan Hembree, principal/creative director

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” This opening line from Charles Dicken’s immortal classic, A Tale of Two Cities, could very easily be adapted to describe “A Tale of Two Companies,” and their current national marketing campaigns that are being broadcast on television, billboards and in print. One is the highly effective XM Satellite Radio campaign; the other is Sprint’s new “Sprint Ahead” marketing campaign.

“It was the best of campaigns…”

For a brand awareness campaign, they don’t get much better than the current “Are You On?” campaign that was developed by Lowe New York for XM Satellite Radio. While some may say that there are sexual undertones to this campaigns (“170 channels to find what turns you on”), I think that they are missing the whole point of this campaign—it is not about sex, rather, it is about finding music or programming that anyone can enjoy, from punk rock to classical music to sports.

What makes this campaign stand out is the simplicity of its execution. Because of the style in which it is rendered (white line drawings on flat black backgrounds) it stands out from most of the advertising clutter that bombards viewers daily (on average we are exposed to thousands of visual messages every day, all vying for our attention). The only color that appears on each billboard, print ad or television commercial is the yellow XM “signal” used in a very dynamic way—it becomes Beethoven’s flowing hair, forms a mustache for a Nascar lover, and a flame that lifts a hot air balloon.

Each use of the logo mark is so expressive and memorable (particularly the animated television spots, which feature a corresponding soundtrack), that it demands the viewer to pause and take notice of the ad. Once that initial hook has been made, the message of “something for everybody” is creatively conveyed using simple illustration and minimal use of words. Furthermore, this concept has infinite possibilities for execution, meaning it can be expanded on for years to come. The last great campaign, in the opinion of this critic of course, which offered the same possibility was the Absolut Vodka ads of the late 1980’s and 90’s (Absolut “noun, name, place, etc.”).

“…it was the worst of campaigns.”

Since completing its merger with Nextel nearly two years ago, Sprint has struggled to find its voice through marketing and advertising campaigns, losing millions of customers because of it. First, there were the big yellow billboards that introduced us to “Sprint: Together with Nextel”, then there was the Ron Livingston character in the “Power Up” campaign. Now, there is the “Sprint Ahead” campaign, featuring neon-like streaks of light that form juvenile looking drawings of rocket ships, flowers, and pie charts.

While a clever use of time-lapse photography, these new ads contain too many different messages that may confuse potential customers. “Experience Life at Sprint Speed,” “Taking Care of Business at the Speed of Light,” and of course, “Sprint Ahead.” And then, according to Tim Kelly, Sprint’s Chief Marketing Officer, the whole idea of the ads is “to portray Sprint’s mobile phones as ‘magic screens’ providing an on-the-go consumer with pictures, music and communications tools.” The whole speed of light concept I get, but “magic screens”? That seems to be a bit of a stretch. After all, in each of the ads I can barely make out the phones that are used to create the light drawings (if in fact, that is how they were made).

At one time Sprint had one of the most recognizable marketing campaigns, featuring the memorable “Sprint Guy.” Women loved him and business people could relate to him. Ever since the merger with Nextel, however, the company has had one identity crisis after another—first changing its color scheme from red and gray to yellow and black (and we mean a lot of yellow), then with large billboards of yellow that had taglines such as “Power Up” and “Together with Nextel.” Not only do these new ads eliminate the obnoxiously loud yellow backgrounds (the rationale here was solid: black on yellow is the most visible color combination, however, if it is used too much, it is very fatiguing), they also remove any ties to Nextel. Perhaps this campaign, like Nextel, will fade into oblivion over time.

A little more than a year ago, Payless Shoe Source unveiled a new identity for use at its 4,600 stores nationwide. While this identity has had some time to be absorbed by the mainstream, and is not necessarily “new” anymore, it has been on this critic’s “to do” list for quite some time (a bi-monthly newsletter has its disadvantages in that it only allows for so many critiques per year!). The simple fact of the matter is that this new identity is so different from the old that it immediately demands attention…which brings us to my main criticism: is the new identity too "revolutionary," and too far of a departure from the old? When dealing with a nationally know and recognized brand, sometimes it is best to implement a new identity in stages, as more of an "evolution," so that customers are not confused. 

The previous iteration of the Payless Shoe Source logo had been in use for around 20 years—and certainly looked the part. Comprised of a simple yellow logotype, made up of Cooper Black (which was one of the most popular fonts used on product labels in the 1960s and 70s) set on a black field with solid, orange circles as the “o’s.” According to Matt Rubel, CEO of the company, the “logo pigeon holes and dates us.” I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The new logo, designed by Desgrippes Gobe, is comprised of a stylized “P” set within a circle, which according to the firm is “suggestive of dynamic movement”. An updated and contemporary sans serif typeface prominently displays “Payless,” with “Shoe Source,” set in smaller type beneath it. This is to help customers identify the brand not as something different, but simply improved—the consistent element, supposedly, is the “color orange, for which Payless is known.” Huh? The color scheme of the old logo would lead this critic to believe that yellow was the dominant color of their identity, not orange. Furthermore, orange is more of a color associated with fast food, not shoes, and the baby blue used in the identity seems a bit trendy. 

There is no doubt that the new Payless logo is a dramatic improvement over the old. The problem is that if someone knew nothing about the company, and had never shopped in its stores, they might think that it is completely different, and not the same. With the old logo, you knew you were walking into a shoe store, as there is equal emphasis on all parts of the company’s name. By choosing to emphasize “Payless,” the new identity suggests a discount store, but for what product? This identity is a classic case of why "evolutionary" is sometimes better than "revolutionary."

Although the general election of the next President of the United States is more than one year away, candidates are already blazing trails across the country on tour buses with an army of staff and legions of supporters. Also in tow are terribly designed graphics, banners and signs, all meant to appeal to and resonate with the American public. The question is, do these graphics have to be so bad? Why don’t political candidates learn the lesson that most businesses have, which is that “good design sells”? It seems that most politicians, and the designers who create their campaign logos and graphics, are stuck in a rut. 

A comparison of most political graphic design will result in the following conclusions: that in order to look more “patriotic,” one must use red, white and blue; incorporate stars and stripes; and even throw in a donkey or elephant to make sure that people associate the candidate with the appropriate political party. Color is particularly important in politics as well: People tend to identify themselves with either “blue states,” for the Democratic Party, or with “red states” if they are Republican. This has not always been the case.

Political party color-coding has been directly influenced by the media, and even reversed from its original meaning—before the 1996 Presidential Election, blue states were used to denote states in which the incumbent presidential candidate had won all of that state’s electoral votes; the red state designation was for those states won by the challenger. Ever since Bill Clinton, an incumbent, won re-election in 1996, blue states have been associated with the Democratic Party by the media and now the general public. 

The campaign graphics for the 2008 Presidential campaign have improved dramatically since the last election, in which John Kerry and John Edwards faced off against the incumbent George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Each of those two campaigns used white text on a dark blue background, combined with a waving American flag to communicate how “patriotic” each candidate was. The only differentiation one could make between the two, if you had no idea what their political party affiliation was (or you lived in a vacuum), is that Kerry used a serif typeface (more personable, friendly) combined with the tagline “A Stronger America,” while Bush used bold, sans serif type that is suggestive of strength and solidarity.

Of the Democratic front-runners, the only campaign graphics that stands out is that of Barack Obama, whose “O” logo incorporates a striped valley in front of what resembles a rising sun, suggesting a new dawn in politics. Hillary Clinton’s campaign logo looks like it was created by the same designer as John Kerry’s, complete with the same typface and a compressed flag underneath. She has even attempted to “brand” herself as simply “Hillary” so that she is not as closely related to her husband, Bill Clinton. And while John Edwards has attempted to break the mold with a modern typeface, the rest of the graphics are cliché, with a star and green swoosh trailing behind it (is this his attempt at appealing to all aspects of society; the blue states, the red states, and even the green environmentalists?)

The Republican presidential candidates have not done much better in creating unique and memorable graphics for their candidates. The one that stands out the most is that of John McCain, as he has veered away from the use of traditional blue and red colors and drawn upon graphic references to his military record—the black and yellow color scheme resembles a Naval officer’s uniform. Rudy Guliani’s graphics are simple and effective, as most of American refers to him as “Rudy,” while the simplicity of Mitt Romney’s elegant typeface stand out on a navy blue field.

Only time will tell if the much improved, yet still lagging, political graphic design of the current presidential campaign will help propel one of the candidates through the primary, and then finally to the general election in November 2008. One thing for certain is that the new visual standards set by these campaigns is slowly helping to raise the bar of what John-Q-Public expects of graphic design.

By: Ryan Hembree

Every so often there comes an updated brand identity that demands attention and immediately engages the viewer—for me, that occurred recently while viewing a commercial for LaQuinta Inns & Suites. The new identity, created by Mullen (a creative agency with four offices nationwide) is such an improvement from the old one that I had to take a second look in order to truly appreciate its subtle nuances—and write this review. LaQuinta is a chain of hotels with approximately 600 locations nationwide. Based in Dallas, Texas, it is not surprising that the majority of their locations are in the southwest United States, a theme that is prominently featured throughout both their brand and the architectural detail of many of their hotels.

The old brand for LaQuinta had been in use since the early 1990’s, and was in desperate need of an update. It had become stale and dated due to its teal, purple and sunshine yellow color scheme (popular in the early 90’s), and its condensed serif typeface, which was a cross between Bodoni (thick character strokes and thin serifs) and Garamond. The arched “window” of the old mark (complete with a purple sky!) was disconcerting in that it had three-dimensional special qualities that the rest of the mark did not possess. While the new mark maintains the same shape as the old, the similarities stop there.

The new LaQuinta brand identity has been both modernized and given a more sophisticated look and feel that appeals to business travelers. The teal has been replaced with a deeper hue of green, this on more emerald or “forest” green, with a mustard yellow instead of sunshine yellow. Gone is the M.C.Esher-esque window that hid the rising sun—instead, a new, more pronounced sun shines brightly over an elegant rendering of the company name (set in the Trajan font). Further examination of the sun reveals that the rays of the sun also resemble a compass rose, suggestive of travel in all directions. And a visit to the new LaQuinta web site rewards the viewer with a sophisticated pattern comprised of lowercase “l”s and “q”s that form Southwest inspired sunbursts.

In the opinion of this critic, Mullen did an outstanding job updating the identity for LaQuinta Inns & Suites. The new brand not only retains some of the brand equity that had been established by the old mark, but is also surprisingly refreshing for an industry in which most hotel brands look alike, and in which competition is increasing.

By: Ryan Hembree

In the past few years there has been a lot of debate in the creative world regarding the term “identity.” Depending on whom you ask, you are bound to get different definitions: marketing and public relations firms are quick to use the term “branding” to explain the activity of identifying a product or service, while advertising agencies and design consultancies might use the term “corporate identity.” Both terms, branding and corporate identity, seem to be used interchangeably, but do they really mean the same thing? 

According to Walter Landor, founder of Landor Associates, “Products are made in the factory, brands are made in the mind.” Based on this rationale, branding can be defined as the creation of a positive image or perception about a product, service, or company through the use of graphic design. Creating a perception, or in most cases, an emotional connection, in order to persuade a consumer to buy something, is more about psychology. Corporate identity, on the other hand, stresses immediate identification: through good design, it serves to establish a consistent image of a company, product, or service. Much of the emotion of branding is left out. 

 Both branding and corporate identity serve the purpose of promoting a company, a product or a service through increased awareness and in turn, increased sales, although they achieve these goals through different means and usually for different audiences. Branding is considered more of a business-to-consumer (B2C) activity, in which a company appeals directly to the end consumer. Corporate identity, on the other hand, focuses on building business-to-business (B2B) relationships. 

But what happens when a company operates in both the business-to-business and the business-to-consumer marketplaces? Although they might have marketing components that are purely dedicated to building their brand, these companies must also have graphic elements that establish its identity within a more corporate, or B2B, environment. It is in this area of overlap between “branding” and “corporate identity” in which a more accurate and truly universal definition can be found to describe the role of graphic design in enhancing a company or product’s image: visual identity design.

“Visual Identity” incorporates graphic elements from both branding and corporate identity, and includes those that must appeal to all audiences, regardless of whether they are B2B or B2C customers, and regardless of whether or not increased sales or stronger brand awareness is desired. At the core of any visual identity is the logo, a graphic mark that must simply, quickly, and effectively communicate the essence of the company or product. This logo must be applied to everything from a company’s letterhead and stationery system to vehicle graphics and web site. Consistency is most important, and a graphic standards guide or manual ensures that all subsequent applications of the visual identity remain effective.

The term “visual identity” encompasses the graphic elements that are common within both a corporate identity program and an extensive branding campaign, but doesn’t necessarily exclude other marketing needs. After all, an identity must above all be consistent. What this does mean is that companies, before selecting a creative firm or agency, should evaluate who their audience is and what their graphic design needs truly are.

2005, as part of its 60th anniversary celebration, Baskin Robbins launched a new brand identity for its stores throughout the country. According to the official Baskin Robbins web site, the new look is “an innovative concept that offers a fun, contemporary experience and a new logo that captures the fun and energy of Baskin-Robbins.” In the opinion of this critic, the new Baskin Robbins identity is a glaring example of the mob mentality that is pervasive in business culture today, which is that in order for brands to compete, they must continue to differentiate themselves through “re”-design. After viewing this new identity, which looks more like something that is “design for design’s sake,” the question must be asked: was the old identity that horrible?

The old Baskin Robbins identity, although somewhat dated through the use of the Garamond Condensed typeface (popular in the late 1980s and early 1990s), still effectively communicated the idea of its trademark “31 flavors” of ice cream: the number “31” appeared within a simple arc, suggestive of a scoop of ice cream, and next to the logotype. In an attempt to be overly clever, the new Baskin Robbins logo tries to integrate both the company’s initials and the number “31” into one mark, which is then wedged in between an overly stylized typeface that seems more appropriate for the Sunday morning comics. Unfortunately, this “fun and energetic” logo, while maybe appropriate for young kids, ultimately sacrifices legibility, readability, and meaning. 

There are several ways in which the new Baskin Robbins logo could have been more effective in its execution: for example, on the company’s website, the “iconic” pink tasting spoon is touted as one of the brand’s unique aspects…so why wasn’t this idea incorporated into the mark, especially given how recognizable it is and the affinity customers have toward it? And the “31” mark from the old brand mark wasn’t that bad either. Perhaps all that was needed was an updated typeface to bring the brand into the twenty-first century.

Some of the most highly visible identities in the world today crisscross the globe at 35,000 feet. Not only are the visual identities of airlines vitally important to identifying passenger jets while in the air, they are also a source of national pride for most countries, particularly those in which airlines are governmentally controlled and operated. Utilizing color schemes and graphics that appeal to the sensibilities of their countries of origin, these airlines’ often use their countries’ flags to promote their brand. This is not the case in the  United States, where the airline industry is an unregulated, private enterprise. 

With so many different choices in carriers, airlines in the U.S. must compete for passengers on a daily basis by using a unique and memorable identity—not only to differentiate each company’s aircraft, but also to project an image of quality, experience, and reliability. Surprisingly, most airlines do not take the opportunity to stand out in the crowd; many utilize similar color schemes, such as the color blue, which is suggestive of the sky. Additionally, similar themes are used in most airline marks, such as wings (think American, Midwest or United Airlines, globes, or the idea of a horizon (Continental and Delta).

There are, however, two identities within the U.S. airline industry that soar higher than the rest in terms of uniqueness and memorability: Southwest Airlines and NWA. Southwest Airlines uses only blue, red and yellow painted Boeing 737s in its fleet, and prominently features an illustration of one as its logo—the consumer not only knows exactly who the company is, but what its planes look like as well. Southwest’s brand is fun and approachable, and doesn’t try to pretend and be a business-oriented carrier—instead, it resembles that of a discount vacation carrier. NWA (Northwest Airlines) started as a regional airline (hence its name) but is expanding into international markets. Even though the name was abbreviated to give it wider market appeal, the airline was able to keep the essence of its old mark, that of a compass pointing to the northwest. Not only does the logo capitalize on the equity of its old mark, it is highly suggestive of travel without the use of traditional clichés.

With the turmoil in recent years within the airline industry such as mergers, bankruptcies, and financial chaos, it will be interesting to see how carriers’ brands will continue to evolve. Gone are the days of giant corporations such as Pan American (PanAm) and Trans World Airlines (TWA)—today, smaller and more nimble startup services are taking the skies, along with a new perspective on the creation of successful airline identities. 

By: Ryan Hembree

In October 2006, Garmin, the market leader in consumer global positioning system (GPS) products, introduced a new look for its brand. A new corporate web site, as well as the opening of a flagship store on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, IL, necessitated an update to the seventeen year old design. The result is a modern, clean, and a vastly improved brand mark. 

Garmin’s old mark, which incorporated a stylized globe and a very bold typeface called Revue, was very much in line with graphic design of the early 1990’s. Interestingly, the old Kinko’s logo incorporated the exact same font—and many of the early user guides for Garmin’s products were mass reproduced at one of the copy chain’s Kansas City locations—which leads to speculation as to whether or not the company’s original logo was designed by one of Kinko’s computer services specialists or not.

The Garmin globe, although not entirely unique (look at the old AT&T logo), was easily identifiable when stamped on the company’s navigation products, packaging and advertising. There are literally millions of products in the marketplace with the old logo on them, with vast brand recognition. The updated mark, consisting of a blue arrow above the “N” (suggestive of directional navigation), is such a huge departure that will take many consumers by surprise—perhaps a gradual phase out of the old globe mark would have been an easier transition on customers.

The greatest criticism that can be made about the new mark is that there was no event to publicly introduce the new brand. In the opinion of this author, Garmin missed a huge opportunity not only to educate its current customer base about the updated mark, but also to receive tons of press coverage at just such an event. 

Today, in our multi-cultural and wonderfully diverse world, there is a heightened sensitivity to political correctness, particularly in branding and corporate identity design. No one, particularly a business or international organization, wants to appear to be offensive to any other culture, religion, or ethnicity. 

This is particularly true when it comes to religion, and in light of the tension that exists between those of Jewish, Christian and Islamic faith. Any part of a design that can be perceived as having religious connotation is removed, or avoided altogether. For example, a traditional star shape with five points might be perceived as either a pentagram (symbolic of Satanic cults) or a Christian star, while a six-pointed star references the Jewish Star of David. Because of this hypersensitivity to religion, one of the most internationally recognizable symbols is on the verge of losing its effectiveness and intended meaning—the symbol for the International Red Cross Movement. 

Although originally adopted as a symbol of neutrality, the Red Cross is considered offensive to many in the Middle East and Muslim countries since it bears striking similarities to the symbols that adorned the tunics and shields of Christian knights during the Holy Crusades. In response to this misperception, Turkey adopted the Red Crescent, which has religious connotations rooted in Islamic faith, and it was accepted as an additional symbol of the Movement at the Geneva Convention of 1929. 

The religious connotations of the symbols of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, although falsely applied, have hindered Israel’s Magen David Adom relief society from joining the movement. In consideration of being sensitive to the beliefs of Judaism, a new symbol was adopted during the Geneva Convention of 2005—the Red Crystal. According to Conference resolutions, the third accepted symbols is “devoid of any political, religious or other connotation.” What is essentially a rotated red frame, it may be used on its own, or frame either the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, or the Red Shield of David.

Within the past year or so, the city of Merriam, Kansas, unveiled a new “brand identity” for the small southwestern suburb of Kansas City. Branding a municipality is not necessarily a new idea or trend; everyone and everything, it seems, has a brand image, from a company’s products or services to athletes and celebrities (think Michael Jordan or Paris Hilton). A brand should be unique, memorable, and immediately convey the core attributes of a product, service, organization or individual. In this manner a brand is much like a calling card, and giving an appropriate first impression is paramount.

The first impression that this critic gets from the Merriam identity is not a good one. While brands should be simply executed for maximum effectiveness, this mark is very childish looking, as if a high school student with a computer and Microsoft® Paint® put it together: a sun (that resembles more of a paint splat) rises above a blocky sans serif typeface. Further reinforcing the juvenile qualities of the brand is a squiggle mark used for rollover links on the city web site, as well as the overly bright colors of each different section.

If a municipality is to undertake so bold a design challenge as develop a new brand, then something more unique than a rising sun and the tagline “just right” is necessary. The Merriam mark falls far short of communicating the uniqueness of the city—is it sunnier there than anywhere else in the greater Kansas City area? And how, exactly, is Merriam “just right?” Even the logo for Overland Park (another suburb of the KC metro area), although slightly dated, communicates one of the core qualities of the city—that of shady treed neighborhoods.

For truly inspirational city brands, one need only look to the work of Milton Glaser, and his identity for the city of New York. His “I Love New York” mark has achieved iconic status—adorning everything from apparel to posters to souvenirs. Berlin, Germany, has a mark that is clearly distinguished by its use of a highly stylized Altes Museum building, a monumental landmark within the city. 

Merriam doesn’t have any highly recognizable landmarks to use as part of its identity, but even having one wouldn’t necessarily make it more successful. A case in point is the new Kansas City logo in use by the Convention and Visitor’s Bureau (see Re:marks Critique, August 2005 issue). 

Creating a brand for a city is a very difficult challenge. Granted, there were probably many people involved in the decision making process during the Merriam branding campaign. Chances are that the mark was the result of design by committee. One thing for certain is that if a city is going to undertake such an initiative, it should really try to get more for its money.

Television broadcasting has become an increasingly crowded marketplace. During the mid twentieth century, only a handful of networks dominated the airwaves and established strong, immediately recognizable identities. The CBS “eye”, the NBC “peacock” and the four circles of ABC are all extremely effective because of their simplicity, consistent application and memorability—so much so, in fact, that they have changed very little, if at all, over the past fifty years.

Today, digital cable and satellite have created hundreds of different channels for viewers to choose from. In order to stand out from their competition and entice viewers to tune in, cable networks subscribe to the idea that developing a clearly defined “brand position” will help them achieve the same success as broadcast stations mentioned above. Taglines such as “We Know Drama,” “Very Funny” or “Characters Welcome” have become common ways in which these new networks try to attract and retain viewers.


The idea of creating a “brand position” is not a bad one; after all, effective branding encompasses every aspect of a company, its products, or services—its visual identity as well as the emotional connotations its customers may have. It takes several years build a successful brand. Unfortunately, cable networks are too busy mimicking each other’s attributes or reinventing themselves every couple of years that they do not give the time necessary for a brand to become ingrained in the consumers’ psyche.

 TBS, or Turner Broadcast Station, has gone through several revisions of their brand since the late 1990s. Most recently it has matured into a simplified mark that clearly identifies their name and resembles a smile or open mouth laugh. “The Superstation” was dropped from its name, most likely to reduce confusion between it and Chicago’s WGN Superstation. While an improvement over the old identity, the true effectiveness of this re-brand will be whether or not it resonates with viewers and remains in use for more than a few years.


USA Network, not to be outdone, recently introduced a new identity that looks somewhat similar to the new TBS. It too is rendered in lowercase letters, with the “s” formed by the negative space between the “u” and “a”. Bearing a slight resemblance to two puzzle pieces coming together, the mark says nothing about the network or the type of programming it provides. How it relates to the idea of “characters welcome” gets lost in the overall execution. Unfortunately, their previous brand was much more unique and effective.

The battle of the network brands has only just begun. Within the past year, other networks have followed suit by introducing new looks, with brand positioning that they think will help them be identified in a saturated marketplace. What these networks fail to realize is that changing a logo or image does not a good company make; it is only through the consistent application of that image, and positive associations from customers. The ABC, CBS and NBC brands were not created overnight, but through consistent application became dependable to their viewers. Consistently changing or re-branding a company, on the other hand, only communicates a false sense of identity, and that it is not sure who or what it really is.

In early January, Intel introduced a new brand mark and tagline to coincide with the announcement of Intel-based Apple Macintosh computers. According to the press release, the new brand was described as an evolution that "will allow Intel to be better recognized for [its] contributions, establish a stronger emotional connection with [its] audiences, and strengthen [its] overall position in the marketplace."

Changing a brand mark that is one of the most recognizable in the world seems like faulty logic to this critic. The reason for the update probably seemed like a good idea at the time; after all, Intel has had not just one, but two highly successful brands. The original Intel logo, introduced in 1969, featured a dropped “e,” resembling an electronic circuit. In 1991, the “Intel Inside” identity made its debut, appearing as stickers on the outside of millions of computers. Additionally, an unmistakable three-note tone identified the brand audibly in televisionand radio commercials.

The new Intel identity attempts to solve the problem of having two highly effective brands, which in the case of a monolithic brand is when both become diluted or even over shadowed by the other’s success. Intel’s solution is to merge the two identities together by combining a futuristic-looking, sans serif typeface with a swoosh encircling it. The end result is an identity that could easily represent any technology-oriented company. And the new tagline, “Leap Ahead,” sounds like it is more applicable to the educational toy maker Leap Frog®.

Has Intel achieved its goal of bringing their identity to is next logical evolution? Does the new mark truly say anything about the company and what they do? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding “no.” It appears as though upper management didn’t have the courage to make a decision between two unique and memorable brands, and in trying to combine the most successful qualities of each, further diluted and weakened their brand image in the mind of consumers.

In recent years there has been a growing trend among well-established, large corporations to update their logos or brands. Sometimes this change is justifiable—for example, when merging with another company a changed logo must reflect the qualities of both companies. Most of the time, however, the reasons for an update are asinine.

Perhaps a new CEO has been brought on board, and in order to justify both their ego and high salary, their first order of business is to implement a massive, company wide change. Or perhaps it is thought that a new image will bring a failing company or brand back to life. If a company’s core focus of business has changed logo updates are thought to communicate that it is more progressive or cutting edge than before.

Most companies fail to realize is that just because a logo or brand is changed or updated doesn’t mean that more people will buy their product or service. The quality of the user’s experience with both it and the company’s representatives influence purchasing decisions. If a product or service is bad, then no amount of improvement with the company’s image will help. A good logo or brand design does not a company make.

The current trend in branding and identity has been to add dimensionality, shininess and reflective qualities to a brand mark or logo. Even brands that had remained unchanged for decades feel prey to the lure of updating—first John Deere introduced their new badge, followed by UPS. The latest and most upsetting victim is the new AT & T mark. Like so many other marks, it has become a three dimensional globe with a generic typeface.

The problem with adding dimensionality is more a technical issue than anything else. When shown on a television or computer monitor, these new logos look great—print them on paper in anything less than full color, however, and they lose their effectiveness. The new AT&T logo, when printed in two colors on billing statements, ends up looking unrefined like a first or second year design student’s project. Companies should consider testing the new identity in all forms before implementing them. One simple way to do so is print the logo or mark in black and white and then fax it to another machine within the office. If a mark doesn’t translate well after printing it in black and white or faxing it, then  a redesign should be considered.

NOTE: All names, logos and trademarks used are the property of their respective companies and used for illustrative purposes only.

In another example of bureaucratic lollygagging and waste, one does not have much further to look than to the state of Kansas. In the past year the state has spent an insane amount of money for two high profile design projects that turned out to be flops (in this author's opinion, of course).

The first undertaking was the development of a new slogan and tagline for the state’s tourism office. After spending an estimated $700,000 with the advertising agency Callahan Creek, located in Lawrence, the result was “Kansas: As big as you think.” The new logo is simply a font, Futura, stretched horizontally. A star with a flowing, ribbon like tail completes the new mark. While there were no doubt many committees, focus groups and voices vying for attention during the creation of this piece, I find it difficult to accept that almost three-quarters of a million dollars of taxpayer, yours and mine, went to this effort, and this is what we have to show for it.

Throughout 2005, the University of Kansas undertook a tremendous effort to unify all of the school’s existing marketing collateral into one identity. LandreyMorrow, a marketing firm from Portland, Oregon, was commissioned by the school to develop the new identity using the letters “K” and “U”. After narrowing the field of concepts to four designs, feedback was gathered from current and prospective students, as well as alumni (including this critic). The result of this $88,900.00 expenditure by the University was four finalist designs, all type-based solutions using the Trajan typeface. None were conceptual in execution.

Why the university, which has its own School of Fine Arts with talented design students and staff, didn’t commission its own resources is beyond me. Someone inside and familiar with the university would have been able to develop a more appropriate and unique solution to the problem, and at a far lower cost. What is even more surprising is that one of the finalist designs is the exact same mark as another, smaller college in Pennsylvania, Kutztown University. And what did they pay for their logo with similar scope of work? $20,000. Now that’s an example of money well spent in my book.

Design firms and agencies will tout the number of design and advertising awards they have received as being indicative of good design and marketing prowess. Because they have received "x" number of awards, or they have appeared in "numerours" design annuals, are they somehow more authoritative when it comes to working on client projects? Not necessarily.

Today there are more design and advertising competitions than ever. What this means is that top quality design firms or agencies cannot possibly enter all of them, as the expense in terms of time and money is far too great. With fewer quality competitors, the field of entries may be mediocre work at best. Even mainstream competitions are awarding more and more entries with honors, thus “watering down” the quality of design that makes the cut. “Celebrity” designers and ad executives judge these competitions, meaning the merits of a piece are judged mostly on aesthetic and communicative qualities, instead of being based on overall effectiveness, such as: did the piece connect with the customer, and were the business objectives met?

The truth of the matter is that awards shows, particularly design and advertising competitions, mostly exist to stroke a creative firm’s own ego. 
Usually it is only other designers that care about the results, yet a lot of creative shops will use their recent success in those competitions as a selling tool or to coerce the client into taking risks with the design of a new project—to try something “new” or “experimental”. The problem is that sometimes “cutting edge” design can get dull, or the audience doesn’t respond well to it. Additionally, there is a tendency to make everything look the same, because that is what “will win awards.”

This is not to say that winning awards is bad. 
There are many positive things that come with winning awards for clients. First, it can increase a company’s visibility and can be an effective public relations tool. Second, it is rewarding for design firms and agencies to know that the work they have developed is appreciated, even by a jury of their peers. Most importantly, however, award winning design and advertising acknowledges the fact that the client values design, and the impact it can have on their bottom line. Effective communication, in addition to excellence in design, should be the goal of any design project.

At Indicia Design, we don’t set out to win awards. Sure, they are nice to receive and we have won our share, but our philosophy is more about modesty and humility through design—we set out to achieve our client’s goals by making meaningful connections with their target audience. We listen to their needs, and ask questions to make sure that we understand their business. After all, nobody knows that business better than the client.

Contributed by: Ryan Hembree,
Creative Director
Indicia Design, Inc.

NOTE: All names, logos and trademarks used are the property of their respective companies and used for illustrative purposes only.

In early September, Sprint and Nextel completed a multi-billion dollar merger and launched a new Sprint brand. How does this new brand stack up against other cellular phone companies?

At first, this critic was very skeptical of the new Sprint brand. After all, the red diamond mark had been around since the late 1980s, when United Telecom merged with Sprint to form US Sprint (which eventually dropped the "US" part of its moniker in the 90's). That logo was the perfect marriage of those two companies' identities, as it incorporated a rotated square, taken from United Telecom's keypad logo, and the tapered lines of Sprint. The typeface was changed from Helvetica (modernist aesthetic) to a more friendly Serif typeface.

The new Sprint Nextel logo is a logical evolution of the brand as it incorporates a similar sans serif typeface as Nextel (in title case, which is easier to read at small sizes), and is placed on a yellow background. The new Sprint Nextel mark is also a dynamic mixture of Sprint's former tapered lines and the vertical bar that has become associated with Nextel's walkie-talkie like capabilities. The new mark resembles both wings (suggestive of flight) as well as a forward pointing arrow. In television the mark is animated to suggest the bounce of a pin, which has been a Sprint signature for years.

While there are several good attributes of the new mark, this is not to say that the new logo is without a need for some improvement. While yellow and black is a color combination that Sprint can "own" in the cellular market category (much like Coca Cola owns red in soft drinks or UPS owns brown in shipping), it may be overbearing and tiresome if too much yellow is used. It will certainly will grab people's attention, however, and does stand out from other wireless service providers (see example to the right).

The typeface used for the logo is perhaps a little generic, as there is nothing to make it distinctive from other sans serif fonts. Additionally, there is too much space between the logotype and the mark itself. One might wonder how much more effective the brand would be if the two parts were more integrated together.

The effectiveness of a brand or logo is only as good as the way in which the audience perceives the companies they represent. If the new Sprint lives up to the promises it makes consumers, than the new mark will be associated with positive feelings and emotions about the brand. If it fails to deliver on those promises, however, then the brand may decline; but not for lack of a well designed or appropriate mark. Only time will tell how the new Sprint brand is received by employees and customers of both Sprint and Nextel.

Earlier this year, Kansas City unveiled a new logo and tagline in order to change the so-called "cowtown" perception of the city. In an attempt to make the city look young, hip and more urban to visitors, Barkley Evergreen & Partners developed a colorful and playful mark for the city, in which a continuous line forming the city skyline appears within three color blocks. The tagline, “New Discoveries Daily” appears below an elegant serif type treatment.

Over the past few months the new “brand” has been put into circulation, appearing everywhere from banners on downtown streets to the visitkc.com web site. The question that remains to be asked is: is the new brand effectively communicating the essence of the city, and was there ever a “cowtown” perception associated with it?

In addition to being redundant (aren’t discoveries always new?), the new logo and tagline are not nearly as relevant as the old logo designed by EAT Advertising and Design. The old mark, shown here, resonates with two unique aspects of the city: 1) that Kansas City has more fountains than any city in the world except for Florence, Italy, and 2) it IS located in the center, or heart, of the nation. The old logo further reinforces this idea through a mark that can be viewed as both a heart AND a fountain. While conservative in its design, the mark is whimsical and innovative in concept.

In comparison, the new Kansas City logo is neither original nor unique. The lop-sided, brightly colored boxes are reminiscent of 50’s and 60’s retro design, and because of that nostalgia, the mark becomes very trendy. The color scheme, while popular today, will more than likely be outdated in the next few years, as color preferences constantly change. Moreover, the skyline graphic, which to locals is representative of Kansas City, is too abstract to most people from other parts of the country, as it could be perceived as the skyline from any city in the nation.

Only time will tell if the new look for Kansas City will become identified with the city as its creators hope. In the opinion of this author and critic, however, there was nothing wrong with the old mark or the city’s image. The”City of Fountains, Heart of the Nation” logo is a much more appropriate image for the city.

More and more, business is realizing the value of the Internet as a marketing tool, with its tremendous accessibility and exposure to existing and potential customers. It is now easier than ever for companies to design, build and maintain web sites, and as such many are scurrying to create or enhance their online presence. Unlike the dot com boom of the late 1990s, however, this rush to the web is not about making millions in advertising revenue or to be the first to claim a portion of cyberspace and thus consumer recognition. Instead, the renewed vigor to add, enhance and establish sites has been brought about by several factors:

But who really cares if your web site has all of the bells and whistles, but doesn’t say anything relevant? Additionally, if you reveal too much information to the viewer, you don’t give them a reason to call. For example, most web sites are merely the company’s printed brochure, chopped up and regurgitated into a more palpable form. What reason are you giving them to return to your web site, especially if you do not tell them something new or have already sent them that particular piece of marketing collateral?

When it comes to web site design and content, less truly is more. On average, you have about seven seconds to grab your viewers attention and make them want to interact with and enter your web site. People do not want to wait until a splash animation or movie loads, no matter how cool it is. The creative industry is particularly guilty of this offense: in an attempt to prove their capabilities, advertising and design firms have loaded their web sites with special effects, animations, and even short movies. Sometimes over fifty web pages in size, they also contain dozens of images of work as well as philosophical copy about each piece, their design process and other irrelevant information. 

Really, who has the time to read all of the information that some web sites contain, and will it sway a customer’s decision to use one company’s services over another? It might, but chances are, your potential clients want to know more about how you are going to help them solve their problems instead of reading an ego trip. More importantly, they want to find out this information fast!

With the short attention span of today’s savvy consumer, the message that a web site needs to communicate is: who you are, what you do, why and how to contact you for more information. That’s it. 

Contributed by: Ryan Hembree,
Creative Director
Indicia Design, Inc.

NOTE: All names, logos and trademarks used are the property of their respective companies and used for illustrative purposes only.

What happens when a company's identity lies in a state of constant change? The answer lies not in stock valuations, top lines or bottom lines. The answer begins and ends with perception: the perception of everyone who interacts with your brand.

As a small start up from South Dakota, Gateway 2000 offered made-to-order computers in the late 1980s, much like its rival, Dell Computer. Over time Gateway’s business model shifted (some might say drifted). The growing company opened retail outlets (many of the stores have closed), and even began producing consumer electronics. So why is it that this once high-flying company is now struggling? Why has Dell become the number two manufacturer of computers in the world, while Gateway’s position has slipped? The answer, at its root, is an overall identity crisis.

Gateway, in a vain attempt to stay “fresh” in the mind of consumers, has changed its identity four times in the last 5 years.The first re-brand of Gateway occurred in 1999, when the company dropped “2000”, adopted green as its signature color, and used a cow spot pattern box as its mark. This very clever identity communicated the company’s core value of friendliness through a serif type treatment, as well as the uniqueness of its products, which are shipped in cow spot boxes (also a tribute to the company’s farm heritage).

When Gateway began offering flat panel televisions, the company changed its brand in order to associate the new products with its identity. The cow spot print box mark was dropped in favor of a single cow spot that formed a “power on” button. The green “Gateway” was maintained; however, the type was compressed into a more impersonal, slab serif type treatment. While this new mark may have seemed more “modern”, it lost the friendliness and warmth of the old brand, as well as its uniqueness.

Realizing the mistake of such a huge evolution of their brand, Gateway dropped the “power on” button in 2004 but kept the new type treatment. And finally, in 2005 the company reintroduced a streamlined version of their original cow spot box mark. The new mark uses the same, three-dimensional box as the original logo, except this time the box looks more realistic and more refined. A sans serif typeface replaces the more personal serif type treatment in an attempt to be seen as more “modern” in the eyes of customers. And of course the signature green color has been maintained in an effort to “own” that color space among the computers product category.

Will the new Gateway logo and brand identity stick? Will they be able to convince their customers and share holders that they are the same, friendly company with consistent core values? Or is this constant identity flux indicative of a larger identity crisis, a lack of focus, a drifting business model? Will this thrashing about for a brand that works continue?

It seems that Gateway needs to learn that the actual visual form of their brand and logo does not make the company. It is the perceptions of the customer that are most important. And by changing your brand and identity over and over, all you are really communicating is that you are a company that doesn’t know who or what it is, and more importantly, if you will be there for your customers in the future.

Contributed by: Ryan Hembree,
Creative Director
Indicia Design, Inc.

NOTE: All names, logos and trademarks used are the property of their respective companies and used for illustrative purposes only.