Opinion BY Armin

ArtDirectorsClubNewLogo

If you don’t mind, I would like to quote a wonderful design book: “As illustrators like Norman Rockwell were blurring the lines between fine art and advertising art during the 1920s, the Art Directors Club (ADC), initiated by Louis Pedlar in 1920, brought together a group of layout artists, managers of art departments, and art buyers to explore the role art could play in advertising. No more than a year later, Earnest Elmo Calkins organized the first juried exhibition; this effort survives, nearly 90 years later, as the competitive ADC Annual Awards, which now receive up to 11,000 entries from more than 50 countries. Its Young Guns Award, offered to the top creative talents under the age of 30, has also seen an increase in popularity and fierceness since its inception in 1996. With a remarkable location in Manhattan, the ADC is host to events from exhibits to portfolio reviews to incendiary programming like 2006’s Designism and its 2007, 2008 and 2009 sequels.” (Not to mention they also hosted this wonderful series). Nearing 90 years of service to the creative community the ADC has introduced a new logo.

The new branding system follows the lead of the club’s recently revised mission to “Connect, Provoke and Elevate” creative visual communications professionals around the world through its many events, educational programs, publications, scholarships and awards.
— Press Release

The previous logo was designed by Paula Scher around 2005 (I can’t find the actual date, sorry) which was an update of Albrecht Dürer’s signature that the ADC had been using almost since its inception — about six years ago I inquired why the ADC had chosen it, and the response was that “Albrecht Dürer was considered an appropriate model because he was, in their view, the first commercial artist, that is, he sold his prints on the street directly to the public, rather than working on commission.” The new logo, designed by Trollbäck + Company is the first time that the ADC is not represented by an acronym but instead by its full name, which has always been confusing, mainly: Is it just for art directors? The acronym I think was a good way of defusing that confusion in the same way that the AIGA had distanced itself from the antiquated term graphic artist. A strange move, but I’ll bite.

Trollbäck chose to replace the acronym logo as a way to highlight the club’s legacy, even though the organization’s membership spans far beyond only art directors. “Companies and organizations usually use acronyms in their branding to distance themselves from their past,” he said. “In our case, we wanted to do the exact opposite and embrace our origins and heritage.”

The biggest problem I have with the new logo is that it really doesn’t do much. I understand the direction to go with an all-type solution and as an advocate of all-type solutions I don’t complain about that aspect, but why so dull? Why just Franklin Gothic tightly letterspaced? One thing is to “embrace our origins and heritage” but it’s another to ignore and disregard the present or even the future and not offer a new kind of visual language for a new century. For an organization that clearly has its own unique, edgy voice and is well respected in the industry, they surely had an opportunity to create something that reflected that same attitude that they have applied to their annuals and competitions. Dressing it in magenta is unfortunately not enough.

Thanks to for first tip.

DATE: Nov.10.2009CATEGORY: Graphics Industry 135 COMMENTS

Cameron Jantzen’s comment is:

so lame.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:03 AM

BWJ’s comment is:

This looks like re-appropriated scraps from the interstitials that Trollback did at the 2006 Pop!Tech conference.

Decisions like this makes me want to quit.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:08 AM

John Lascurettes’s comment is:

Words escape me.

The old one had so much character and craft to it.

The new one is simply, nothing. There's nothing there. Horrid.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:18 AM

Von K’s comment is:

I like the previous one better.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:22 AM

hmmmmm’s comment is:

I'm curious to see this within the context of the larger brand before I make further comments

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:28 AM

Abe’s comment is:

This is so vanilla - but not the tasty kind.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:33 AM

Denny’s comment is:

Oddly enough, I first noticed the change on Facebook. I thought, "No, that change in the avatar couldn't indicate a larger re-branding to... THAT?" I guess I was wrong. Bummar.

Yes, the previous logo spoke to the history of ADC, rather than it's future, but I don't think this is all that progressive either. It smacks of 2002.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:34 AM

Ricky Salsberry’s comment is:

The old mark made the organization feel like it had been around since 1920, in a good way. This feels like it's a new flavor-of-the-month design blog.

The execution is fine, type is fine, but it just doesn't seem to fit.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:35 AM

Paul Sahner’s comment is:

It seems entirely inappropriate for the ADC. Perhaps it's because it reminds me of the David Barton Gym logo

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:37 AM

Greg’s comment is:

Are they joining efforts with Susan G. Komen?

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:38 AM

Nick’s comment is:

As a non-member of the ADC that attends ADC events (last weeks Kit Kinrichs event was great) I'm just simply not impressed. It's really not that the mark its self is bad, because it's not, it just feels like there's nothing special about it, at all. It looks fine in application, except for the seemingly cluttered website, but is fine good enough for an organization that is supposed to represent us.

I don't feel any more "connected" to the ADC, the only "provocation" I feel is what I'm writing right now and as far as "elevating", I'm just not seeing it. Was I expecting some sort of crazy, overworked uber-mark... not really no. But I would have liked to have seen something with a little more depth.

All in all, Maybe I havn't seen the full experience yet, but this re-brand just feels like something I've seen before.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:39 AM

Jessi Long’s comment is:

hmmmmm. I concur.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:46 AM

Nate B’s comment is:

The design feels so limited. With great logos come opportunities for really great branding on outdoor, collateral, etc. This just doesn't appear to have those limitless boundaries to do such things. You'd think with such an organization more time would be spent on this.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:46 AM

Jude Landry’s comment is:

Personally, I always hated that old ADC logo. While it's admirable for companies or organizations to hold on to their history, holding on to an ugly, weird stack of letters doesn't make sense, and Im surprised they hadn't changed it sooner. That being said, the new logo is lacking inspiration and character. I guess it's a jump in the same spot for me.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:47 AM

arnoldP’s comment is:

Boooriiing

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:48 AM

Oliver’s comment is:

Weak sauce.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:53 AM

Nate’s comment is:

Whatdoesthedesignerhaveagainstwordspacing?

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:00 AM

Jennier Daniel’s comment is:

Wow. This looks a lot like Doug Jaeger (ADC President)'s former design studio's identity.

www.twitter.com/thehappycorp
vs
www.twitter.com/adcglobal

Though, subtle differences- it's basically the same.

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:04 AM

Samantha Warren’s comment is:

Just thought I would mention that http://www.adcglobal.org is not affiliated w/ http://www.adcmw.org & I really dig ADCMW's logo by DC area Doug Fuller http://dfdesigner.blogspot.com/2007/11/art-directors-club-of-metropolitan.html

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:21 AM

Doug’s comment is:

Why are so many classic identities being dumped in favor of less creative solutions? Why not augment the logo with a nicely-designed wordmark? From an organization of art directors, I'd expect better than this.

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:23 AM

Al’s comment is:

Er, nice shade of pink, that's about it really.

I mean yeah, the solution is easy to adapt and apply to all kinds of stuff, but does it really need to be like that?

The old logo was a bit clumsy and kinda ugly, but, it had character and stank of quirkiness because of it. We're all guilty of producing safe and clean design at times but with something like this you'd expect a little more soul surely.

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:28 AM

Thanos’s comment is:

First thing that came to mind...

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:29 AM

David Brier’s comment is:

A true shame.

Organizations such as the ADC should lead by example.

I am not an advocate of dissing other designers' works, but this does not inspire, does not rise to the craft and is a "font choice" and not a logo design.

A logo for an organization whose role it is to show a new way of seeing, a new way of perceiving, a new way to "tell the same story that's been told a million times before" does none of the above.

Sorry but there it is.

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:38 AM

Rafael’s comment is:

I understand the need of change, the old logo was not that good. but for that? A pink square with a large scale used font? simplicity or lazyness?

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:40 AM

FiveseveN’s comment is:

Pasting a "C" under Durer's monogram doesn't turn it into a smart logo. Not even a cute logo. Hell, it's even below "visual pun", it's just lazy.
So IMO any change is a step forward.

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:41 AM

Joseph ’s comment is:

I am glad they finally changed it, they were riding the back of Albrecht Durer's signature ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlbrechtD%C3%BCrer01.jpg ). I get homage and all, and Durer if anyone was to rip would be a good one but I am glad they took a stance out on their own. So I applaud them although the new mark is slightly tame.

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:42 AM

grubedoo’s comment is:

Milktoast with magenta jam.

At least the original logo had character and a story behind it. The new mark only has nice type and a trendy color. Underwhelming.

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:45 AM

Jason D’s comment is:

Is someone trying to get a jump on April 1st? Blech!

On Nov.10.2009 at 11:49 AM

Dave S’s comment is:

Missed Opportunity!
The ADC had the chance to place its identity within the ranks of those that they admire, but instead chose the safe route.

I wish they would have chosen to improve upon their former monogram, instead, a generic solution was employed. Not to mention, "ectors" is too loosely kerned in relation to the other letterforms.

On Nov.10.2009 at 12:58 PM

Z.P Wang’s comment is:

It looks so bored that make me feel interested.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:03 PM

Scott Souchock’s comment is:

Boring. If the full name was combined with an appropriate, modern, and even edgy symbol of some sort, maybe. This kind of result makes me wonder who was making the decision, why, and what the alternatives were.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:03 PM

Ignacio’s comment is:

Just for saying something good about the new logo. It's very fresh. And the big type (nice Franklin Gothic) on the ADCGlobal website looks pretty clean.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:04 PM

Sean’s comment is:

On first look I liked it.
Then i tried to think about why I liked it and came up with nothing.
I think it's so simple i actually trick myself into thinking it's more interesting.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:09 PM

jota’s comment is:

so... where is the art direction in this project??
Is very difficult to see any trace of art direction (or even thoughts) in that.

The previous logo was a copy of Durer's signature. And, even despite of that, the result was too poor and oldfashioned (i can't believe it was designed in this century)

But now they simply decided not to have a logo at all. There is no feeling in the new one. Any emotion is transmitted. At least, any possitive one. As said in the entry, dressing it Magenta is not enough.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:16 PM

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

who was the "director" on this project!?!...ahh boo

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:18 PM

Marga Lopez’s comment is:

Maybe it's a sign of our times. We are on a recession people, word space is valuable real estate!

Seriously, I'm all about simple solutions... but there is a very subtle line between simple and boring. The logo on it's own it's not so engaging, it is nicely applied on the site however I find it a bit horsey overall and could use something a bit more provocative.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:37 PM

Drew Davies’s comment is:

I'm normally willing to have an open mind about the new logos presented here on Brand New, and if I can't say something nice, I don't say anything at all. But this logo makes me wonder why the rest of us are busting our asses trying to craft logos with meaning and depth while this kind of thing is being perpetrated.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:41 PM

steve’s comment is:

The new logo resembles a masthead for the latest gossip tabloid. Nothing says 'professional' quite like a bit of process magenta.

This evolution strips our profession of it's lustre, heritage, mystique, etc.

On Nov.10.2009 at 01:59 PM

jota’s comment is:

Drew Davies, "why the rest of us are busting our asses trying to craft logos with meaning and depth while this kind of thing is being perpetrated."

you are so damn right that it hurts.

On Nov.10.2009 at 02:02 PM

Kevin Tucker’s comment is:

A more humane victim of that club would have been a baby seal.

On Nov.10.2009 at 02:19 PM

uomojon’s comment is:

who needs history and legacies anyway!

On Nov.10.2009 at 02:20 PM

Kelly’s comment is:

This isn't a logo, it's type in a pink box.
Art Directors everywhere are crying.

On Nov.10.2009 at 02:21 PM

Gareth Coxon - Dot Design’s comment is:

Opportunity missed! Very bland, non idea logo I'm afraid.

On Nov.10.2009 at 02:25 PM

Bill’s comment is:

Go back! Please! :(

On Nov.10.2009 at 02:52 PM

Ryan Fernandez’s comment is:

I don't believe a logo should engulf a brand's personality. Rather, it's the treatment and lock-up of the logo that is most important.

It's hard to judge the new logo without looking at how it will be used across ADC's various touchpoints: web, advertising, business cards, stationary, etc.

That being said, the logo alone feels entirely inappropriate. The neon magenta is very cheeky and something I'd expect to see from American Apparel or some other hipster company.

The aspect ratio is so wide that it must be useless at small sizes.

If the logo was a stacked version of Helvetica, I doubt there'd be much criticism...

ART
DIRECTORS
CLUB

On Nov.10.2009 at 02:55 PM

Ball Sucking Good Time’s comment is:

Well, it sucks balls. There's nothing to it. It was forged from BS. Somewhere some designer has convinced himself he did a good job. If it only looks good in context then it's not a logo.

On Nov.10.2009 at 03:00 PM

Rodrok’s comment is:

it looks like a web banner...
not much or a proposal...
lacks creativity...
I can see they like the idea of less is more... but sometimes too much "less" is almost nothing.

On Nov.10.2009 at 03:22 PM

Kevin Tucker’s comment is:

Sometimes less is more, but this is just more of less, which is more or less nothing.

On Nov.10.2009 at 03:56 PM

Rico’s comment is:

You can tell a lot of thought went into this...

Oh wait, no you can't.

On Nov.10.2009 at 04:13 PM

Benny’s comment is:

One phrase sums this up: David Bowie is very disappointed in you.

www.davidbowieisverydisappointedinyou.com/

On Nov.10.2009 at 04:32 PM

Soda & Candy’s comment is:

I guess they thought "We can't do anything that leans toward any particular style because we don't want to have to change it when the trends change."

And then they got someone's secretary to design it in Word.

On Nov.10.2009 at 04:44 PM

Julie’s comment is:

It's alright. The website is pretty great.
However, first thought: American Apparel.
I'm am sad to see Paula's blocky Arts and Crafts inspired logo ditched, but it's understandable I suppose.

On Nov.10.2009 at 04:54 PM

Mark’s comment is:

I HATE it.

It has no sence of creativity at all, it's just unspaced white type in a red box. The old one is far better than this one, really better.

They shouldn't have decided to change it at all.

If they wanted to change it they should of changed it to something BETTER not worse.

On Nov.10.2009 at 04:57 PM

Mark’s comment is:

I HATE it.

It has no sense of creativity at all, it's just non-spaced white type in a red box. The old one is far better than this one, really better.

They shouldn't have decided to change it at all.

If they wanted to change it they should of changed it to something BETTER not worse.

On Nov.10.2009 at 05:10 PM

Rafal S.’s comment is:

I guess that, in this case, less is bore.
The concept of changing from a beautiful Dürerish acronym to a bunch of sans serif letters, that look exaclty like any other bunch of letters (and yes, I like Franklin Gothic)... it is simply unbelievable.
So depraved of any traces of imagination, creativity, wit, character...
It actually makes me sad.

On Nov.10.2009 at 05:21 PM

g-sppud’s comment is:

While this logo is definitely not inspired, the old logo sucked too. A parallel move in my view.

On Nov.10.2009 at 05:30 PM

Alex’s comment is:

It's a improvement over the previous logo in terms of legibility and being much more noticable but lacks any of the equatity the previous logo had. It also reminds me of the logo for Salford a city in England

On Nov.10.2009 at 05:46 PM

Jhames’s comment is:

So lazy a brand design that it couldn't be bothered to have itself trademark'd.

On Nov.10.2009 at 07:00 PM

valt1’s comment is:

Very nice... jock, where is a new logo ? ;)

On Nov.10.2009 at 07:27 PM

Stephanie’s comment is:

I just dont get the original logo...the nicely nested "A" and "D" teetering all unstable on the "c"...

At least the new one sits flat.

On Nov.10.2009 at 07:53 PM

Brandon Oxendine’s comment is:

Don't feel like reading all these comments but:

1. This is all the rebranding of The Art Director's Club gets? No applications? Nothing?

2. Hate it. But of course they'll do something great in the applications of it ... I hope.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:03 PM

Ray’s comment is:

I died a little inside.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:29 PM

Toronto Web Design’s comment is:

It must hurt the people who likely worked hard on it, and compromised over and over to get something the inevitable committee would agree to, but this work feels lost at sea....no longevity and no rooting in the passion and the technically artistic craft of the audience...please pull one of the good ones off the treatment sheet and let the designers vision breath!

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:40 PM

justin’s comment is:

letdown. not cool.

On Nov.10.2009 at 10:48 PM

Tayfun Ozturkmen’s comment is:

*tumbleweed*

On Nov.11.2009 at 12:33 AM

shiftklick’s comment is:

I think this one's better --> http://www.underconsideration.com/random/adc.gif

Really hit the nail on the head wih this one.

On Nov.11.2009 at 01:45 AM

Marcin’s comment is:

No. The new one isn't as good as the old one. No.

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:49 AM

jop quirindongo’s comment is:

Don't like the old one that much, but the new one misses the craftmanship and authority of the old one. Or is that the modern interpretation of art directors nowadays...? :)

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:58 AM

ck’s comment is:

I'm kind of shocked how terrible the old logo is. Not the shape and idea of it, but the execution. Maybe it's a bad sample, or my eyes are starting to go bad, but each of the three letters look different weights to me, with the D looking the thinnest. It looks very odd, very amateurish as if someone had the three letters the same size, then just scaled them down to the size they wanted, not compensating for that. For a logotype for an organization of art directors, there really can't be any excuse for that.

That said, the new one dare I say doesn't even classify as a logo.

On Nov.11.2009 at 07:31 AM

paula scher’s comment is:

FYI
I really didn't "design" the old ADC logo. It was an Albrecht Durer signature they already used for years that read "AD". They called the place "The Art Directors Club" then, and they were concerned that they wouldn't attract new members in a variety of design disciplines who didn't consider themselves to be "Art Directors". Also, the word "club" seemed exclusive in a dated, male-dominated, dorky way.

They wanted to be known as ADC. They didn't want to change the logo that had recognizability and heritage, but evolve it so read as "ADC." The original mark had some problematic serifs that looked too busy when you added the "C". I'd call what we did a minor modification. I laid out some more contemporary stationary for them. That was it.

I think the name change to ADC was the right thing to do then and now, and for all the stated reasons. Going back to "Art Directors Club" makes no sense to me at all. The design of the logo is fine, the name is wrong.

On Nov.11.2009 at 09:53 AM

Danae’s comment is:

I feel like my eyes go buggy when I look at it, the combination of the hot pink with the severely tight tracked white lettering leaves me shielding my peepers! The thing that bugs me the most though is the sentence case treatment...if they wanted so bad to shove all the words together like sardines they should have at least made all of them lowercase. In my opinion, sentence case just feels weird when it doesn't have any breathing room--especially when encased in a box.

On Nov.11.2009 at 10:18 AM

lolrus’s comment is:

On Nov.11.2009 at 11:14 AM

Infrastruktur’s comment is:

weak sauce indeed.

lol at lolrus!

On Nov.11.2009 at 11:27 AM

Ben Thoma’s comment is:

I find Paula Scher's comment to be interesting. It's refreshing to hear her take on her logo adaptation that is the "before" in this post.

I think I disagree with her desire for "ADC" to be retained. I don't think "club" has the connotation it once did, and there are plenty of folks who are aware enough, in our industry, to realize that Art Directors Club doesn't need to be exclusive to ADs.

Once again, it's terrific to see a logo creator contribute to the comments here.

On Nov.11.2009 at 01:39 PM

Janet’s comment is:

Is this the ADC, the anti-brand?

On Nov.11.2009 at 01:58 PM

Paul Rand’s comment is:

I am not certain what web designer designed the new logo, but he or she should stick with banner design and creating animated gifs. The new ADC logo is a major FAILURE on every conceivable level! And yes the new logo looks like a dog food brand.

On Nov.11.2009 at 01:59 PM

Paul Rand’s comment is:

I am not sure what logo looks worst?
http://images.scotsman.com/2007/06/04/2007-06-04T153749Z_01_NOOTR_RTRIDSP_2_OUKTP-UK-BRITAIN-OLYMPICS.jpg

On Nov.11.2009 at 02:14 PM

Levinson Axelrod’s comment is:

It would fit in very well at American Apparel.

On Nov.11.2009 at 02:33 PM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

Lame. and part gay. If you're gonna gay it up, go gay all the way (yellow AND fuscia, see London2112 logo)

On Nov.11.2009 at 02:53 PM

Travis Austin’s comment is:

Why do I get the feeling that all of these big-name firms are just being lazy? I grew up in college idolizing Trollback, but whatever direction was given, be it from him or in his stead, smacks harshly of copping out in the name of bland modernity.

A purely typographic solution, in my mind, does nothing to embrace any origins or any heritage. Why not improve upon/systematize the current mark? Give it a function beyond itself. Etc.

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:16 PM

Memphis Monster’s comment is:

I liked the old logo, kind of bummed that it's going away.

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:17 PM

Luke’s comment is:

I'm guessing that this post doesn't do the brand justice. Everyone should hold judgement until they get a more complete view of this identity and branding solution.

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:19 PM

Kevin Tucker’s comment is:

A little visual commentary...
http://blog.collidecreative.com/archives/115

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:20 PM

grfk dzgn’s comment is:

Pathetic.

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:30 PM

Ilya’s comment is:

boring, old one had a personality, new one is mass market

On Nov.11.2009 at 03:52 PM

David B.’s comment is:

WTF? The old logo got violently assaulted and left for dead.

On Nov.11.2009 at 04:01 PM

XK9’s comment is:

Hmmm.

I can't say that I'm personally invested in the original to care that it's been supplanted. So that leaves me to judge the new mark on its own dubious merits.

From my own perspective and for my own designs, logos need some mnemonic flick that fires off a synapse and tweaks the user/consumer/witness into feeling something. That special notice is what hopefully will lodge the mark in the viewer's brain. If you can't trip that switch, you haven't done your job as a designer.

Art Direction is about choices made on aesthetic and visceral levels, choices made to ensure that the appropriate message and experience is delivered through the art. In the new ArtDirectorsClub mark there were a few conscious choices made that attempted to elicit a response. The color; CamelCase; and Franklin Gothic.

The color to me is a merely fashion statement, a middle finger to convention. Sort of punk, but given its confines, just a garish, evenly applied coat of paint. A color is not a bold choice simply because it's seldom used; context is key to perception.

CamelCase; I'd love to know who coined this term. Brilliant. Here I like it. With these letterforms in this manner, the art director designer proves that he/she can defy convention and deliver a message. "See, you can read it without word spacing." Nice exercise. Yet, I doubt it will be echoed in correspondence.

Franklin Gothic. While I love this typeface and most of what Morris Fuller Benton created, I think the most you can say about its use here is "Well, at least it isn't Gotham." Where is the designer's hand here, that alters our perception and shows a sense of purpose and intelligent subtlety?

Grade: C-

On Nov.11.2009 at 07:46 PM

Kellie Schroeder’s comment is:

This is a sad sign of things to come. Generic. Tasteless...meaningless...boring.

On Nov.11.2009 at 09:02 PM

selcuk Askin’s comment is:

Corny, conservative, eclectic. UGLY...

On Nov.11.2009 at 09:11 PM

Christopher Pace’s comment is:

The previous logo had the air and mystique of a craft that has had history, and appropriating a centuries-old artist's monogram and putting up a velvet rope as a "club" only served to do so further. I dare say that to me as an aspiring student the mark was aspirational, I would be admitted entrance if I could prove worthy (even if the worth was a salary high enough to get myself in).

This feels too friendly, a tee-ball "everyone gets an award" type of treatment that doesn't put up the exclusive-but-slatted gate. At the very least a new mark gave the the opportunity to redefine and set a new course for an industry. But I wasn't part of the process and thereby have no right to utterly bash the people who worked on it. I can say, however, that scaffolding went up, and when it came down, the mystery and desire went with it.

On Nov.12.2009 at 12:06 AM

Virginie Delannoy’s comment is:

A true shocker! I'm speechless... And kinda mad as well... Going with type only logotype should involve serious font customization if not create a new type so that the identity is really unique and evokes the character of the organisation and that the rest of their communication play around something consistent. What I'm truly amazed with, is the person that managed to "sell" this poor and unrelevant logotype to ADC. I would have liked to be there when ADC probably said something like "yeah, let's take that one, it's gorgeous". Well let me tell you it's just pathetic.

On Nov.12.2009 at 02:45 AM

Alexander Charner’s comment is:

I love the old logo. It felt a lot like Albrecht Durer's signature. Solid, timeless, like it belongs to a solid tradition of craft and professionalism.

I don't get it.

On Nov.12.2009 at 06:12 AM

Diane Faye Zerr’s comment is:

Did they consult T-Mobil on using the color Magenta?

I don't know how I feel about this yet. What I feel about the logo is the way I feel about the H1N1 vaccination, it's too new to make an honest opinion.

On Nov.12.2009 at 08:57 AM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

What a shame. The original had style and memorability.

Another one bites the dust.

On Nov.12.2009 at 09:17 AM

jwo’s comment is:

Is anyone surprised? It represents Art Directors take on logo design very well I think.
Step 1: open Quark 3.1
Step 2: Drop Helvetica in a type box, then think twice about it and go with the second choice Franklin Gothic (deliberate heavily over using Helvetica or not).
Step 3: Fill with the few standard colors in the palette, and settle on 100% Magenta.
Step 4: Go out for drink and call significant other you'll be home late.
Step 5: Send invoice (including drinks).
viola!

Objectively, it's very legible, but it's wider than the ideal 1:1 - 2:1 aspect ratio range any experienced identity designer could have advised.

On Nov.12.2009 at 10:24 AM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

Why do so few retain the lessons of the biggest brands? Why do so many logo updates/ identity redesigns throw out distinct marks for bland ones? Why are these designers so afraid to bring the old and the new together to create something stronger? Why is continuity of identity such a terrifying proposition to some people? I'm underwhelmed and let down by this design. And this rationale (copied from the post) is bizarre:

'Trollbäck chose to replace the acronym logo as a way to highlight the club’s legacy, even though the organization’s membership spans far beyond only art directors. “Companies and organizations usually use acronyms in their branding to distance themselves from their past,” he said. “In our case, we wanted to do the exact opposite and embrace our origins and heritage.”'

So, if I may interpret it a bit: We are highlighting ADC's legacy by removing the most well-known references to it, except in name, where it most clearly misrepresents the current scope of the ADC. By doing so, we are embracing what we are hiding and are representing those we are excluding.

My head is spinning.

On Nov.12.2009 at 12:37 PM

ilovetype’s comment is:

The system is ****MUCH**** better. There wasn't much of a system developed with the old logo, which was awkward and wobbly. No one likes change, but I really like the new system.

On Nov.12.2009 at 12:49 PM

dinomite’s comment is:

looks like a fascist made both. while the original was a blatant rip off, the new one is just blah.

it does not make me want to be in the club.

On Nov.12.2009 at 01:31 PM

Måcroskøpp’s comment is:

While I was no fan of the original, this is hideous.
Terrible, dated font choice, inappropriate colour. And does no one think an apostrophe would have been good?

On Nov.12.2009 at 03:32 PM

Paula’s comment is:

I just don't see the point of 'designer clubs' and 'designer awards' anymore.

They had a function when the industry was blossoming, designers needed to band together and formulate a way of working. Awards gave the new industry a benchmark to work towards.

Today, on-line forums and blogs are the new clubs. Designers can have access to work from anywhere in the world at anytime, they don't need an expensive awards book to filter out the 'best' work.

Unfortunately, awards and clubs have become the place where self promoters talk about themselves to other self promoters, a glorified podium for the vain, and those who want to be them.

The new logotype is as irrelevant as the institution is represents.

On Nov.12.2009 at 03:40 PM

Fernando Lins’s comment is:

Pathetic. I wasn't much of a fan of the old one but wow, this is top 10 crappy redesigns ever. That being said, I guess it represents the organization quite well now.

On Nov.12.2009 at 04:02 PM

John John’s comment is:

The previous one, whether someone liked it or not,
had a personality.
The new one is completely... tasteless.

On Nov.13.2009 at 01:01 AM

Shelly Dennison Cooper’s comment is:

That doesn't even look like a logo. It looks like html.

On Nov.13.2009 at 02:35 PM

monomatica’s comment is:

I could have done this in 2 minutes. And I wouldn't even call it a logo. How much did Trollbäck + Company get paid for this rebrand? I bet a ton. Yet another company wanting to "modernize" while completely losing all personality, character and originality. Think: UPS

On Nov.13.2009 at 02:51 PM

THEM!’s comment is:

Is this the future of art direction? God help us all. We actually would NOT join because if this is a representation of us, we should all be ashamed. Ouch.

On Nov.13.2009 at 05:05 PM

chrisF’s comment is:

i'm not a designer or art director. on my most creative days, i think of one clever thing to say.

and i feel like i could have "designed" this.

someone, somewhere, should cry themself to sleep tonight on their giant, magenta pillow.

On Nov.13.2009 at 08:20 PM

Ben Weeks’s comment is:

Since trollback is a motion firm, i'd be interested to see how they bring this new logo into that space. I wouldn't have thought of them as an identity firm but maybe I need to take a second look at their work. I'd imagine the adc could ask anyone and would choose wisely so I tend to trust that they have notwithstanding Paula's comments-which are worth consideration.

On Nov.14.2009 at 12:36 AM

Mark’s comment is:

Good to see one can use Word to design.

On Nov.14.2009 at 04:06 AM

Kevin Barbee’s comment is:

Looks like it was designed by a committee, not an Art Director.
They've blandified themselves!

On Nov.14.2009 at 07:31 AM

Jessica’s comment is:

This is not a logo.

Although I did not 'like' the previous logo/mark, I'd give it props for being something unique --- which this is not.

On Nov.14.2009 at 10:48 AM

Jung’s comment is:

What is going on with default type on the bandage?
Where is sense of precious quality it had before?
It is now completely gone.

Website... So uninspiring...

On Nov.14.2009 at 08:23 PM

Chuck Spidell’s comment is:

Put in a box and it's a logo.

On Nov.15.2009 at 01:42 AM

Jonathan Lackey @zuno ’s comment is:

Absolutely lame.

On Nov.16.2009 at 01:45 PM

Adam Haase’s comment is:

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it remids them of Tupperware?

http://www.bakersconceptsinc.net/tupperware_logo_960x540.jpg

Also, how do i show logo images of logos which bear similarities?

On Nov.17.2009 at 02:47 AM

Jinu’s comment is:

The new logo is totally lacking imagination.
I can read 'connect' by tight letter spacing, 'provoke' by magenta, but then what? It's too literal and obvious.
It doesn't make me imagine what's behind.
I hate to see the beautiful symbolic ADC logo's gone.

These days logos are becoming too indistinguishable from each other.
What's going on?

On Nov.17.2009 at 11:09 AM

SonHouse’s comment is:

Sooo generic. Could have used some more Art Direction. And why so humongous on the web site? Does the size compensate for its blandness - make it more 'cutting edge'? Updating Paula's previous version would have been better than this.

On Nov.17.2009 at 12:35 PM

Andrea Sullivan’s comment is:

HATE IT, loved the old one.

On Nov.17.2009 at 04:20 PM

Alexander Lopez’s comment is:

There is something to be said for an identity designer that has the ability to capture a complete heritage in a simple structure (this is definitely not that case). What perplexes me the most is why they used a motion graphics and live production company for such an iconic identity redesign. Maybe enough commotion and they'll hire someone else to redesign it.

On Nov.17.2009 at 06:06 PM

Cody Rasmussen’s comment is:

Ouch! It's a sad day for logos.

On Nov.17.2009 at 06:55 PM

Joe bloggs’s comment is:

This is not the logo, wrong font

On Nov.19.2009 at 07:59 AM

Martin Navarro’s comment is:

I prefer the Alberto Durero monogram like before. I think it has more identity, don't you think?

On Nov.19.2009 at 10:47 AM

Menkerios Andemicael’s comment is:

The solution would have been to do a brand new monogram. The idea of taking the signature of an artist and repurposing it is questionable to begin with, the idea of a monogram i'snt. Monograms may be applicable in few places these days, but art-related organizations with roots in the 20's (when monograms were everywhere) certainly are one of them.

Call me old world, but It really bothers me how determined we as a nation seem to be to dig up any seeds of tradition before they've sprouted.

See Frigidaire's "Delta" fiasco for further evidence.

On Nov.19.2009 at 12:11 PM

Josh’s comment is:

Out of all the ignorant commentary in this article, I was most disappointed to read a comment left by Felix Sockwell:

Lame. and part gay. If you're gonna gay it up, go gay all the way (yellow AND fuscia, see London2112 logo)

Felix, I have great respect for you as a designer and artist, but I'm just floored by how you would think it at all appropriate to make a comment like that. I'm sure it's a joke and everything, but honestly, there's no room for hate speech in this forum.

On Nov.20.2009 at 07:37 AM

Frank’s comment is:

Old logo = awkward
new logo = not even a logo

When will design agencies stop to a) sell wannabe art (old logo) as design and/or b) be so "minimalistic" that barely no essence is left (new logo) ?

These trends go on for some time now and i think it's time to come back to senses and remember what the purpose of a logo is.

On Nov.23.2009 at 10:25 AM

Suntory_Bikkle’s comment is:

Is anyone really surprised? Does anyone really care?

On Nov.23.2009 at 11:42 AM

ben Posch’s comment is:

i guess there were no art directors around to art direct the lazy damn designers. what the fuck is with pink and fat, boring fonts? what is that, some franklin gothic bullshit? pull your head out of the butthole of web 2.0 and draw something decent. with a goddamn pencil. jesus fuck.

On Nov.24.2009 at 09:26 AM

carmin wit’s comment is:

This represents how out of touch the ADC and AIGA are with the world in general. Two peas in an effin pod. I wasn't a big fan of the original ADC logo because it seemed a little uninspired and old without awesome. The new one is bland and boring and says nothing at all. It has no feelings and no opinions and it's safer than safe has ever been. These are ironically the same reasons you can't find more people to join. It's a giant circle-jerking rut.

On Nov.24.2009 at 12:48 PM

Matt Steel’s comment is:

I'm sure Paula Scher is as pleased as punch. Another one for the dead logos archive.

On Nov.25.2009 at 02:31 PM

Microsoft Fonts’s comment is:

I really like this post. Thanks for this article, Anyone got any more info about it? I am now your blog’s rss follower. You are now in my bookmarks.

On Dec.09.2009 at 03:49 AM

r4i’s comment is:

The post is really good, the new logo is really good and has a deep understanding.

On Dec.09.2009 at 04:29 AM

Pennsylvania wrongful death lawyerhttp://www.wrongfuldeathpennsylvania.com’s comment is:

I might be one of the tainted few but I see so many American Apparel ads that are typography on loud strong colored background that most things of the same principles just remind me of V-necks and skinny jeans. Maybe I'm prejudice but I'm not seeing an Art Directors Club with this weak of a logo.

On Dec.09.2009 at 02:24 PM

Mark Busse’s comment is:

For me the mark is about as relevant as the Art Directors Club these days. Who really cares?

Gotta say though, if I were Jakob Trollbäck, I'd never had let this out the door. Weak sauce indeed.

On Dec.15.2009 at 09:26 PM

Tim’s comment is:

I think it fits [i]perfectly[/i].
Most designers/art directors I know personally are not members of ADC, nor do they care.
To me it seems the biggest chunk of the membership today is marketing people that are not involved in creating or art direction at all. Project managers, account managers, CFOs of agencies etc., and those people will destroy everything they touch.

On Jan.07.2010 at 04:00 AM

Allison’s comment is:

I find the logo disappointing. It is supposed to be representative of a creative community and it fails. A great logo is not always the result of numerous hours of work and creative thinking but this logo appears to have been created on a whim. At least the original logo was unique and had an interesting structure. The new design doesn’t seem to be a “design” at all. I appreciate that the new logo is an attempt to modernize the old, but it lacks the creativity I’d expect from this organization.

On Jan.11.2010 at 11:52 AM

Steven’s comment is:

A JOKE.

Where are the art directors on this?

On Feb.03.2010 at 11:35 PM