A|X|More|Modern

Established in 1991 with a store in the heart of Soho in New York City, Armani Exchange (A|X) provides clothes that “define a new dress code with a collection that takes its cue from urban lifestyle and music culture.” In other words, really expensive jeans and white v-neck shirts among other swanky clothing. A|X today has 165 stores worldwide and can be found in upscale department stores like Bloomingdale’s, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Neiman Marcus. Like the rest of the Armani empire — which, by the way, had revenues of 1,620 million Euros (US$2,354 million) in 2008 — A|X has sported a Bodoniesque wordmark that has become fairly recognizable yet at the same time inundated by the fashion industry’s preference of Didones (also called Moderns). This Winter, A|X will begin rolling out a revised wordmark created by Chermayeff & Geismar, led by partner Sagi Haviv.

Chermayeff & Geismar’s design team inverted the logo, so instead of dark letters on a light background with a dividing line, the A and X are in white, sitting in two dark boxes with the slash now implied by the space between them. The firm also redrew the A and X to make the thick diagonal strokes parallel and to accentuate the contrast between the think and thick lines of the letters.
— Press Release

More than a complete redesign that might dispose of built equity, this approach allows A|X to appear mostly unchanged but still able to look revitalized. Kind of like a good haircut, where it’s still the same basic structure but something makes you do a double-take and reconsider what you are looking at. The old logo had bracketed serifs — meaning there was a slight curve where the serifs met the diagonal lines — which made it look a little softer and the new, unbracketed serifs add a touch of toughness and even a feel of classicism. I also prefer the less elongated letterforms and the new implied slash, all bundled together in a nicely tight package.

The redesign will probably go unnoticed by the majority of consumers, but eighteen years with the same logo could potentially start to hurt the image of a brand that must stay with the times, and this subtle make-over is a perfect segue for another couple of decades.

Chris’s comment is:

I really wish the line separating the two blocks was clear and not white… besides that I think it’s a nice upgrade.

On Dec.16.2009 at 09:37 AM

Efren’s comment is:

Nice upgrade. I like it with the black and gray backgrounds. The others not at all.

On Dec.16.2009 at 09:49 AM

Chad Kaufman’s comment is:

I’m torn on the execution.

I think the space between the boxes could have been increased a little so the line has more weight, but I see that it reflects the weight of the serif (although visually it doesn’t unless its up close). The space gets especially crammed in the crap alternative executions of the logo with the bevels and scribble.

Just a nudge more space, that’s all I want!

On Dec.16.2009 at 10:01 AM

Dan’s comment is:

I’m confused about the middle white line. I thought it was a “white space”.
mmmmmmmm…

On Dec.16.2009 at 10:07 AM

Safa’s comment is:

The upgrade works better and looks more interesting than the old wordmark from a geometrical standpoint. Plus, I hate those narrow 80’s/90’s typefaces (or type treatments).

On Dec.16.2009 at 10:11 AM

Christopher Pace’s comment is:

I too am confused about the white line, only in the ad comps (real ads?). A nice update.

On Dec.16.2009 at 10:17 AM

jason’s comment is:

this is probably good but I think I don’t like it.

On Dec.16.2009 at 10:57 AM

Joseph’s comment is:

I agree with most here. I’m confused on the white line. The press release talks about it being “implied” by the space between the boxes, but upon the execution in the ads (mockups?), it is an actual line, not just space.

Overall, a nice upgrade, but nothing special. It’s just kind of blah to me, though I suppose they had so much equity in the old identity that they really couldn’t afford to do a complete overhaul. It just feels very…. typical.

On Dec.16.2009 at 11:01 AM

Stormchild’s comment is:

Y’know, sometimes it seems like the amount of money you can make as a designer is directly proportional to how well you can hold a straight face while making up an elaborate explanation about how you arrived at what is essentially a very obvious idea that probably turned up spontaneously within the first couple minutes of doodling.

Granted, they could have gone through any number of much more interesting concepts before ending up at this bland inversion of (more or less) what they had before. That is, after all, the regrettable fate of many high profile corporate gigs when a committee inevitably forms around the project and starts dipping its spoons in the soup. And perhaps the only way to close a deal like this is to wrap the final product with that elaborate speech.

Because, with the price tag I imagine this project had, you’d have to feel pretty silly if you got in front of everyone and said “well, uh, basically we drew a box around it, inverted the whole thing, and kinda got rid of the roundy bits in the letters so they don’t look so Apple-ish”. (Note the older X is quite like the large one printed on the original Mac OS X packaging, before Apple finally cut its long ties with Garamond.)

On Dec.16.2009 at 11:15 AM

smirker’s comment is:

Wow. Just goes to show you can’t buy taste.

The mark’s okay, but the execution??? Bleeeurgh! Those gift bags might be the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen. Could they maybe have made the logo bigger?

Yikes.

On Dec.16.2009 at 11:45 AM

Mojo’s comment is:

Why do i think of Ajax when I see this? I hope they didn’t pay money for this. My 5 year old could have “updated” this. Change font, invert color… Done.

I agree with Stormcloud.

On Dec.16.2009 at 11:53 AM

Devin Gonzales’s comment is:

I like it. It reminds me of turning pages in a book or catalog. Seems versatile. Now if only the clothes could be classy again. But I suppose that depends on the market they want.

On Dec.16.2009 at 12:09 PM

Armando Roque’s comment is:

Love it.

@ Christopher Pace:
I think the white line on the ads might have been a mistake. It isn’t on the shopping bags… I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

On Dec.16.2009 at 12:37 PM

cj’s comment is:

love c&g in general, but am I the only one who thinks this update was totally pointless?

On Dec.16.2009 at 12:41 PM

Dor Shai’s comment is:

As a designer who has worked on a few big corporate rebranding jobs myself i can tell you that It would have been so easy to destroy the brand equity this logo has built over the years. I know many design agencies who would have tried to redo this altogether from scratch (like was done to pepsi or xerox recently). These guys most probably recognized that the concept was perfectly appropriate but just needed to be improved. What I’ve learned is that good logo design is also measured in knowing when to not intervene too much. That’s probably what went on here. And it’s unlikely that chermayeff & geismar had anything to do with the way the logo was applied…that’s almost always in the hands of the client.

On Dec.16.2009 at 12:51 PM

buruno’s comment is:

Didot is the fashionist Helvetica. It’s all over there.

On Dec.16.2009 at 01:01 PM

Daho’s comment is:

I concur with Dor. As designers we all want to reinvent the wheel. I think this subtle update is perfect for the brand. C&G could have gone anywhere, and it could have been good, or a colossal failure. This brand is only 20 years old, and if it’s still around in 50 years, needs a base identity that can gradually grow and adapt. It doesn’t mean a history of 3 or 4 completely different logos - just because we can.

Not that AX is a major brand like, say Pepsi, but it is well known. Looking at how the Pepsi logo evolved, each update was only tweeked, so that the brand could feel fresher, but the consumer would still recognize it. Even though the logo is now completely different from the original, no brand equity was ever lost.

On Dec.16.2009 at 01:23 PM

unfunction’s comment is:

I am not the target market. All I see is…

On Dec.16.2009 at 01:26 PM

JC’s comment is:

Z|Z|Z|Z|Z|Z

On Dec.16.2009 at 01:34 PM

Arturo’s comment is:

I like it.

It’s true that if I were just a consumer off the street I wouldn’t know immediately that the logo was redesigned. But that’s probably the point…if they had changed the logo consumers would have not recognized it, which is the big risk when it comes to redesigning famous logos. but if you do look at the old and new one closely you’ll notice that the new one does look much more modern in comparison to the original, which looks 90s in retrospect. also from looking at some of the images from the advertising it looks like armani exchange wanted their logo to be more visible, and putting a box around it was probably the only way to do that in a way that wasn’t over the top or tacky.

On Dec.16.2009 at 01:42 PM

Paul Walker’s comment is:

@Armando Roque

I don’t thiink the “white line” is a mistake. If you look at each and every execution, the line matches the type – personally, I think it would look bad if it didn’t.

Of course, they could have punched out the letters too, like they did on the bag, leaving the text (effectively) black – but ultimately I think the logo is stronger in the grey & white.

On Dec.16.2009 at 01:51 PM

Huntley Brinkley’s comment is:

The logo in the ads and magazines seems excessively large and shouts at the viewer. A brand more secure in it’s image and meaning would go for a smaller, more subtle look.

On Dec.16.2009 at 02:05 PM

Samuel Agbo?la’s comment is:

FYI - Armani Exchange is NOT part of the Armani empire. Armani sold the rights to the name. Though 99% of A|X customers don’t know it, they’re not buying any version of Armani at all.

In that light the re-design is a little more cynical. It’s in their best interest to maintain the fiction they’re a diffusion arm of a fashion titan, not just an importer of Chinese designer clones.

On Dec.16.2009 at 02:41 PM

Efren’s comment is:

My glasses are A|X. They have the “old” logo. Now I feel that my glasses are antique.

On Dec.16.2009 at 03:16 PM

Katey’s comment is:

Aw, I liked the old one. I like the 90s, though, so what do I know. My boss scored an old Pentagram book recently and I was very nostalgic looking through it.

The geometric serifs add nothing to this. And the textured variations look like the ‘how to make textures in Photoshop’ tutorials I used to look at when I was in highschool.

Thumbs down, though I’m always sad to give C&G a thumbs down.

On Dec.16.2009 at 07:01 PM

Scott Buchanan’s comment is:

Am I alone in thinking their old logo still looks just fine? I think the update isn’t bad, but I’m left thinking, “Why?” The old one really doesn’t look out-of-date to me, or at least the new one doesn’t look any more modern. (Though the “X” does look like Apple’s old OS X logo now that Stormchild mentions it.)

And Katey’s right: the textured renditions look downright hideous. I wouldn’t even say they look like Photoshop tutorial examples — more like Paint Shop Pro.

On Dec.16.2009 at 10:51 PM

Claudio’s comment is:

Agree with the other comments that the update was unnecessary. Furthermore, the previous typeface is much more interesting with the finesse of the curves close to the serifs. Now is just dull. The use of boxes, just waste of ink…

And the shiny version on the bags are very tacky…

On Dec.17.2009 at 06:36 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

My preference is the old logo. No textures, please.

On Dec.17.2009 at 07:29 AM

Pennsylvania wrongful death lawyer’s comment is:

It’s an inversion logo. Works alright but I agree with Stormchilds comment. I’m sure that it was a really hard sale without cracking grin. Well, we took the inverse of the logo and took it off of thin.

On Dec.17.2009 at 11:43 AM

Moeed Mohammad’s comment is:

Hm. Seems like it put on a few pounds.

Like the old one more, it just seems classier.

On Dec.17.2009 at 03:06 PM

JohnD’s comment is:

It’s fine. And I think it’s time to refresh Gap as well.

On Dec.19.2009 at 11:01 PM

Alex C’s comment is:

I think it breaks consistency with the other Armani brands. The same font was used in the logos:

- Giorgio Armani
- Emporio Armani
- Armani Jeans
- Armani Collezioni
- etc

My opinion is that it is a bad rebranding, even if it looks better than the other logos. But maybe this is the beginning of the rebranding of all the Armani brands.

On Dec.20.2009 at 04:58 AM

Lorenzo Morales’s comment is:

I applaud the improvement of the Bodoni / didone style.

I don’t care for the boxes used to reverse the type as it seems to confine the brand. I get the sense of being trapped.

On Dec.22.2009 at 12:00 PM

Rafyta’s comment is:

New one looks cheap.

On Dec.25.2009 at 05:04 PM

Waco Personal Injury Lawyer’s comment is:

I have no feelings that are stronger or weaker than the one before. It seems like a costly transition that will not actually change their identity or even freshen up their old one.

On Dec.28.2009 at 11:49 AM

Atlanta personal injury lawyer ’s comment is:

Spruces up there look, not a bad idea, even though it’s not the greatest logo.

On Dec.29.2009 at 11:13 AM

r4i’s comment is:

Hello,
I agree with most here. I’m confused on the white line. The press release talks about it being “implied” by the space between the boxes, but upon the execution in the ads (mockups?), it is an actual line, not just space.

On Jan.02.2010 at 12:10 AM

Alexander Gasinski’s comment is:

It’s really hard to choose which one is the best. If one thing takes someone’s fancy, the other or other one’s sure to captivate someone else again. Tastes do differ.

With best wishes from Moscow, Russia - breakthrough.ru

On Feb.03.2010 at 11:53 AM