Chicken Now now Chickenow

Chicken Now is a food court franchise that supplies chicken-based snacks for mid-mall snacking. Pentagram Austin, fresh off their recent Popeyes work, has helped them to rename and rebrand their popular (in the Southwest, at least) retail offering. And now for some Chickenow.

Chickenow has a loose identity system with several primary lockups

Chickenow’s new identity features a streamlined chicken head pictogram, clean rounded type and a strict orange-black color palette. These basic design elements have the flexibility to be arranged in different combinations: pictogram and wordmark, pictogram in wordmark and a shorthand rebus expressed in three characters. For such a simple brand, the variety seems to help, though it will probably cause some initial confusion. The transition from Cooper Black to Helvetica Rounded is natural (if predictable). Most importantly, though, the new brand succeeds in conveying very different things than the previous one.

While Chickenow has always prided itself on simple, high-quality ingredients, the old logo had a quirky, low-end feel. The previous chicken head looked more like a lazy eye and sat awkwardly in a black bullseye, which seemed to connote cheap. The new identity is better aligned with their current positioning, which hasn’t changed all that much. Chickenow appears contemporary, healthful and trustworthy. The type is kerned well and the chicken serves as a nice o-substitute. The beak just barely kisses the ‘w,’ adding a little extra dimension.

Chickenow cup, bag and dipping sauce (flavor unknown)

Like so much of Pentagram’s work, the Chickenow identity is stark, typographic and predominantly white. And, like so much of Pentagram’s work, it is simple, clever and iconic. As for the name, I’m a sucker for one-word, concatenated wordmarks like Chickenow, because they’re proprietary, unique and, consequently, easy to Google. Searching for brands like Ziploc, YouTube and jetBlue is a breeze.

Existing and proposed food court interiors. You have to love the small "now" written inside of the larger "now" in their previous logo. Does it get any cheaper looking than that?

The first Chickenow to feature the new design is under construction in Los Angeles. The proposed interior design is a breath of fresh air and imparts a new credibility and vitality to their retail offering. If they can stick to the straightforward, bold interior design, it should be a success.

Doug Best’s comment is:

First post!

Nice work. How did their first logo even happen? How does a company say “Okay, lets go with that!”

Never heard of this brand, but I would now give them a try. Old logo, no.

On Sep.21.2009 at 06:44 AM

scarlett’s comment is:

A logo that goes along with the trend, much, much better than the old one. Like it :)

On Sep.21.2009 at 07:19 AM

John McCollum’s comment is:

Yes. The old logo was terrible. But the new one doesn’t strike me as “healthful and trustworthy,” at least not in the restaurant sense.

The cleverness of the logo and the rebus doesn’t make up for the cold, medicinal feeling I get from the brand. In the age of factory farming and genetically modified foods, I don’t find chicken that looks like the product of a high-tech manufacturing process all that appetizing.

On Sep.21.2009 at 07:20 AM

john’s comment is:

Doug, friends don’t let friends say “first!” Please, have a little class.

On Sep.21.2009 at 07:35 AM

Rodrok’s comment is:

old logo seems like there was a limited number of proposals, maybe very low budget on the logo design.

new logo seems more professional and part of serious franchise, but to me it’s lacking the flavor element, I could say that the food would be very dry and plain. Not sure if I wouuld give it a try.

On Sep.21.2009 at 07:49 AM

Wally Torta’s comment is:

This is an excellent example of a design makeover that can’t be faulted. And yet, something is lost. I get the overwhelming feeling that the food I would buy at the new chickenow is precisely portion-controlled by a team of corporate lab technicians overseen by a squad of marketing types. As for the old logo, I’ve been around long enough to know that a cheap-looking identifier does not mean the food isn’t good. From a design and marketing perspective, it’s an elegant and smart redo. But as an aficionado of urban cacaphony, I feel like homogenization has taken another bite out of life.

On Sep.21.2009 at 07:59 AM

Matt’s comment is:

Honestly, anything’s better than what they had before. Although the big bulky font and colors always did stand out to me. The newer logo is better for sure. Less cheap looking and more appealing.

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:06 AM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

Looks great. Lose the baby chicks’ crown and eye and you’ve got a nice timer device. Nice job Pentagram Austin.

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:13 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

Very nice execution.

Super clean and simple. The packaging looks amazing as well.

You would almost think just by looking at it, that they don’t dip their food in grease, butter and oil.

And with respect to the colors, I think the choice is nice - I can’t seem to recall any eateries in our malls in FL that use similar colors.

Thanks and keep well,
Dale

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:16 AM

jmk’s comment is:

i agree with John McCollum 100%.

this logo looks like it belongs in someone’s blog, not for a fast food chicken place. if i see those two places side by side at the mall i’m definitely going to the one on the left. the new one does totally look like some generic lab medicine quick pick up place. terrible, terrible. i don’t understand the recent trend of using web 2.0 bloggish logos for places that just aren’t appropriate for their usage. again, terrible!

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:22 AM

J. Aron’s comment is:

Its almost unfair to show a before and after when starting with something that bad. I’m a big fan of the new logo though. I think its simple, fun and appropriate for their snack food offerings. The packaging and logo variations look great as well. The tagline treatment in the storefront mockup leaves something to be desired but I have a feeling thats still being fleshed out. All in all - Bravo

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:26 AM

Brian Douglas Hayes’s comment is:

Stepping back and just looking at the elements themselves, it’s not a bad identity—I’m a fan of the bold, simple colors; the no-frills rounded sans-serif type; and the (cute?!) logo… but this doesn’t convey the idea of tasty food.

I had a similar stomach-churning sensation when I saw this food-brand identity last week. http://www.thedieline.com/blog/2009/09/new-french-bakery.html
Blech. Nice look, but again, not for things I eat.

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:37 AM

Kári Emil Helgason’s comment is:

It reminds me of Better Burger, brgr and other and Chickpea and those other “chic” fast-food places you see cropping up all over New York. I like it - though I’m not entirely sure about all the white. Like some people mentioned, it makes it look a bit TOO sterilized.

On Sep.21.2009 at 08:58 AM

Deshler’s comment is:

The first logo looks like a place to get tasty fried chicken, maybe some generous potato wedges, all deep-fried and greasy and awful for you, but all so, so good.

The second logo looks like a place to get, as you say, “chicken-based snacks.”

And I would rather not eat chicken-based snacks.

On Sep.21.2009 at 09:07 AM

Ray’s comment is:

I think the new logo is terrific! Great color choices. Very iconic and memorable.

I just have a gripe with the interiors. It should be as considered as the packaging and any other print material. To me, it seems a little rushed. The logo on the soffit is giganormous, I understand that it’s in a food court and everyone is competing for attention, but can’t it be a bit more sophisticated? It doesn’t seem in line with the branding to have repetitive textural typography below the counter as well.

I feel like the interiors should be as much fun as everything else.

On Sep.21.2009 at 09:42 AM

Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:

As I have said before, trying to make animals cute works best in the context of not eating them. Both the old and new logo suffer from that, although the new one is slightly better in making the character more abstract. Still, the head isn’t that appealing of a chicken part for a restaurant to feature.

I also don’t think it was that bright a move to drop an “n”. They seem confused as a result exactly *what* they have. Are they selling “now” or are they selling whatever the hell “chicke” is? It is also ripe for the animal rights types to use as “Chicken Ow!”

On Sep.21.2009 at 09:53 AM

James’s comment is:

nice work … to bad its morally bankrupt.

On Sep.21.2009 at 10:21 AM

Benga’s comment is:

Better improvement from the previous logo and iconic, especially the nice play on making the egg york the eyes of the chick. I like the simplicity of the packaging, i feel like the simplicity differential Chickennow brand from the rest of the fast food restaurant out there.

Benga creative

On Sep.21.2009 at 10:31 AM

Gage Mitchell’s comment is:

Beautiful. Love the simplicity. Great colors, memorable icon, nice packaging and interior design. The logo looks just a hair too big on the food court sign, but otherwise, I think it’s a vast improvement over the old stuff.

Thanks for the post Armin.

Regards,
Gage Mitchell, AIGA

:: Graphic Designer
:: GageMitchell.com

On Sep.21.2009 at 10:38 AM

Jane Harrison’s comment is:

I really enjoy the “youth culture” inspired t-shirts on Pentagrams link. The youthful woman doesn’t seem to be very happy about wearing a chicken supplies t-shirt.

On Sep.21.2009 at 10:46 AM

Ryan Adair’s comment is:

It’s obviously an improvement. Who could argue? However, the food looks like it would be so much more delicious at the old place.

What is all the hub-bub about modernizing a fried chicken fast food place? Who cares!

Looks like a corporate hell hole bound to pop up in southern airports if you ask me. Yuck.

Nothing beats the old Popeye’s.

On Sep.21.2009 at 10:47 AM

oscar’s comment is:

Shouldn’t that be “cluckwork orange” in the survey above?

I agree with others that say it crosses the line from “healthy” to “sterile”.

More importantly, no chicken restaurant critique would be complete without a link to this most classic SNL ad:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/2317/saturday-night-live-cluckin-chicken

On Sep.21.2009 at 11:18 AM

Rodrigo Müller’s comment is:

I like it. it works for being simple!
I repeat the question: how did their first logo happen? oh my.

On Sep.21.2009 at 11:20 AM

Luke S’s comment is:

The old logo was cute and quirky. The red and orange had the psychological effect of making me hungry. The new logo makes me want to buy some sneakers.

On Sep.21.2009 at 11:43 AM

Luke S ’s comment is:

It looks like they import their chicken from China. Yuk.

On Sep.21.2009 at 11:45 AM

Chuck Spidell’s comment is:

That’s some salty chicken.

On Sep.21.2009 at 11:46 AM

Clara’s comment is:

On Sep.21.2009 at 12:03 PM

Andrew’s comment is:

My apologies…But the infamous ‘McNoggin’ is the first thing that came to mind when seeing chickneow’s new crispy golden-brown chicken head logo. Maybe this image was seared into the Pentegram designer’s subconsciousness.

On Sep.21.2009 at 12:34 PM

Bryan Redeagle’s comment is:

Hrm… The new logo is really nice, but did anyone else notice that both this and Popeyes have a predominantly orange and black color scheme to it?

On Sep.21.2009 at 12:35 PM

Drew’s comment is:

The old logo is rough but it has some personality. I like the odd, red comb on the chicken’s head…this could have been implemented into the new logo. The new one feels like a stock logo.

On Sep.21.2009 at 12:45 PM

Loren Shumaker-Chupp’s comment is:

While this is much better than the old one, I have to say I’m not a fan. It looks like very cut and paste especially with the overlapping beak in the woodmark. Helvetica Rounded always reminds me of a high school project or something very mediocre where the designer picks the “coolest” looking font for the project, for no reason. I think the logo is great and the woodmark ruins it and makes it feel borring and not unique at all.

On Sep.21.2009 at 12:45 PM

Robert’s comment is:

Nice indeed. I love the simplicity of it.

On Sep.21.2009 at 12:56 PM

Nathan McKinney’s comment is:

Is it a bad thing that the first thing I thought of was this?

On Sep.21.2009 at 01:47 PM

Paul Lloyd Johnson’s comment is:

Chicken WOW.
Very nice indeed.

I’m sorry if someone beat me to it, but it had to be said!

On Sep.21.2009 at 01:48 PM

Nick’s comment is:

I think it’s a definite improvement, but… I have a big problem with reading “chicke now”. It just doesn’t work for me. Maybe if there was less contrast between the two colors?

On Sep.21.2009 at 03:06 PM

Dirk’s comment is:

Blows away the old one. Nicely done.

On Sep.21.2009 at 03:28 PM

Mario’s comment is:

Great redesign. Sam are you sure that’s Helvetica Rounded? It looks a lot like Gotham Rounded. Check it out:

On Sep.21.2009 at 05:10 PM

Mark’s comment is:

The execution is brilliant. and the chicken head is nice and professional looking, well done!

Though a part of me will miss the cartoony-ness of the old logo. Not by much but noticeable enough.

On Sep.21.2009 at 05:35 PM

Adzski’s comment is:

What’s a “chicke”?

I’m sorry, but even when I try to read this as “chicken now”, I still just get “chicke now”. “chickennow” would have made more sense, if the name just had to be concatenated.

On Sep.21.2009 at 06:42 PM

Esteban’s comment is:

I like everything but the name change. It needs another N.

On Sep.21.2009 at 06:47 PM

Mog’s comment is:

We could quibble about the number of n’s but really, this is worlds better than the old mark. I was first exposed to (then) Chicken Now when one opened at the mall I worked at in Las Vegas last year. As a native Northener I had never heard of the chain, and the amateurish logo made it seem like a mom-and-pop store - I was, quite literally, afraid to eat there. If they had launched with this branding, I probably would have given them a shot - it’s much more professional. It says “familiar chain with no surprises” - and that’s exactly what a QSR brand needs to say.

On Sep.21.2009 at 07:55 PM

Giant Man Inc.’s comment is:

Who in their right mind thinks this is effective advertising? I mean, for Pete’s sake, “Chickenow”? It sounds like a goddamn joke now. When I read “Chickenow,” my brain herts because it can’t separate “chicken” and “now,” kind of like one of those illustrations with the two side-profile faces that become a vase after a satin night of lugubrious intercourse. This differential makes one sad and so I have voted in favor to “Can This Campaign” and if the CEO of Chicken Now is reading this at this moment, I’d like to mention that I’m a large fan of your work running the Chicken Now organization, typically eating there on Thursday, and so I’m very qualified as to my belief systems. Please don’t hesitate to reverse your error as it’s probably going to confuse people who have difficulty comprehending dual, competing messages (cognitive dissonance) not to mention reinforcing the popular belief that Chicken Now is run by capitalist pigs obsessed with sticktuitiveness who are hell-bent on confusing the P.U.Be.L.I.Ck.

On Sep.21.2009 at 07:59 PM

Jeff’s comment is:

This redesign happened months ago. Is there something new that’s been done since August?

I agree that the new identity is nothing special and lacks warmth. It’s certainly not appetizing and lacks a friendliness that the more amateurish logo possesses. That doesn’t mean I think the old logo is awesome, it just means the new one is generic.

Generally speaking I find a lot of design “now-a-days” to be too “clean”. It lacks personality. A lot of designers obviously say to themselves, “I’m going to set some very clean looking, big type, choose a vibrant color from the color picker and come up with a quirky, “smart” icon (or avatar as some new marketing guru’s call it - think “Jack” the Cingular avatar which even has a similar color to “Chicky” up there) and I’m done.”

I don’t know if it’s the influence of the computer or if the work is just being generated at the same speed that soap opera actors have to work - but the result is essentially the same.

On Sep.21.2009 at 09:54 PM

Josev’s comment is:

^ I’m with Jeff on this one. I wonder if people would have thought this was “brilliant” if the name Pentagram had never been included. Pentagram can do better than this.

On Sep.21.2009 at 10:14 PM

Mads Jakob Poulsen’s comment is:

Off course it’s better than the original. That was hardly the challenge. The whiteness/cleanness and the more modern look is great,it even looks kind of healthy, but the overall identity is not worth praising..I expect more from Pentagram as well!

And do any of you guys/girls want to see a cute chicke(n) illustration before you eat it? I don’t.. :-)

On Sep.22.2009 at 02:26 AM

Mads Jakob Poulsen’s comment is:

Off course it’s better than the original. That was hardly the challenge. The whiteness/cleanness and the more modern look is great,it even looks kind of healthy, but the overall identity is not worth praising..I expect more from Pentagram as well!

And do any of you guys/girls want to see a cute chicke(n) illustration before you eat it? I don’t.. :-)

On Sep.22.2009 at 02:27 AM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

Nice icon, great rationalisation, but improving on the old brand wasn’t too difficult and well overdue by the look of the store fascia.

But where has the other ‘n’ gone??

chicke now? … Does ‘t make se se?

(Font looks like VAG to me BTW)

On Sep.22.2009 at 07:44 AM

obse.’s comment is:

Still cheap to me.

On Sep.22.2009 at 09:09 AM

Sam’s comment is:

There seems to be some concern regarding the typeface used in Chickenow. Here is a brief survey of rounded type,

See if you can spot the winner.

On Sep.22.2009 at 09:22 AM

Clara’s comment is:

Fresh, live, white-feathered chickens have always been more appetizing to me in advertising. But if you’re going to show it cooked, I’d much rather see a breast, wing or drumstick. Not the head, feet or gizzard. But if we must show the head, I think these colors feel fresher, yummier and less sterile than the orange chicken head as well as clearly identifying with the original chicken head icon.

As far as chiken now vs. chickenow, who pronounces the two ‘n’s in ‘chicken now’ seperately? One ‘n’ is all you need. Way to keep it simple.

On Sep.22.2009 at 10:39 AM

josev’s comment is:

“As far as chiken now vs. chickenow, who pronounces the two ‘n’s in ‘chicken now’ seperately? One ‘n’ is all you need. Way to keep it simple.”

Nobody pronounces the two n’s. But, the color break does make it awkward to read the two words. It separates the n from the word chicken. It reads like “chicke now” to me. Is it supposed to be chickie-now? This tension in the way it reads gets in the way of the communication for me.

On Sep.22.2009 at 12:21 PM

Abe’s comment is:

say this three times fast: brown chicken brown cow

On Sep.22.2009 at 12:38 PM

couchideas’s comment is:

Yellow makes me hungry…How about you?

No seriously, nice job. Fresh and clean and attracts more adults. The old logo was more childlike but in a weird kind of way…

On Sep.22.2009 at 12:54 PM

Yummylicious’s comment is:

I’m thinkin’ Arby’s.

On Sep.22.2009 at 01:32 PM

john.q’s comment is:

dare i say the latest trend in logo design: rounded type. still very legible like most san-serifs, corporate safe, but friendly too.

regardless, looks great!

On Sep.22.2009 at 10:00 PM

kirk’s comment is:

yea, all I can see is Chicken Ow. poor chicken.

On Sep.23.2009 at 01:58 AM

Mario’s comment is:

Sam

Yup. I see what you mean. Thanks for clearing up my question. :)

On Sep.23.2009 at 01:03 PM

Darrel’s comment is:

“chicken-based snacks for mid-mall snacking”

I have nothing. Just felt that line was worth repeating.

On Sep.23.2009 at 01:22 PM

Houston employment attorney’s comment is:

Simple, Sleek, and Universal. Would make sense if they re-designed to go national.

On Sep.23.2009 at 02:30 PM

Andrew’s comment is:

Good to see that cingularman has been reincarnated. -No pun intended.

On Sep.23.2009 at 11:19 PM

Mark’s comment is:

chickenow? Along with the new logo they should’ve given it a new name. Grossnow.

On Sep.24.2009 at 12:22 AM

mm’s comment is:

I’m going to agree with the earlier comments that this is too sterile to be appetizing. It’s cute, iconic, fun and well implemented. But, take a look at the brands that are winning in the food space, the values of organic, fresh, natural and local are all missing from this identity.

I’ll go to the next shop over, you know, that mexican place with the horrible typography because it was put together by some local people who know how to cook, but know little about branding. Mmmm.. food cooked by people not robots.

On Sep.24.2009 at 02:50 PM

Alessandro Mingione’s comment is:

Like so much of Pentagram’s work, the Chickenow identity is stark, typographic and predominantly white. And, like so much of Pentagram’s work, it is simple, clever and iconic. As for the name, I’m a sucker for one-word, concatenated wordmarks like Chickenow, because they’re proprietary, unique and, consequently, easy to Google. Searching for brands like Ziploc, YouTube and jetBlue is a breeze.

Totally agree.

On Sep.25.2009 at 07:51 AM

Alessandro Mingione’s comment is:

wow, looks like I have created a “bug”.

On Sep.25.2009 at 07:54 AM

Frank’s comment is:

Chicken 2.0

Don’t know if that’s a good thing, probably not.

Looks like a logo for a social networking site for chicken.

On Sep.25.2009 at 03:39 PM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

“Nobody pronounces the two n’s. But, the color break does make it awkward to read the two words. It separates the n from the word chicken. It reads like “chicke now” to me. Is it supposed to be chickie-now? This tension in the way it reads gets in the way of the communication for me”

Completely agree Josev.

Just because it may be ‘cool’ to distort the language, doesn’t make it right or aid the communication.

Here chickie, chickie…

On Sep.28.2009 at 03:01 PM

donovan’s comment is:

I read “chokenow” at first glance. Good use of white. All the colors are great.

On Oct.15.2009 at 02:40 PM

Ian’s comment is:

The new logo is prolly just right for the client. It’s a more modern — and certainly more graceful — version of the original.

But that’s not really why I’m commenting. I just had to acknowledge my appreciation of the ‘Mallrats’ reference: “mid-mall snacking.”

On Oct.20.2009 at 05:11 PM

Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:

Chicken Now means business.

Judging from this new brand identity we should expect all the benefits of modern food production and service in the context of tasty chicken delivered en masse. This is not organic or gourmet chicken, this is chicken delivered to the most people at the best quality for the best price.

There is a strong business element in the new look. The identity is fresh and asserts a healthy and vibrant personality. The symbol is powerfully simple. It reflects an essential foundation in chicken that seeks to deliver the most value as effectively as possible.

A simplified approach may have yielded a potentially iconic symbol but it has taken the name a step too far. The name is Chicken Now not Chickenow or Chicke-Now. This design-led solution may be visually neater but it has interfered with the meaning and erodes the overall impact of the brand.

Let’s hope the business systems behind Chicken Now are as robust as this the new identity suggests because this identity has the potential to set the benchmark in the industry.

No bones about it, this identity is really tasty now.

A.

Permalink

On Nov.08.2009 at 10:16 AM

Levinson Axelrod’s comment is:

I guess I must have a shocking ability to disassociate the logo representation of something and the actual product I’ll be eating. Doesn’t upset me so much, and between that and the major brand upgrade I’ll say win.

On Nov.09.2009 at 12:24 PM

Reglan Side Effects Lawsuit’s comment is:

Love the logo, it’s really great work. It’s a little funny that the firm is currently on a roll with fast food chicken.

On Dec.30.2009 at 12:51 PM

r4i’s comment is:

I think both the old and new logo suffer from that, although the new one is slightly better in making the character more abstract. But still the head isn’t that appealing of a chicken part for a restaurant to feature.

On Jan.08.2010 at 08:06 AM

Tina’s comment is:

I was just at the Mayfair location in Milw, WI and there was a BUG in my food- mistake #1 and that is a HUGE mistake to make- disgusting! When I quietly told the girl that was handing out samples- in order to not scare away other customers, she chose to walk to the counter with the bug sandwich and tell the cashier in front of everyone- mistake # 2! The man from the back (I would guess that he was the manager- came out and told me that he would make me a new sandwich- mistake #3 if there was a bug in the first one why would I want another? I nicely said “no thank you- please just refund my money.” This man then proceeded to ring the refund however, did not refund me for the tax of the meal or my soda- mistake #4. Customer service is everything to a company ESPECIALLY if you have BUGS in your food and this was not the way to keep me quiet. I will tell everyone and anyone not to eat here. (Oh and I work for a company with over 3,000 people in 1 building and word spreads fast.)
Hope charging me cost of the tax and soda was worth it, BUG infested Chicken Now.

On Apr.09.2010 at 04:57 PM

generic’s comment is:

“Nobody pronounces the two n’s. But, the color break does make it awkward to read the two words. It separates the n from the word chicken. It reads like “chicke now” to me. Is it supposed to be chickie-now? This tension in the way it reads gets in the way of the communication for me”

Completely agree Josev.

Just because it may be ‘cool’ to distort the language, doesn’t make it right or aid the communication.

Here chickie, chickie…

On Jun.10.2010 at 04:38 PM