Facing Another Smile

Argos is the largest general merchandise and home retailer in the UK with a network of 750 stores throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Known mostly for a catalogue-based selling system, Argos is a multi-channel retailer that lays claim to a 30-year heritage and defined by a unique retail experience. Argos is a high volume, fast-paced and highly effective commercial goods delivery mechanism, servicing more than 130 million customers per year and boasting an annual turnover over £4 billion (US$6 billion). A lightweight brand, Argos is most certainly not.

The front of a typical Argos store is filled with low cost, slightly tacky but modern and organically designed product selection stations, displaying doorstop-sized catalogues and often jam-packed with shoppers brandishing pens on strings to jot down product numbers and quantities on predetermined forms. Goods are then collected at the rear of the store from a small army of uniformed staff summoning up products from large hidden conveyor supplied storage areas or delivered by trucks from larger warehouses later at home.

In addition to furiously busy retail outlets, the Argos website gets heavy traffic with daily traffic averages of 1.3 million hits. The Argos brand trades deeply on economies of scale, accessibility and ubiquity, and customers are encouraged not just to shop for it but to “Argos it.” Given the phenomenal success of such an established brand embraced by the masses it made sense to give the identity a makeover.

This is a total brand refresh steered and created by The Brand Union, who appear to have refined the positioning to a more personal “family retailer,” despite it’s mass consumer status. “Mass-personal” is perhaps an appropriate description of the approach, inspired by the mass customizations available from online brands such as Amazon. A brand that carries perhaps the most inspired smile and against which all brand smiles should be compared. For yet again we are faced with a smiling brand in Argos.

Far from just a logo update this is a complete overhaul of the entire Argos brand identity, led by the strategic idea of “a brand for everyone.” In comparison to the typographically contorted previous brandmark, on the surface the new Argos brandmark is clean, legible and smart, and the overall presentation of the brand appears orderly and well thought-out.

Or, perhaps not entirely so well thought out… the “Helping you live for less” brandline is potentially a hidden demon waiting to be revealed. From it we understand an appropriate “spend less money and get more value” interpretation but a more troubling reading would be “helping you to live to expect less”. This may explain why on the website the brandline is tidied away in a footer.

Given the extensive market penetration and the strength of the Argos brand making it more generic is perhaps a creative opportunity missed. At least in all its typographic naivety the previous brandmark had a distinctive identity. The new identity is unmistakably modern and a step forward from a brand management perspective but the newfound clarity comes at the expense of uniqueness. The evolution of the brandmark into a discrete smile makes some sense. At least it’s a clear idea but it is an idea that is conceptually flat and creatively barren. Argos has been de-cluttered, sanitised and corporatised. The business machine behind the brand has been more consciously and overtly articulated; no longer a faceless mechanism but now sporting a mechanical face.

Argos has been thoroughly rationalised. Everything about the new brand identity makes a little too much sense. Super refinement criticisms of the drawing of the mark are probably wasted. Sure, the type is a little squidgy and the weight a touch too heavy but arguably this helps to make an otherwise clinical and mechanical brand appear more personable and friendly. The arch on the left edge of the “A” is a nice touch but let’s face it we’re looking at yet another clichéd sort-of-face in a logo; a broad and bland smile, vacant eyes somewhere in the counter-forms and a nose conveniently formed by the “gs” descender. Creating a brand personality doesn’t literally mean create a face in the logo.

Otherwise, there is not much to fault in this brand refresh. There aren’t any obvious problems but it’s hard not to shake the feeling that a unique insight was waiting to be discovered and celebrated, that a little brand magic was to be had somewhere and that, perhaps, a facile decision-maker chose the safest option.

Perhaps a distinctive name is enough of a differentiator for a brand of this stature and caliber. Most of Argos’ customers are probably too busy gorging on goods to realise that anything’s changed. They might notice that something is different but they probably couldn’t say what exactly. Perhaps on this occasion a “nice” design, generic brand identity idea and an inane brand personality are all that’s required.

Next in line please…

Thanks to KK Lapper for first tip.

Yotam’s comment is:

Discount Bank in Israel

On Mar.03.2010 at 06:48 AM

Warren’s comment is:

nice execution, but will it increase turnover compared to the last logo? I don’t feel like i understand the companies future direction or ethos anymore than before.

On Mar.03.2010 at 06:57 AM

Daniel’s comment is:

Ironic because I have never seen anyone in Argos smile. It’s the sort of place you go to die.

On Mar.03.2010 at 06:59 AM

Amey’s comment is:

I liked the new logo but the website and other executions are not that great.
And thats why the old one wins.

On Mar.03.2010 at 07:02 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

My, that’s one funky “A” in the old one. For quirks like that and the “antiseptic” nature of the new … I’d stick with the old.

On Mar.03.2010 at 07:32 AM

Brendan’s comment is:

I feel like the smile is getting used more and more? I mean, I guess it’s just taking an underline and curving it a bit so therefore it would be used a lot, but it just doesn’t feel like anything unique anymore.

On Mar.03.2010 at 07:57 AM

Sandbox’s comment is:

Good write up Andrew. There’s something desperate in the smile. Like it’s holding on just before bursting into tears. Helping you live for less - I read into that there’s less to live for, less choice, less reason to want more; quality, excitement, fun. ‘Just accept the mundane and be happy with it’. It’s like the face of the nurse just before she injects you with a sedative.

Mechanically, nothing wrong, although I don’t like the way the blue and red clashes in some instances. They want to like each other, but not quite there.

On Mar.03.2010 at 08:36 AM

Graham’s comment is:

Boring, tacky, and completely appropriate.

On Mar.03.2010 at 08:44 AM

qwertyale’s comment is:

This is a positioning case and probably the client want nothing elaborated. The “downgrade” feeling makes the brand cheapo like other common smiling brands and that is.

On Mar.03.2010 at 08:46 AM

Ryan Paul’s comment is:

Handsome, appropriate, nice execution. Does the job it’s supposed to do; nothing more, nothing less.

On Mar.03.2010 at 09:03 AM

David Airey’s comment is:

Well done with your first write-up here, Andrew.

Note to Armin: It’d be a welcomed gesture if you link back to the contributor website in the post footer (or update the ‘current contributors’ list in the sidebar). Andrew has a wealth of content on his site/blog that I’m sure your readers would find interesting.

On Mar.03.2010 at 09:22 AM

Julio’s comment is:

I like the new brand. I feel too forced the old smile coming from the “A”, now it feels more free. Other thing is that ugly credit card, how can they come to that solution?

On Mar.03.2010 at 09:34 AM

biotoxik’s comment is:

i want one argos in my city :) (Mérida, Yucatán, México)

On Mar.03.2010 at 09:58 AM

Joachim’s comment is:

Is it just me, or is that a machine gun icon on the credit card?

As for the typography on the new wordmark, it’s very uninspired, but more appropriate than the previous one. The previous one is dated, though there is personality.

On Mar.03.2010 at 09:58 AM

Adam K.’s comment is:

They made it worse. The old one feels weird but the new one looks like an attempt to draw a sans-serif Cooper font by a 11 year old. The weights are inconsistent, the lines don’t look straight, and the corners are rounded - hello 1970!

Also the new red is terrible.

Hello, decrease in profits!

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:01 AM

Mark Fuller’s comment is:

I’m really not seeing much of a benefit with this ‘new’ design. I agree with previous comments about the smile being over used as an easy solution to the descending letter. The old logo still illustrates the ‘smile’ shape without being that literal. As a brand trying to move forward; is this really what it needs? Trends change I suppose, wont be long until this looks outdated.

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:02 AM

doozie’s comment is:

While I’m not familiar with the brand, I like the clean and modern feel of the new logo. But it is lacking soul, feels very sterile. Also, the tagline, “Helping you live for less” makes me want to add “time” to the end of it. I think they were going for something like Walmart’s latest line, “Save money. Live Better.” but failed miserably.

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:18 AM

Joe Lamour’s comment is:

Yawn. It is better than the old one though. And yet… yawn.

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:18 AM

Anthony Hawkins’s comment is:

It’s simple and it works for the company it is designed for. Although from a critique standpoint we can say it is unoriginal but for the vast majority of consumers they might not notice or care but yet subconsciously a smile is always uplifting to them.

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:39 AM

Rich’s comment is:

Could the author please stick to design related commentary and spare us the personal anti-corporate, big-box store spiel? (I mean come on…”a more troubling reading would be “helping you to live to expect less””) Argos is big and impersonal and therefore evil, we get it. The design commentary is good though, I just don’t want to have to wade through that nonsense when I read the site. We all know that large companies have one thing on their mind, but the way this post is written reveals more about the prejudices of the author than the vapidness of Argos or their selected design team.

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:42 AM

Brian Son’s comment is:

So instead of swooshes, now it’s smile-swooshes!

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:53 AM

Nate’s comment is:

Not sure why, but the new logo says “gas station” to me instead of home retailer. Does Argos sell gas too? Maybe that’s what the machine gun looking icon is on the credit card?

On Mar.03.2010 at 10:59 AM

Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:

@Rich – Brand New is for opinions on brand identity. A brand identity is made up of more than the visual marks of a brand and so extends well beyond the remit of design. Brand identity includes the marks of language. All types of brand marks determine the experience of a particular identity. Any identity can be usefully held as a brand and only some identities are collective ie. corporate. You assume too much. I am not expressing an anti-corporate sentiment; I’m merely pointing out a potential problem in a fundamental attribute of the Argos brand identity. Most brandlines are meant to be open to interpretation. They are often poetic expressions of a particular experience expressed in words. The more the interpretations relate to the experienced reality of the brand the better. The interpretation I indicated is clearly a problematic interpretation.

@David Airey & @Sandbox – Thanks

Andrew

On Mar.03.2010 at 11:37 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

I like the cleanliness of the logo, but it’s not very exciting. The smile is not convincing, it’s one of them fake smiles.

On Mar.03.2010 at 11:44 AM

grubedoo’s comment is:

It’s not a bad logo but if I see one more smiley face brand I’m going to punch myself in the face.

On Mar.03.2010 at 11:53 AM

track23’s comment is:

*Groan* How many smile logos will we be forced to endure before the fad fades? And this one is especially boring and unoriginal.

On Mar.03.2010 at 12:38 PM

Fábián Gábor’s comment is:

I think the old logo was better. I like how the A connects to the s.

On Mar.03.2010 at 12:42 PM

San Antonio Employment Lawyers’s comment is:

I like the new one, although it is a point of enjoyment for other commenters I think I prefer the fact that A and S don’t connect.

On Mar.03.2010 at 01:10 PM

Rich’s comment is:

@Andrew Sabatier - I detect a tone of derision in your assessment of the work done here that extends beyond branding and culture. From what you wrote, I sensed that you personally don’t much care for the large corporate mentality that seeks to appeal to a broad consumer base.

Beyond twisting their admittedly generic tag line into something negative, you essentially categorize their consumers as gluttonous, dim-witted, automatons who will not “realise that anything’s changed” because they are “too busy gorging on goods”; the merchandise as “slightly tacky”, and the identity as becoming more “sanitised and corportised”. From the tone you take, these characterizations can only be considered as negatives. These seem more like personal than professional assessments.

I understand where you’re coming from but don’t necessarily see these as glaring failures because I’ve come to realize that the generic-corporate approach, while unsettling, is potentially more honest than large corporations that appeal to their consumer base by feigning interest in them or their pet causes. The difference between Argos and others is that some other companies are better at pretending, or hire more convincing stage technicians.

The onslaught of corporate-green-initiatives is a perfect example of consumer manipulation. Does any one of us doubt that when a multi-billion dollar manufacturer embraces the green movement, they do so only because they think it will earn them more profits in the long run by engendering a deeper, if fraudulent, relationship with their customers? Further to that point, does anyone really believe that large companies see each customer as an individual, even though many companies brand themselves as the epitome of individualism?

As consumers I think we’ve become very specialized in what we expect from companies and those expectations have generated a couple generations of corporate BS that we simultaneously detest and crave. Individuals have not yet reconciled their own humanity with the industrial revolution or with the corporate organizational structure the industrial revolution spawned. (Who’s getting cultural now - word.) ;)

You know what? I think you’re right that Argos missed a creative opportunity here. I also think that stores like Argos, Ikea, Wal-Mart, Target, etc…for all their branding are essentially warehouses with a developed front end…meaning a display area with a sales staff. Perhaps the larger mistake is in pretending that they are more than that.

On Mar.03.2010 at 01:23 PM

Daniel Royle’s comment is:

It reminds me a bit of Woolworth’s last attempt at rebranding - or even worse Road Chef! I like the new corporate typeface but I think the logo suffers from a failure of imagination. The icons don’t even seem to have been drawn by the same person!

On Mar.03.2010 at 01:29 PM

Cory ’s comment is:

Rich, I’m fairly certain you read an entirely different article.

On Mar.03.2010 at 01:42 PM

Nisio’s comment is:

Designer fight!!!!! Manbags at dawn!
Jesus I miss the good ol days when posts on this site didn’t end in pointless sniping.

On Mar.03.2010 at 02:16 PM

Larry W’s comment is:

Really nice evolution, and nice work! :)

On Mar.03.2010 at 02:23 PM

Jay Tyler’s comment is:

Is this post sponsored by Argos? It’s reads more like an advert for the place rather than an objective critique of the new brand

On Mar.03.2010 at 03:20 PM

Niall O'Kelly’s comment is:

I thought the article was well written to be honest. Like the author, I have very mixed feelings about this identity. My first thought on seeing it was Amazon, and it’s a sense I cannot shake. It surprises me that Argos would allude to what I imagine to be a major competitor of theirs in such an obvious manner. The streamlined typography only adds to this. While the old mark was something of a visual mess, it did, as pointed out earlier, have a sense of personality and a distinctive quality that this one just does not possess.

I have to guess that Argos are trying to position themselves a little higher in customers minds than they are at the moment (ie very cheap, lack of personal touch, mistrust of product quality) to be more in line with more trusted big box retailers such as B&Q, big box furniture retailers and high street shops (jewellers, small appliances, household items etc) where customers can try out and hold products in hand before purchase, thereby trusting the product quality (and the store) more. It could also attract customers who are comfortable in those types of shops but resist Argos because of its cheap and tasteless (in the sense of being without taste for shopping there) image.

The new mark is somewhat generic and less attention grabbing, so it strikes me that perhaps this is in fact the entire point of this rebrand. By taking the customers focus away from the retailer itself, they may be hoping to focus attention on the product and service aspects. The introduction of the icons and brighter colour palette reinforce this shift, since they command the eye now instead. When a customer does notice the logo they merely see a generic mark that is somehow familiar (from Amazon et al) before forgetting it and happily moving to the next page of the catalogue.

With this in mind, I do still have to wonder why they did not set their sights a little higher with this refresh. I am quite sure that the Brand Union presented many alternatives of typeface and logomark, so it can only be that the leadership of Argos were more comfortable with this safer direction, sold on the smile and inconsistencies without really thinking if it could be better.

Apologies for the length of the post, and for its own inconsistencies… it’s my first time posting here despite reading it from its inception!

On Mar.03.2010 at 03:26 PM

Ivan’s comment is:

“Individuals have not yet reconciled their own humanity with the industrial revolution or with the corporate organizational structure the industrial revolution spawned.”

Erm…I’ve lost you a mile ago :) Anyway, too much effort for a logo created in a MS Calibri.

On Mar.03.2010 at 03:46 PM

Armin’s comment is:

> Note to Armin: It’d be a welcomed gesture if you link back to the contributor website in the post footer

Yikes! I usually do. I forgot on this one.

> (or update the ‘current contributors’ list in the sidebar)

And, yes, I’ve been meaning to do this too.

On Mar.03.2010 at 08:29 PM

Kris Robinson’s comment is:

I just had to laugh at: Buy now, Pay Later… Everytime!

Yeah buy it mister, but you’ll pay for this later! EVERYTIME!

Love it.

On Mar.04.2010 at 01:01 AM

Fiona Flowers’s comment is:

I think the article covers the logo and design clearly; the brand identity and brandlines are part of what the logo signals and should be taken into consideration when designing any logo.

Brandlines can easily be changed, regardless of the many readings and interpretations, the logo however, cannot be easily changed and for this it still says “we are Argos”.

Therefore, I think the update works, it’s clear, it’s easy to see and find, and for the UK a more “Americanized” iconic logo to compete in their native market.

On Mar.04.2010 at 01:59 AM

Jonquils’s comment is:

Longest, wordiest review in the history of Brand New. A few marathon sentences in there. Great use of commas.

Ditto for the byline credit.

Next time, try applying design principles to your written communication.

Whew!

On Mar.04.2010 at 02:04 AM

Michael Wincott’s comment is:

You can see how it’s progressed from the 1980s logo. I don’t like the current version though.

On Mar.04.2010 at 06:50 AM

Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:

@Rich - Derision for the creative opportunity missed, yes. Derision for large brands, branding and culture, no. As per my previous post, most brandlines are meant to be read in many ways. I’ve identified a particularly problematic reading. I haven’t twisted the meaning. In context, the meaning is there to be read.

Large and corporate does not mean a brand is excused from behaving meaningfully and purposefully for individual people. Large should not mean a compromise in depth of brand experience. If anything, large presents opportunities not otherwise available. This opportunity has not been seized in the Argos branding. It is to this that I object and this is my opinion expressed as a branding professional. ‘Personal’ and ‘professional’ are not mutually exclusive in brand consulting. Objectivity is never an option, ever.

@Jonquils – Design has a very limited role to play in determining brand identity. Design is concerned primarily with literal form-giving. Form is determined by imperatives such as the reason the brand exists and the fundamental ideas behind the brand. These are usually determined by creative thinking outside of literal form-giving and so do not require design. To assess an identity these factors need to be considered. In the Argos identity a discussion about design will leave us with very little to talk about. Without this kind of brand thinking design isn’t worth much.

A.

On Mar.04.2010 at 07:37 AM

Jamie’s comment is:

Not branding related, per se, but Argos took the opportunity of this “refresh” to break all existing links and bookmarks to their website and to raise prices by 10-15% in most areas. Perhaps this is a brand repositioning upmarket and upscale now they have a catalogue monopoly with the deaths of Index and Woolworth.

On Mar.04.2010 at 02:42 PM

FG’s comment is:

I think it works for Argos—its customers aren’t necessarily LOOKING for something that looks stereotypically “cutting-edge.” It’s simple, friendly and similar enough to the old logo to be recognisable, and it’s definitely an improvement over the old logo, which is a bit too dated for 2010.

On Mar.04.2010 at 07:06 PM

NFitch’s comment is:

As an American going into an Argos for the very first time last July, I wasn’t quite sure what to think. I couldn’t figure out why all these people weren’t at home using amazon. It seems like such an archaic way to shop.

That being said, i think I smell a lawsuit. The swoosh smile thing looks very similar to the Amazon swoosh smile thing.

On Mar.05.2010 at 04:25 PM

mobobo’s comment is:

wow - is that web site from the late 90’s? cheap and cheesy, crammed and technically lead - which might suit the brand but wouldn’t encourage me to bother digging through to find anything

On Mar.09.2010 at 03:30 AM

Haha’s comment is:

This is hilarious. It’s like taking the Amazon.com logo and merging it with the type aesthetic of a cheap 80’s grocery store.

Amazon: Everything you need, from A to Z:

Argos: Drive to our store, buy some shit from A to S.

On Mar.09.2010 at 06:33 AM

Philadelphia medical malpractice lawyer’s comment is:

Not a huge change but a nice one. Nothing too drastic as to off put long time costumers but also a fresh start and update.

On Mar.09.2010 at 02:57 PM

enrolled agent’s comment is:

A nice change for me. The cleanliness of the new logo and the emphasized smiley could be synonymous with how their customer service operates. I’ve never been to an Argos store myself so I can’t say that for sure.

On Mar.13.2010 at 12:53 PM

ajanta’s comment is:

Note to Armin: It’d be a welcomed gesture if you link back to the contributor website in the post footer (or update the ‘current contributors’ list in the sidebar). Andrew has a wealth of content on his site/blog that I’m sure your readers would find interesting.

On Jun.10.2010 at 04:41 PM