In Brief BY Armin

Follow-up: Art Directors Club

In retrospect I should have originally approached Trollbäck + Company for further details on the new Art Directors Club identity. I typically do but, for whatever reason, I skipped that part of the process. To make things right — especially since the comments were very, let’s say, spirited — and to give the identity the fair overview it deserves (just as the rest of everything we show here) this is a follow-up showing the complete identity system. Whether this makes the logo more palatable or not is, of course, up for discussion. Jakob Trollbäck has shared with us a PDF of the full presentation — of which there excerpts below — and some rationale for their work.

It is cool that there is such a fiery debate about the new identity for the Art Directors Club. It shows that people care, and that is all I care about. It is rare that our work stirs up this much negative emotion. In all honesty, it is very possible that I, too, would have been disappointed if all I had seen was some modified Franklin in a pink bar. However, I’m not sure that I would have used THAT many uppercase words. Being angry somehow always fail to make me happy.

There is fortunately quite a bit more to the new brand than a little bit of type in a rectangle. You can see most of the system in the PDF. The Art Directors Club is hosting over 100 creative events every year. Few people are aware of this because, in the name of creativity, we have always allowed every event to have their own identity. In doing this, we were unfortunately missing an opportunity to build a larger awareness of the club and the wide range of events we are hosting. We have a unique space for events, shows and networking, and the club is deeply embedded in the creative community. How do you condense all this into a logo?

We realized that we had to create a flexible system with a branding element that could be added to every imaginable design across all media. The big challenge was to communicate the brand clearly without forcing the individual creative expressions in a particular direction. The larger and dynamic context that the new logotype is part of gives the club great flexibility to apply its mark. In a way, it may be more appropriate to think of the logo as a label than a traditional mark. Mentally, it becomes a framing device, a wrapper.

The old logo, regardless of its nice history, was often difficult to use and frequently disappeared in the design. It often seemed to emulate a watermark. In addition, its historic personality would often be at odds with the creative concepts from the designers that make all the really amazing posters and invitations for the club. We wanted the brand to bold and full of energy but still not dominate the many compositions, present and future, that it has to live in.

I’m proud of the system. We had a stellar team working pro-bono for many months and could publish volumes about the project. You don’t have to like it, but I hope that after seeing the full system you can at least respect the effort. Lastly, can I point out that unlike most of our other logos, for example TNT and AMC, there is not a single trace of Helvetica in it? I really thought that this might gain us some new friends. I can be so naïve!

Basic identity elements.

The logo has “Elasticity: As long as the boundaries are not violated, you can pimp it out.”

Logo placement.

“Highlighter” styling for communications.

Ads.

DATE: Nov.18.2009CATEGORY: In Brief 98 COMMENTS

Josh’s comment is:

hey man i'm really happy for you, and imma let you finish but... don't pimp it out!!

leave the paint can upright and be careful not to spill it near the logo!

On Nov.18.2009 at 07:10 AM

Bart’s comment is:

Thanks for the update! Having seen the full system did actually change my opninion about the restyle in a positive way. Especially after reading more about the philosophy of changing it the way they changed the brand. Still I have to agree with Josh about the 'elasticity' of the logo. I agree you could pimp it out but I suggest you'd better leave it the way it is...

On Nov.18.2009 at 07:41 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

"We wanted the brand to bold and full of energy but still not dominate the many compositions, present and future, that it has to live in."

It's highlighter pink/blue/purple/green!!

With all due respect, it stands out in virtually every application. Not integrating with the design ... but overwhelming it, especially in the B/W ad.

Highlighter pink will do that. And you know it.

On Nov.18.2009 at 07:50 AM

pq’s comment is:

It's still bad though isn't it? The "label" reminds be of some cosy, cheap, mail-order book club. Worse, it gets lost when added to those posters (well, except for the centered placement).

You know when you see a great poster for an event, with cutting edge photos/type/illustration and then the designer has had to (obviously reluctantly) add an external sponsor's bad, cheap logo to the bottom which then looks lost and cheapens the overall design reflecting badly on the event and the sponsor? Art Directors Club have managed to do this for their own events. Well done.

On Nov.18.2009 at 07:51 AM

Brendan’s comment is:

I'm a pretty young designer, so I'm just gonna throw some things I saw out there...Feel free to shoot them down (but tell me why please!).

The type on the business cards/envelope seems huge! Same with the masthead on the website. I'm okay with big type, but it's so bold and the color is so bright that it dominates the screen.

I guess, after seeing the applications I understand how the logo is supposed to work, and I'm okay with it. Some things I love, like the tape and the "pimped out" variants. But it seems a lot of times like the surrounding type in the ads takes away from the logo, and there are so many different styles for ads and promos that it's tough to see the whole thing as cohesive.

Is it typical to use two sans serifs like that on top of a third that's in the logo? Maybe I'm getting hung up on that.

On Nov.18.2009 at 07:54 AM

Cy’s comment is:

I think it's quite bad, but not as bad as I thought it was before.

On Nov.18.2009 at 07:56 AM

obse.’s comment is:

It's trendy.
And that's not a compliment.

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:00 AM

David H’s comment is:

How does changing the color of the rectangle make this a better design? I think it's just as bad as before, perhaps worse now that I've seen some of their example designs.

Additionally, I think the use of the logo in the provided designs is at odds with the goal for the logo:

"The big challenge was to communicate the brand clearly without forcing the individual creative expressions in a particular direction."

If that was the case, why then do so many go for the obvious highlighter route? Personally, I think that's because that's perhaps because there aren't many other options for this logo.

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:21 AM

tony ferril’s comment is:

Oh! Right. No... wait... still bad.

The poster designs are nice, but I found I still preferred them if you visualize the same design with the old logotype. And the idea of adding paint splats is, to obse's point, trendy five years ago.

Actually now that I think about it the whole thing looks about five years old.

[Ed.'s Note: Comment edited for unnecessary remarks.]

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:22 AM

Damon’s comment is:

However much you show endless quite nice applications, the core mark is still just Akzidenz in a coloured box really isn't it. I'm not sure saying "Yeah, but hey guys you can do whatever you like to it!" quite cuts it. Of course it will handle whatever 'pimping up' you throw at it, it's a box.

The typographic 'highlighter' thing reminds me a lot of stuff by Designer's Republic in the 90's.

All that said, I don't think it's too bad - in fact I quite like the choice of palette. It just reminds me a bit of when fashion designers think themselves into a corner and all they can wear is a black poloneck.

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:22 AM

Brandon Oxendine’s comment is:

Dear ADC,

I wouldn't expect too many more compliments here. Sorry...?

As for me, it got better after seeing everything put together (as I predicted with the previous post), but still is very trendy. It's not necessarily baaad though. It just seems not to fit ADC. Maybe a hip art/design magazine. Maybe

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:25 AM

Blake’s comment is:

This is a great example of how showing the logo out of context changes perceptions. Its pretty rare we see one just sitting on a white background. Only in context does the identity take on true meaning. I still think there was more room to push on this one though, but thanks for the update!

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:28 AM

Art’s comment is:

Pheew.. this was.. generic? Looks very insecure.

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:41 AM

David Brier’s comment is:

As a banner system, it stands out in NYC's very busy backdrop. In ads, it works some... It just doesn't arrive at a special place. Here's my "acid test" for any brand identity:
"Does it provoke the response 'I wish I did that' ?"

This didn't take me to that magical place. It's professional, just not magical.

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:44 AM

cj’s comment is:

I really dislike the highlighter layouts. The application reminds me of the ubiquitous flyers for night clubs and techno djs. I appreciate that they went bold and clean and bright, and I like the logo placement in the upper left, but the type itself is still too generic. the nice thing about the colors they chose is you can always print 4c but you get your "spot" colors of magenta and cyan thrown in for free.

easy, ferril — this is meant to be a place for discussion, not slagging off. starting to sound like sour grapes.

On Nov.18.2009 at 08:50 AM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

Thanks for the expanded view, Armin. And thank you, Jakob for taking the time to stand up for your work and give us an insight.

I still stand by everything I said, regarding the loss of the old identity and the bit of brand equity it had with designers (as demonstrated in the comments section). And I disagree with some of the approaches to a common design parameter (systemic flexibility). But I respect Trollbäck + Company for standing up for the work, regardless. May time prove me wrong.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:22 AM

Josh’s comment is:

Hope the judge's don't go blind looking at those colors on their own materials...

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:23 AM

Chris W’s comment is:

"With all due respect, it stands out in virtually every application. Not integrating with the design ... but overwhelming it, especially in the B/W ad."

I would point out that the B/W ad is a membership ad for the Art Directors Club – it makes perfect sense that the logo is placed front and center and that it stands out.

I'm still not a huge fan of this identity system, but I really appreciate having an opportunity to hear the rationale and being able to see the logo in context.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:26 AM

Doug Wilson’s comment is:

It is nice to see further information about this new design, but I am afraid that the more words and PDF pages needed to explain a logo, the less it actually works.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:30 AM

Spacewalk Creative’s comment is:

I had a similar reaction to the identity as most everyone else. But I have found that I'm better off reserving judgement of something that initially repels me until it has a chance to perform. Especially in the case of new identities, the unveiling of even an entire system is only the beginning. Later, years even, when the system has been made to work in context and adapted to unforeseen uses that invariably present themselves, I often have a very different opinion.

I say, the proof is in the execution. I'll be watching out for it.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:33 AM

Jarrod’s comment is:

Enough with the tape already. Why even bother?

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:33 AM

SonHouse’s comment is:

Seeing it in context and reading the rationale helps me appreciate it a bit more - so thanks for the update. Still think it's too dang big on the website.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:36 AM

Barbara Combs’s comment is:

Whoa, that drippy and painty stuff is way too 1980's. Pathetic. However, the basic box + type is not bad. Maybe just not really good which is a little sad.

Over time one gets used to things and even grows to like them, like bubble skirts or Brad Pitt. And the identity system pdf really does help to see more of the team's thoughts and rationale. Thank you Armin.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:38 AM

PALE FACE’s comment is:

Looks as though this identity has hit it's midlife crisis.

Their previous mark by Paula Scher was much more recognizable and appropriate in terms of target audience. Let me say that in no way am I old and stuffy, quite opposite actually, but this new logo follows on the coat tails of the current trend of modernism coupled with that "street cred" use of the drips, smears and Dayglo colors that just reeks of trying trying too hard. I rather be part of a group that is leading, not following. Please give me some spacing between the words, please give me a color palette that will stick around for a while, please give me a mark that stands up for itself, that separate's itself from the masses.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:51 AM

denny’s comment is:

NICE! they took over the nickelodeon logo!

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:52 AM

Ryan’s comment is:

Seeing it in context doesn't help. It's all very expected.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:57 AM

Blonde’s comment is:

I am clearly in the minority here and don't think it's as bad as some are making out.

Don't get me wrong, it lacks the charisma and the charm of the original, but it is definately a bold move away from it's past. Whether that is a good thing or if it has gone forward at all by doing so is absolutely up for debate.

I think the problem is, it's too far removed from the original and it's real identity is lost in more ways than one. The previous logo was so unique and so well designed, it should at least be referenced somewhere.

But this identity is definitely a clean slate upon which the brand can build, and I dont think many will argue that it is not contemporary, versatile, simple and eye catching. This strikes me as a classic example of breaking away from the past to create a new future.

The one thing I will say is that it is no longer unique (how many other similar logos can we find out there?), and these flouro identities that keep appearing will find themselves dating very quickly. Whether WO's logo will still be en vogue come 2012, is probably the most high profile example I can think of right now.

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:59 AM

NatalieB’s comment is:

@Brendan: I agree with you about the gigantic type on the business cards and website. Sometimes it can be done well but here it just looks heavy-handed and forced. The layouts look very trendy - I feel like I've seen [a better version of] this all before. The "pimped out" versions seem very unnecessary, poorly done, and far from the intended identity.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:06 AM

PALE FACE’s comment is:

@Blonde: I think you hit the nail on the head when you said "...it's too far removed from the original and it's real identity is lost in more ways than one."

The old identity had equity. It had people's trust and allegiance. The new brand throws all the equity out of the window and is asking its members and future members to re-trust, re-connect and re-build their rapport with the bard.

If the previous mark had to change, it should have been an "update" not an overhaul.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:22 AM

Joseph Maguire’s comment is:

Very cool brand guidelines presentation. I do think the interactive segment dominates the brand update, and the highlighter ad design approach gives intuition to the update but. the mark on it's own doesn't say much at all. I think the offerings this studio are very clear they have thought out a powerfully multi channeled brand development. Great work overall.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:25 AM

Ryan Simpson’s comment is:

After seeing that, I think I actually hate the new branding now, instead of simply disliking it.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:26 AM

Juan Barrera’s comment is:

This has to be one of the toughest projects – designing for designers... that takes a thick skin.

Even if I'm not a fan of the logo, I do like the solution. It's flexible and multidimensional in terms of color and execution. I would preferred to see more of a custom (in not hand drawn) typography execution... since to me designing and art direction is about customizing communication solutions to break through the clutter.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:38 AM

grubedoo’s comment is:

Seeing the logo in the context of the brand I don't mind it as much. The logo stands out on some applications and disappears on others.

Although I like the brand, particularly the typography, I agree that it's way too trendy. Sadly, there's nothing unique about it.

The "pimp my logo" applications made me puke in my mouth a little.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:52 AM

Alex P.’s comment is:

In a group of design snobs (ADC), you certainly can't expect please all of them.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:53 AM

Marnie’s comment is:

I also agree with much of Blonde's comment. It's not loathsome, but it does strike me as overly "of the moment." It's hard to imagine either the logo or the system as a whole holding its own for 80 years the way the original mark did.

And, as an in-house designer whose organization's logo is equally long and low, I can say logos of this type fail utterly to stand out in their bug form on outside publications.

Finally, please, PLEASE, can we retire "pimp" as a colloquialism? It's so tired, and cliché, and, at its root, misogynist.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:56 AM

Marnie’s comment is:

Oh! Interesting. The only female in the entire re-branding presentation is a faceless model. No women art directors for you!

On Nov.18.2009 at 11:01 AM

Jakob Trollback’s comment is:

With big hesitation I will try to clarify one last point.

The Art Director's Club will not add drips to the logo. The frames were made to show what you are allowed to do as an individual designer working on an event. You need to have two corners visible, but otherwise you can add whatever you see fit, be it a design element from the Young Guns or Dan Deacon's glasses. The highlighter is just one possible application. If any of you will be working on a branding for an event in the future, it's up yo you what elements of the design to use, and how.

I really appreciate that there is a dialogue and I'm not asking people to agree with the design. The discourse is essential when you work with communication. However, if all you have to say is I HATE IT, it seems like you are throwing away your opportunity to actually make yourself heard with a insightful, intelligent and well formulated comment. I hope this is why you read Armin and Bryony's posts in the first place.

So, thanks to everybody who are taking their time to express a constructive thought. I appreciate it. If your thing is more like -"Big up to me guys, I just told someone he sucked!" How awesome is that! - then I hope you can find a more appropriate forum for your frustration. Respect this great blog!

ps. Funny someone should mention Nickelodeon. Our new design for them is on air now.

On Nov.18.2009 at 11:26 AM

tetra’s comment is:

The "it's bland is because it needs to be applied to many different [events]" thing doesn't do it for me. That's the whole challenge of branding and logo development, isn't it? I'd understand text in a generic rectangle.. but that doesn't mean the type needs to be just as awfully "trendy in 2007".

.. but I'll give you kudos for namedropping Dan Deacon :)

On Nov.18.2009 at 11:46 AM

Joseph Maguire’s comment is:

I think your brand presentation guidelines really showcased that you delivered on a full spectrum of brand development capabilities but I think the overall argument really is the creative direction being trendy, without an original voice. The logo itself is simply a typeface laid out nicely but the devices you used were the logos background. And that works in an advertisement and in other channels but my distaste is when it's on it's own or used as a banner, where's the unique voice, what's the message? When you use it in ad as you have laid out it has more cohesion by using that highlighter effect. Overall I stand by my first statement I am glad your group ditched the Durer mark and took a new unique path.

On Nov.18.2009 at 11:51 AM

Ryan K’s comment is:

After viewing the presentation with the collateral and implementations I dislike the whole thing even more. It seems very childish and and unfinished. Very much like a school project that did get the time and energy it deserved. I'm really not a fan the font and the way it's being used. The extremely thin version reminds me of when everyone was using Helvetica Ultra Light a few years ago, a little behind the times. I feel that an organization like the Art Directors Club should be setting trends in design, not following trends that are already dead and gone years ago.

I'm also a big fan of using magenta, but as an accent. It can be a little jarring, especially the twitter page, ouch.

On Nov.18.2009 at 11:54 AM

meg hunt’s comment is:

It's okay, I appreciate seeing the different applications as opposed to just a box, but for some reason it's awful reminiscent of the work I saw when I was in college. It doesn't seem sure of itself-- almost like it's missing something but it's trying to be extra bold to cover that fact up, if that makes sense. The most successful one to me is the paper expo ad-- I guess it's all that heavy lettering coupled with neon and highlighting all the time just feels like a triple glare on my eyes. I'd like to see more down the road when they've had this identity for a while and could stretch their legs, test its boundaries more.

On Nov.18.2009 at 12:09 PM

Camryn Brown’s comment is:

The visual system is OK, but highly generic. It seems like a look that any old art gallery, nightclub, or magazine would throw together for a flyer / poster. It needs the old logo to balance the blandness and lack-of-ownership that the system suffers from. There's nothing in their that the brand owns.

On Nov.18.2009 at 12:13 PM

Kellie Schroeder’s comment is:

Nope....still grossly devoid of uniqueness or meaning.

On Nov.18.2009 at 12:19 PM

Essani’s comment is:

It definitely helps to see the system! Much better. :)

Sometimes I swear this blog is a place for designers to one up each other with insults toward anything they did not create...

On Nov.18.2009 at 12:32 PM

Joe Wu’s comment is:

I want to like it, really I do. And I can see where it's going and where it's coming from, but I find it so very hard to accept it. Maybe given some time for it to perform its task and in context, I may change my mind. But do I see staying power and timelessness? Not so much. For now... it's kind of an eyesore.

On Nov.18.2009 at 12:34 PM

milo’s comment is:

this approach may push the boat out for a stiff group of lawyers http://www.linklaters.com, not for the creative industry, but then let's face it, the industry is really f**ked - it's a reflection of that.

On Nov.18.2009 at 12:46 PM

Henricus Kusbiantoro’s comment is:

Seen hundreds times this kind of graphic. Now becoming more and more generic. How this is possible for a progressive creative institution such as ADC?

On Nov.18.2009 at 12:59 PM

JD’s comment is:

As an Art Director, I don't feel inspired by this system at all. I applaud the effort, and it's admirable to spend so much time pro-bono. I like the banners, they look great. But as everyone else has mentioned it's far too trendy. Please don't pimp this logo out with the grunge paint splatter of the day, it just doesn't work. I think there's a lot of potential here, but the whole system needed two or three more pushes to get it right. Big type is cool in places, but it has to feel in harmony with the page, and I'm not feeling it. But once again, I dig the energy that was spent on this project. Thanks for giving us a better perspective on this Armin.

On Nov.18.2009 at 01:16 PM

Andrea’s comment is:

Here's my take: as graphic designers, we regularly use layout software. When we were first learning the software, I'll bet one of the very first things anyone "created" was a text box with some text inside of it. Those are our computer design roots...and we grew from there. But boiling everything down to the beginning...and just imagining what could come next...It's like "The Empty Space" (for my fellow theatre geeks).

This is my impression. I'm not casting good or bad onto their identity; just what I, as a designer, "get" out of it.

On Nov.18.2009 at 01:20 PM

Denny’s comment is:

Huge props to Jakob for coming into the proverbial lion's den.
I think I'll warm up to it eventually, but it just takes time.

On Nov.18.2009 at 02:12 PM

Corrupt Network’s comment is:

The logotype on the second slide of the presentation uses a slightly different "r" than the actual logo.

On Nov.18.2009 at 02:23 PM

Charles Riccardi’s comment is:

Wow. Lots of posts on this one.

Love the identity. Definitely presented well, and very well executed. Really like the simple type treatment. Awesome.

Charles

On Nov.18.2009 at 03:14 PM

Cody’s comment is:

I think this ident is awesome. Especially when you look at the broader picture.

I'm pretty sure all the examples were just that, EXAMPLES of how it could be applied. I don't think you would necessarily have use the neon color in EVERY application. it seems everyone is getting caught up on these.

I know if I was designing an event poster with a sponsor list, I would be much more happy working around one line of Franklin than a flimsy circle mark from a hundred years ago.

On Nov.18.2009 at 04:02 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

Still not buying it...

On Nov.18.2009 at 04:09 PM

Matt C’s comment is:

wow, what a load of crap. This looked bad and lazy at first, but I held my comment until more came about.

and here we are: It still blows.
Seriously, page 10 of the PDF, the "Logo-Pimped," are you freaking kidding me? what a joke for such a high caliber design client. it seems like the rational was created after the logo was decided upon, how can we BS our way through this crappy logo? and to only care that the logo is talked about, even in a negative way, is not positive, 2 wrongs don't make a right...? Wake up ADC, you should have a gorgeous logo that all ART DIRECTORS look up to for inspiration, not a thoughtless, closed-eye, 1 hand tapped behind your back design.

good effort ADC

On Nov.18.2009 at 04:58 PM

Steve Xacto Ph.D’s comment is:

I really don't know what's worse.
The lack of integrity in the logo, or that the club actually picked this logo.

Today is a sad day in graphic design.

On Nov.18.2009 at 05:27 PM

b.r.o.o.d.y.’s comment is:

I can't believe all the aggressiveness I constantly see from the commenters on this site. Worst of all, most of these comments are devoid of constructive rationale and objectivity and vastly overestimate their own ability to emit an informed verdict. From time to time I read something intelligent and worthwhile, but I swear this site is coming close to being as infuriating as the last time Armin dedicated an entire post to tell people not to act like raging madmen in Brand New.

As for the identity itself, I have to agree with the consensus that it is lacking creatively. Still, considering that being pro-bono work gives the designers limited resources to work with and that this must have been a difficult client to design for, I can't blame the team for playing it safe. They can't all be winners, right? At least the new identity is functional and it will serve the client much better than the old one did...

On Nov.18.2009 at 09:24 PM

Courtny Cotten’s comment is:

ROCKIN!

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:22 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

A logo always exists in context. It can't exist in limbo. Thus, you can't judge a logo in isolation.

On Nov.18.2009 at 10:37 PM

Alex C.’s comment is:

Earlier, I had default my judgement to Mr. Tröllback. And now that I have had a chance to see the logo in context, I can safely say that I am not disappointed.

Great work!

On Nov.18.2009 at 11:54 PM

grfk_dzgn’s comment is:

Thanks for the hooker's explanation ADC.

Pathetic & cheap.

Paint drips? Really? Wow, you go girl!!

On Nov.19.2009 at 12:35 AM

Iulian’s comment is:

"It is cool that there is such a fiery debate about the new identity for the Art Directors Club. It shows that people care, and that is all I care about"

Sweet Jesus of everything Design, is this the most overused line in the history of art directing, or what?! So he is more interested in buzz than in the client itself.

Some more examples, maybe you'll recognize them:

"Let me start be saying how happy I am to see such interest in [bla bla bla]"

"First of all, I am pleased to see that our work has created such a fiery debate [bla bla bla]"

"It thrills me to see so many people debating over our work [bla bla bla]"

On Nov.19.2009 at 03:35 AM

c2design’s comment is:

ADC,

I agree with the comment above about the mark not being integrated well into the adverts. It does seem as though you are forcing it a bit too much. Placing a green bar around your type to match the green bar around your logo is a design principle but it is not executed well. Am I getting a waft of cheese?

Yes you are using Swiss Typographic principles in these ads and that always goes over well but I think the mark is controlling the the flow of your ads and dominating the message. Perhaps a simple solution of making the bar grey or black and knocking out the type in white and let the ad's message do the work.

cc

On Nov.19.2009 at 08:31 AM

Cory Osborn’s comment is:

Eh. Yawn.

On Nov.19.2009 at 09:02 AM

Mr. Kim’s comment is:

Blah, blah, blah... All that really matters is the final impression or the perception this "look" creates. The strategy or the rationale should be invisible except only to those who know how to read it...

The new brand looks very familiar because we've all seen similar approaches during the past 10 years. As such, it's on the verge (if not already) of looking dated... but until that time... it's good stuff! Besides, if a brand is living, it should be allowed to grow, evolve and adapt because things changes. Which is why it's all about the fundamentals...

As a side note, this is why I believe logo lock-ups and most "rules" in a guideline are BS. They aren't based on anything other then to support an arbitrary design aesthetic, which in itself may not be bad except that people always forget about the spirit upon which it was built (I refuse to use the term "brand DNA" **yuck, puke, arrgh**), and the way people use guidelines are contrary to a brands growth.

On Nov.19.2009 at 09:06 AM

g-sppud’s comment is:

True, showing the various applications help it not be as bad as it is when it appears by itself.

I guess I missed the memo that it no longer matters that a logo be substantial standing alone.

On Nov.19.2009 at 09:16 AM

engage me’s comment is:

still don't like it

On Nov.19.2009 at 01:32 PM

dizeyner’s comment is:

I feel like Im a party of one, but I liked it before the explanation of why they went where they did, because I could see how versatile it could be. Of course I think it helps that I never saw the old logo before this discussion and was not married to the past.

I dont love the primary-ness of the colors...but I do feel like the logo is helping to bring ADCs look and feel into the here and now where it needs to be. that being said, I do feel like the logo on the website is about 75% too large. Size it down and pop it over to the left. Maybe ADC large with Art Directors Club underneath?

Im sure I heard of ADC when I was in college in the 90s...but Im guessing I passed it up because its old look and feel felt old school. Im surmising, because thats what the old logos all say to me. Though let me state again, I dont recall ever seeing them until this discussion came up in a group I belong to.

And lest yee think, old school has anything to do with age, Im over 50. I like the new direction.

I may be a party of one, but I can still dance!

On Nov.19.2009 at 04:05 PM

ROSSO’s comment is:

Seems bland, generic, lazy and such an organization/client should expect a greater and more innovative solution.

On Nov.19.2009 at 04:07 PM

Luc Doucedame’s comment is:

The vicious backlash this redesign received and complete lack of any insight with substance is pretty disappointing. It makes us all look bad when we do what the worst clients would do; react to a very brave, simple, and succinct logo decision with baseless emotional rhetoric. This logo is catering to the toughest crowd in the industry. The naysayers that said "its to simple" or "there nothing there" are the same people that would have scoffed at the apple or target logo. I'm not saying its great - but it certainly isn't bad. But please, if the critics have a better concept, some constructive criticism, a type suggestion, or a better logo - I'm sure we'd love to see it. Based on the following criteria I thinks its doing a pretty good job.

Good design…

- Should be innovative
- Should make a product useful
- Is aesthetic
- Will make a product understandable
- Is honest
- Is Unobtrusive
- Is long lived
- Is consistent in every detail
- Is environmentally friendly
- Last, but not least, good design is as little design as possible

Dieter Rams
Former Design Director, Braun

Respectfully,
Luc

On Nov.19.2009 at 05:22 PM

Shawn’s comment is:

Still not on board. It isn't nearly as timeless as the original and not reflective of the distinguished legacy of the organization.

This treatment has been done and done and done... Why couldn't we have treated the original log in the neo-80's color palette? It would have brought the logo into the current era without throwing out the heritage.

Just a big disappointment. I wouldn't join merely because of the haphazard way they treat their brand. Forever lost.

On Nov.19.2009 at 08:06 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

Dear Mr. Trollback,

These may help ease the pain ---> http://quotationsbook.com/tag/critics_and_criticism/

On Nov.19.2009 at 09:47 PM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

"This logo is catering to the toughest crowd in the industry. The naysayers that said "its to simple" or "there nothing there" are the same people that would have scoffed at the apple or target logo."

Luc Doucedame - I agree totally.

Poisoned chalice this one - I don't think there is a solution out there that would have every designer/typographer on here purring with excitement.

On Nov.20.2009 at 04:07 AM

SAS’s comment is:

CONNECT | PROVOKE | ELEVATE is such a lovely mantra – what a pity they didn’t somehow try to convey any of these objectives in the logo-or at least somewhere in the roll-out. As the Art Director’s Club, you would expect something a little more unexpected and inspired. It’s not terrible, but it wouldn’t make me sit up and take notice – or make me want to, have to, NEED TO be part of it.

I agree with the comments that there is something a little insecure about it. The placement in the top left looks a little awkward and claustrophobic to my eye and the colours are too feminine.

It reminds me of the logo for the show Cream Cartel here in South Africa - at least they use a font that is a little more interesting/different tho. Not that I think it’s a great logo either…

But if the brief was to create a brand that’s clean, simple and won’t steal the show, then maybe this design has fulfilled that objective quite well.

On Nov.20.2009 at 05:54 AM

Paul Rand’s comment is:

I am still not sure which logo is worst?

a) The 2012 London Logo
b) The ADC logo
c) All of the above

On Nov.21.2009 at 04:00 AM

adam gibson’s comment is:

in my opinon — this is an underwhelming result for an organization that is supposed to inform and educate others in the wider population of the importance of design.

to me, all the touch points you have shown in the pdf further dilute the brand's power, and with so many different type styles and layout variations/compositions I feel that the whole identity lacks any true, recognizable style. and that page with the dripping paint, i don't know what to say there? are you having a laugh?!

On Nov.21.2009 at 03:17 PM

eric’s comment is:

why is the r different?

On Nov.21.2009 at 04:21 PM

Mark’s comment is:

Now that I've seen the entire thing, I think it's
s a definite improvement. Thank you Armin for elaborating further on this rebrand. This proves first impressions aren't always accurate.

On Nov.21.2009 at 05:41 PM

Andrew’s comment is:

I'm willing to cut the logo some slack, but the new website needs serious work.

http://www.adcglobal.org/

That logo is about 20 times bigger than it needs to be. I understand the need to call attention to the new brand, but I don't think it needs to be viewable by the guy standing on the other side of the room. Treatment of type and margins seems to have been paid little attention, and seeing Verdana was kind of surprising, considering that most design sites have long ago ditched it in favor of Arial or Helvetica, which render more cleanly.

Furthermore, with all this talk of a branding system, why no apparent branding system for the web? I'm struggling to see the consistent elements between the multiple domains (i.e., ADC Global vs. http://www.adcawards.org/) which seem to use entirely different stylistic elements, and even different page widths.

Mr. Trollback talks about the identity being less important than its applications. Doesn't it then make sense to do a stellar job on the most used application, the website, since more people will likely experience the brand in that context than will see the print campaign?

On Nov.22.2009 at 12:29 AM

kyl3’s comment is:

well, I thought I understood what an art director was until the interactive agency I worked for(as a senior art director) was acquired by a large ad agency. Suddenly all the other 'art directors' weren't really designers. Maybe this is their logo. ;)

On Nov.22.2009 at 08:49 AM

Josh’s comment is:

So late to the party.

Large implemented identity design is so hard and I want to give Trollback + Company a pass, but I feel it's sort past the point in identity design where you can just do something like this and get praise.

I know there are a few in the crowd that are asking why it isn't designed. It really is but in your burst, Avant Garde, lion crest world this is what we do practically in the design field, for money (or not) in this situation. Needless to say its hard to find an original and pliable aesthetic that can be pulled off in such variety as this is (or others like it). I think what it really lacks is just a zest of higher level concept. Something not immediate noticeable or just grows on you like the Hold Steady.

But I'm a with anyone on the new website. Dude, I did the beveled edge shit on my first redesign(second website ever) and I used Kabel. http://is.gd/51x8F, but come on! I guarantee someone great would have given a weekend to create something more verbose and typographically sound. And we're the ones that advocate the value of perception.

On Nov.23.2009 at 12:38 AM

Mike’s comment is:

First off, wow, what a tough project! In a world that is now saturated with marks its not an easy task. I like a lot of whats going on visually. The logo truly works well when combined with a lot of the material. That being said and ironically for a logo, it just doesn't work well on its own. But I am assuming that in most applications people will be seeing the this in conjunction with the other material. So my question is, do we need to be more reliant on design elements of our collateral to emphasis what should be a strong logo?

On Nov.23.2009 at 09:17 AM

shiftklick’s comment is:

My view is that logos are part of a wider universe that is the brand identity. The traditional concept is sticking the logo in a corner every time in every application. I'm not sure if that is still effective today. Strictly my opinion and I maybe wrong. If some people subscribe to the traditional view, I respect that. But I want to move on with the concept of what a logo is. Feel free to disagree without being disagreeable.

On Nov.24.2009 at 01:22 AM

monomatica’s comment is:

Seeing the logo in the context of the full Brand Identity System with creative executions always makes it better-looking, and makes more sense. I like some of the ideas and simplicity, but I still think it's too basic. I loved the original logo refreshed by Paula Scher and feel the complete departure is kind of depressing.

On Nov.25.2009 at 05:31 PM

David Heasty’s comment is:

Some points that I think are missing above.

In my relatively short career (the last 10 years) I’ve witnessed 4 different ADC logos--the carbon copy Albrecht Durer monogram, Alexander Gelman’s cube millennium identity (still visible above the entry), Paula Scher’s Durer redesign and the latest effort. A clearer explanation of the organization’s goals for this redesign would be welcome here. We are told all the time that logos with a long legacy lend credibility, instill loyalty, etc. ADC had a logo with a legacy (the Durer monogram) but has decided to replace it. Why?

The new logotype forces an obvious comparison to AIGA’s logo—which is also a pretty straightforward solution of type within a box. AIGA’s logo has served for many years as a neutral signoff on materials. The new ADC logotype could be utilized in a similar way as long as the “dialed up” color palette and typography does not get in the way of everything else.

Many of my positive associations with ADC involve encountering their nicely designed promotional materials produced by some famous designer of the moment. I’m thinking about giant posters that came in the mail (remember those days?) that looked so good that you wanted to hang them up immediately. The best of these inspired, and ultimately seduced you into spending $$$ on events and entry fees. Since these organizations serve the design community, maybe their priority should be to appear as sympathetic patrons of exciting design. Their identity is really only secondary to this goal and indeed shouldn’t take away visually from whatever other magic is happening on the page. I’m trying to imagine this logo and the day-glow on ADC’s iconic promotions from the past--by the likes of Paul Rand, Victore, Todd St John.

Maybe the club could have gone one step further and done away with an identity completely, and let their investment in quality collaborations with designers on promotions, exhibitions and events speak for themselves?

On Nov.25.2009 at 08:07 PM

carmin wit’s comment is:

This only made it worse. I am still uninspired. I am still bored. Please get out into the world and talk to people who might benefit from the ADC and ask them why they're not joining and ask them what would make them join. If we're lucky, this logo will be garbage by 2013 and hopefully then somebody will have managed to do meaningful legwork that exists outside of boxes. I know you're a big name Mr. Trollback, but perhaps you should come down from your mountain for a bit.

On Nov.26.2009 at 01:30 AM

Joshua Drake’s comment is:

I'm a fan. This new identity made my heart race and I wanted to rush out and fly to NYC to participate in the events. I certainly think this system works in many many applications and looks sharp. I love the highlighter treatment.

The typography, colors, and layouts remind me of Art Forum magazine. This is a good thing.

I agree the web site could be refined. Low-hanging fruit would be to replace the Verdana with Arial, or to employ the new TypeKit technology to use a more fitting, non-system typeface.

On Nov.29.2009 at 01:39 PM

mleland’s comment is:

Looks a lot like the quick portfolio site I launched early this year (especially the b/w ad): http://www.mleland.com

It didn't feel original when I did it; certainly doesn't feel original here.

On Dec.02.2009 at 04:10 PM

Phanyxx’s comment is:

Hmmm... Still don't like it.

On Dec.03.2009 at 02:27 AM

Terry Biddle’s comment is:

I'm not as disappointed by this as I once was now that I see the full system, but I continue to be disappointed by the lack of creativity with typographic treatments.

If we're using a type-only treatment, I would "at least" like to see more creativity with the letterforms. There's lots of great new typefaces on the market every year, and I would think we'd like to encourage art directors and designers to be "less conservative" with typography. :)

That helps feed the rest of the design community as well at the end of the day, by supporting our fellow brothers & sisters in the type struggle. ;)

On Dec.03.2009 at 01:42 PM

Katie’s comment is:

Sorry, love it. Love It.

On Dec.04.2009 at 12:45 AM

r4i firmware’s comment is:

I am a fan of the Art Directors Club, and was thrilled to know the identity changes made. The logo and the design with the new identity are all just awesome. Way to go.....

On Dec.08.2009 at 04:19 AM

Alexander Greyling’s comment is:

In South Africa we have a word for this – kak – that means human or animal excrement. In my book, the Art Directors Club brandmark fails all the sevensentials™ (seven essential elements) of a successful brandmark.

1) A brand name that is a proper noun, made up with no more than four unique characters, not descriptive or generic and speakable.

2) A recognisable brand symbol

3) A single distinctive brand colour

4) A descriptor that could be rolled into one

with

5) A slogan

6) A custom designed typeface for the brandname

7) All the above arranged in a visually pleasing format that some people call God's signature, the Golden ratio.

Sad thing is there is unlimited talent to supply the above and so create the perfect brandmark for ADC.

This also proofs once again that art directors are extremely competent brand promoters but poor brand creators. Brand creation should rather be left for the true specialists in the field of branding.

Alexander Greyling
Author of
Face your brand!
The language of visual branding explained

On Dec.12.2009 at 05:49 AM

Alexander Greyling’s comment is:

@Paul Rand, I whole heartedly agree with your comment although I think as professionals the ADC designers should know better. See my comment at http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2009/11/24/London-Olympics-Hot-Pink-Mess-Logo-Fails-With-Millennials.aspx

On Dec.22.2009 at 09:41 AM

Andreas’s comment is:

I actually like the ADC rebranding even less now, having seen the full programme. It looks cheap, tasteless and cliché. Very unfortunate as it represents an organisation that is suppose to stand for the exact opposite. Unfortunate indeed.

On Dec.23.2009 at 01:37 PM

Stephen M’s comment is:

As a web dude any light the pdf presentation could've brought is undermined by the website. I don't know who came up with the type blocks / 45-degree lines bkgrnd design meme but its over.

The purple drop-down menus are horrendous. Is this supposed to be edgy? Maybe I'm not art-directory enough.

On Dec.28.2009 at 05:33 PM

ADC’s comment is:

I had seen ADC change their logo for atleast 3 times now.
Whocares anyway. each time it gets worst.
Pro bono work yeah...that's what you get.
I used to work as an intern in there, its all about politics. You think those company get into the book because the design was good? think again! whoever in the board or the new president, always want to do some new stuff for worst or for better. Good Luck! ADC is a muppet on a string. too many cooks in the kitchen, and the food taste nasty!

On Dec.28.2009 at 08:05 PM

me’s comment is:

It makes me think why they are working on a new identity again. I was told this by an ADC staff two weeks ago.
..feels like a failure

On Jan.15.2010 at 05:06 PM