intl. review by Clinton Duncan posted BY Brand New

Monospace Theatre

Griffin Theatre Company is a new writing theatre in Sydney, Australia — that is, it focuses on producing newly written, original plays. A risky venture in a world where producers can put the Wizard of Oz on stage Monday and order their yacht on Tuesday. Approaching thirty years in business and looking to refurbish their facilities, the Company decided to rebrand, generate new interest in their brand and loosen the purse strings of donors in these troubled economic times. Turning thirty can be stressful, gone are your twenties, those promise filled days of limitless potential. Being 2009, it means all the 30-year-old brands for the next decade were designed in the 1980s, that terrible decade where good taste hid under a rock, cowering in fear.

This new identity doesn’t cower in fear at all. In fact,Interbrand’s Sydney office has challenged Griffin to visually strut their stuff, just as their challenging productions do inside the theatre. From Interbrand’s case study:

As you wait for the opening lines in the pitch black of the theatre, you always know to expect the unexpected. And as each new story starts, you slip outside of your comfort zone. You stand on the edge of the cliff and hurl yourself into the deep end. Anticipation meets exhilaration, fear gives way to abandonment. Your senses adjust to an unknown world, and you enter an unfamiliar stage… The brand responds to these emotional highs and lows through the metaphor of “the deep end,” and with an identity that allows Griffin to express its own creativity and personality through words.

The way design companies write case studies could fill an entire opinion piece of its own, so let’s stay focused on the design.

The solution is wordplay, an approach that aligns perfectly with Griffin’s focus on new writing. Lines of large, monospaced sans serif typography create a dramatic, dare I say epic, backdrop, much like a set in the theatre. By arranging horizontal type and turning “on” one letter per row, you spell out a word vertically. As we say in Australia, noice (nice).

It’s an old trick yet appropriate and noicely executed. However I wonder if at any stage the question was asked, “Why not a cute little Griffin?” Obvious yes, but at times the typographic tricks of the identity system confuse or distract. Will the mark reproduce as well in small scale as a McDonalds’ Arches or Nike’s Swoosh? Definitely not, but one imagines the amount of material this brand produces to be of a much more manageable scale than a corporate behemoth. Also, from looking at the mark alone, it has an odd touch of the 80s’ architectural practice to it, one imagines the venue is a rigorous rectilinear affair, rather than a historic stable at the bottom of the unfortunately named alley, Nimrod Street.

When considered in context of a small arts organization, with an even smaller budget for promoting itself, this concern becomes fairly substantial. Clearly the designers have opted for the “design an identity system, not a mark” philosophy. Overall, it does the job. The result has the necessary level of sophistication this sort of client deserves. Whilst it may not hit the lofty mark of the office’s previous work for AWARD it’s left this author in "anticipation, exhilaration, fear and abandonment" for Interbrand Sydney’s third act.

Daniel Kent’s comment is:

Stacked type done well. I like seeing it being used throughout the pieces. The business cards are my favorite. The dimensions of the cards are nice. Nothing groundbreaking but very nice.

On Dec.28.2009 at 01:45 PM

andy’s comment is:

Love the idea behind this, very well thought out and looks like it has serious legs to run - my only problem is the word “fap” which stands out like a sore thumb in the middle of the main identity - if you dont know what it means then you either have a healthy amount of time away from the internet or Im possibly on it way too much.

On Dec.28.2009 at 02:30 PM

Mojo’s comment is:

I hate vertical text. Reeks of someone trying to be creative, but falls short imho.

On Dec.28.2009 at 02:35 PM

Huntley Brinkley’s comment is:

Very nice, gives client a distinctive look. My only concern is the over-use of the main typeface. A secondary font that was easier on the eyes would give this design more room to grow.

On Dec.28.2009 at 02:37 PM

Quinn Ianniciello’s comment is:

Andy… thank you. I didn’t want to be the only one to mention it! :)

On Dec.28.2009 at 02:56 PM

David’s comment is:

Fantastic work, fitting for a cultural institution like this one.

I personally dislike the colors chosen for the identity, especially on the cards i think it looks rather cheap.

On Dec.28.2009 at 02:59 PM

Doug Bartow’s comment is:

H T R
A O E
R     A
D     D

On Dec.28.2009 at 04:05 PM

Steve Rose’s comment is:

It intrigues my mind initially, but after a while it’s just too difficult to figure out what it all says. One puzzle is fine, but now I’m bored with trying to read it.

On Dec.28.2009 at 04:09 PM

buruno’s comment is:

A bold and sleek solution, despite being difficult to read, etc. Plus, it brings a kind of terminal-ish appeal for me — speaking as an amateur programmer.

On Dec.28.2009 at 04:28 PM

Impossibly Stupid’s comment is:

It’s OK for what it is but, like andy says, it invites people to find “words” where none were intended to be, meaning you end up being a slave to combinations that won’t have KCUF lining up in an undesirable order, and countless others. I’m counting the days before the new logo hits Fark.

On Dec.28.2009 at 04:42 PM

Katie’s comment is:

The ads made me want to see those plays, and I fucking hate plays, so they get my vote. Very nice.

On Dec.28.2009 at 05:26 PM

elisa’s comment is:

It is hard to read, I was taught in school to veer away from vertical text. I like the idea behind the marketing campaign but as a logo, not very good.

On Dec.28.2009 at 05:31 PM

stacked’s comment is:

GCGE
RORX
ENEE
ACAC
TETU
P T
T I
O
N

On Dec.28.2009 at 06:27 PM

stacked’s comment is:

Great concept,great execution.

Sorry previous messed up.

On Dec.28.2009 at 06:30 PM

Josh’s comment is:

what katie said.

On Dec.28.2009 at 07:26 PM

damon’s comment is:

rules are meant to be broken, except “never stack type”

works ok as a design system, but it’s an ugly logo on its own.

On Dec.28.2009 at 07:32 PM

bjornyeo’s comment is:

is it meo r are there just more t ypos inthis articel than ususual?

On Dec.28.2009 at 08:14 PM

Anonymus’s comment is:

F A P

On Dec.28.2009 at 09:44 PM

Nate’s comment is:

E
P
I
C
F
A
I
L

On Dec.28.2009 at 09:52 PM

Paul’s comment is:

love it.

effective and stylish.

On Dec.28.2009 at 11:56 PM

Thi Gomez’s comment is:

I like it.
Looks good.
Yummy.

On Dec.29.2009 at 03:14 AM

tobias b köhler’s comment is:

PIWC
ETOH
RWRI
HOKN
AU E
PLIS
SDNE

I, too, miss the cute little griffin.

On Dec.29.2009 at 03:31 AM

Bill’s comment is:

It looks nice and all, but I agree with previous posters that you get bored after reading one or two puzzles. Giving me a headache really..

On Dec.29.2009 at 03:50 AM

Alexander Greyling’s comment is:

Again the Big Mistake – confusion between Brand Creation and Brand Promotion. No brandmark, just a bunch of type too cleverly arranged that promotes nothing. Will this be an endearing and memorable brand in five years or one year or even the next day? Suffers from the same design disease as AOL, sorry Aol. or whatever.

Seems the only criteria for designing brand identities these days is to recklessly break all the rules for the sake of being different, no matter the result or cost to the brand or it’s future. This design disease should be called Promiscuous Brand Creativity.

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

On Dec.29.2009 at 04:05 AM

Adam Bestwick’s comment is:

Brave, but a ‘brand system’ is not a brand identity. It’s only part of it.
By tying their hands to a ‘type-only’ solution makes the stand-alone identity very weak.

As a consequence, the poster collateral looks great and typographically considered but the brand in isolation looks like lines of random ‘code’.

Personally I think the typography could have still worked alongside a ‘real’ identity marque as part of the brand toolbox, and I wonder whether the design team will be as happy with it 4-5 years down the line.

In a similar way to the ‘ART DIRECTORS CLUB’ brand a few weeks back - you won’t see this logo appearing in any of the great logo books that’s for sure.
Only in execution does it come to life.

On Dec.29.2009 at 04:35 AM

norwegian’s comment is:

Their old logo works better. I cant believe Interbrand did this.
Weak concept. Even weaker execution.

On Dec.29.2009 at 06:32 AM

andys’s comment is:

what typeface is that? letter gothic?

On Dec.29.2009 at 08:27 AM

heather’s comment is:

it’s neat word play and a good concept, although i think i’ve seen it before?, not sure if it’s a great logo.

On Dec.29.2009 at 08:46 AM

Nathaniel’s comment is:

It all looks great but yeah, I hate vertical type.

On Dec.29.2009 at 08:49 AM

Firman’s comment is:

I agree with Andy.
The word “Fap” is quite concerning although quite a colloquial term.

On Dec.29.2009 at 09:05 AM

San Antonio Employment Lawyers’s comment is:

I really like it, not to mention it can be redone a million times and if done right never look to redundant.

On Dec.29.2009 at 09:48 AM

Von K’s comment is:

I like the type treatment on the materials. It makes a good system and the possibilities are broad but still have enough consistency to be “on voice,” IMO.

The logo, though, falls short for me. In addition to being confusing to look at and hard to read (I know it’s first job is to be a mark and being read is secondary, but it is made of letters, so reading is the first thing people will try to do with it). Not to mention that the first “word” I read was “FAP.” Kind of bad, yes?

On Dec.29.2009 at 10:46 AM

Von K’s comment is:

Off topic (sorry),

I always enter my email address, but my name never comes out as an email link—I must be doing it wrong?

On Dec.29.2009 at 10:49 AM

Rx’s comment is:

wow, this is a big, huge, giant CLICHÉ.

On Dec.29.2009 at 10:58 AM

Marcelo Teixeira’s comment is:

Very unpleasant! the worst choice.

On Dec.29.2009 at 11:11 AM

MarcusVss’s comment is:

I like it, and I have no difficulties reading it. But I think it may get kinda boring within little time

On Dec.29.2009 at 11:18 AM

brian’s comment is:

Eh, some of the stuff works and is ok…but…that logo, especially on its own is um…how should I put it…not good! Makes the rest of the campaign “lack-luster” even though some of the pieces are executed better. Vertical type for a logo is a bad choice.

On Dec.29.2009 at 11:22 AM

Jarrod’s comment is:

Wow. So much fap-this, hard-to-read-that…

It’s great. The colors are great, the execution is great, the collateral is great. It’s distinct and memorable, the words are evocative, and-to echo Katie-it makes me want to see a fappin play, and I don’t even like plays.

(Sorry if my usage of fap is off, I really don’t know what it means.)

On Dec.29.2009 at 11:31 AM

kelisaid’s comment is:

Sooo… would someone be denied a position at this company if their first and last names shared no similar letters? I see a potential problem with consistency if they can’t arrange their name in such a way that makes sense with their “logo/brand” on the business card.

Just wondering

On Dec.29.2009 at 12:35 PM

Jacob’s comment is:

I was going to comment on how FAP is right in the center, and now it’s the only thing I can read, but other people beat me to it.

Was this a big mistake like OGC? or was it intentional…….(maybe like OGC was?)

If it was intentional, we have some sick minded cynical designers, but if it was by mistake, we need to have more sick minded designers who can catch “mistakes” like this before its printed and other people catch em.

Either way, this is an awesome finished product, and it makes you more excited as you go from the simple logo to all the rest of the ways they use interesting typography and layout.
All the people who complain about “hard to read” etc. should be grounded and have their fonts confiscated for the remainder of the week. Look at Paula Scher’s (acclaimed) typographic work with New York Public Theater and say you’d like that to be “easier to read”

:)

On Dec.29.2009 at 12:39 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

Wow. Are we in The Matrix or what?

On Dec.29.2009 at 01:16 PM

Andrea’s comment is:

I LOVE IT!

As a theatre nerd, I think this is great. Especially the tie-in with new plays, new playwrights and the crossword puzzle-esque format.

A play is PLAY, and this identity captures it. I have seen so many boring, cutesy, “let’s-incorporate-the-comedy-and-tragedy-masks-I -bet-no-one’s-ever-done-that-before!” theatre logos out there I can’t tell you HOW refreshing this is.

Bravo!

On Dec.29.2009 at 01:23 PM

Paul C’s comment is:

That is pretty funny - I had no idea what FAP was so the word that stood out to me was NEY, which is a Persian flute. Now that I know what FAP means, well, I still like this except for the logo.

On Dec.29.2009 at 01:59 PM

Soda and Candy’s comment is:

I think it looks great, especially in the collateral atuff.

I have no idea what fap is, possibly it is an American slang term? And being that obscure, most likely the theatre’s Australian audience won’t have an issue with it either.

On Dec.29.2009 at 02:08 PM

Soda and Candy’s comment is:

I think it looks great, especially in the collateral stuff.

I have no idea what fap is, possibly it is an American slang term? And being that obscure, most likely the theatre’s Australian audience won’t have an issue with it either.

On Dec.29.2009 at 02:09 PM

Soda and Candy’s comment is:

noooo, the dreaded double post. Sorry!

On Dec.29.2009 at 02:10 PM

Darrel ’s comment is:

“Fap”. Tee hee.

Still, much better than what they had.

On Dec.29.2009 at 02:11 PM

MSGDS’s comment is:

It’s always hard to read vertically, especially when it’s a long name, but for a writing theatre this concept works. Seeing all the design elements makes for a great identity system. Nicely done.

On Dec.29.2009 at 02:59 PM

Brian Son’s comment is:

Anytime type is used in an atypical way, people complain about it being unreadable (client and everyone else). Is it that difficult to read up and down versus left and right? Not really. The criss-cross of words may confuse people, but the main word or event is clearly distinguished from the rest. Just because the extra adjectives are does not mean you have to read them.

As for “fap” I had to look that up. I’m 23 and I don’t know what that is. Is that an onomatopoeia? Because I’ve never heard that sound before.

On Dec.29.2009 at 03:12 PM

Chris Campbell’s comment is:

Just wanted to point out that the brand wasn’t designed in the 19880s

:)

On Dec.29.2009 at 03:23 PM

jm’s comment is:

Nice one.
A challenge to pull off, and yes challenging to read…sometimes, but worth the effort.

Congratulations to the design team, I am sure this would have a been a bitch to sell to the client. But look they have a real, ownable identity!

On Dec.29.2009 at 06:40 PM

Tim Gengler’s comment is:

My impression of Interbrand has always been that they’re too “loosey-goosey” in their logo development but are absolutely professionals at building the most appealing brand possible around it. This further cements that view…

If I were a fan of the logo or was already in the theater, those collateral materials are fantastic. The logo itself, though, isn’t too thrilling, and I would have no idea what that bus shelter is advertising.

On Dec.29.2009 at 06:42 PM

Chris Bowden’s comment is:

What happens on the business cards if none of the letters of your first name are in your last name?

overall quite nicely executed but maybe over-thought a little ?

On Dec.29.2009 at 08:05 PM

MarcusVss’s comment is:

Sure some Australians will notice the FAP too.
I’m brasilian and know what it is =P

On Dec.29.2009 at 09:07 PM

Katey’s comment is:

FAP, really? Really? Do people have to present things in meetings amymore? Does anyone ever really look at things? That’s horrid. Fap fap fap.

On Dec.29.2009 at 10:25 PM

Andrew Keir’s comment is:

Waaaay too difficult to read.

On Dec.30.2009 at 02:30 AM

Colormist’s comment is:

I like it, but cringe at the FAP. Little boys of all ages around the globe are snickering.

On Dec.30.2009 at 09:44 AM

WilhelmR’s comment is:

Incredibly bad readability, but i love the whole concept :)

On Dec.30.2009 at 10:47 AM

b.r.o.o.d.y.’s comment is:

It’s not perfect, but this brand has a much more solid criteria and execution behind it than most of the ones we saw this year.

The logo *is* awkward, but it does have the saving grace that people will eventually just read the first horizontal line (GTC) as an acronym.

On Dec.30.2009 at 10:50 AM

M’s comment is:

I’d like to take this opportunity to use some buzzwords (and some I made up) to criticize kids these days and whatever you design fiends are coming up for brands these days. Also, buy my book.

On an actual note, I think it’s a bit hard to read, and I’m not crazy over the typeface, but I love the thought put into it. Minus the case study excerpt. Now I feel like playing Scrabble.

On Dec.30.2009 at 01:13 PM

Glen’s comment is:

I didn’t know what “FAP” meant (thank you urban dictionary!) but the first thing I saw, being ex-military was “FTA”.

Bad concept, bad execution, no matter how hard I try I can’t do anything but try to find abbreviations in the stacked words.

On Dec.30.2009 at 05:14 PM

High-maintenance logos: The gift that keeps on giving’s comment is:

A squeeze-every-penny gimmick employed by too many design studios of late is to sell the client a brand or logo ‘system’ that requires constant care and supervision by the creator, -for each and every application if possible- thus insuring regular paychecks for the studio …Until the client gets wise.
Based on the examples above, I think both the salesman and the customer are already tiring of the constant ‘repairs’. Hate to be a Debbie Downer but this brand just wasn’t built to last.

On Dec.31.2009 at 02:37 AM

Dave’s comment is:

Haha hi mainatainance. You don’t have a leg to stand on. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Nice site.

On Dec.31.2009 at 07:47 AM

maybe’s comment is:

Is it just me or does this sound like a sycophantic write up?

“Whilst it may not hit the lofty mark of the office’s previous work for AWARD it’s left this author in “anticipation, exhilaration, fear and abandonment” for Interbrand Sydney’s third act.

Firstly - have a look at the award winning work of Moffit.Moffit for Demo Magazine - If you’re going to copy, maybe openly acknowledge the source.

http://www.moffittmoffitt.com/demo-magazine/

Secondly, AWARD like Griffin are both arts organisations and no doubt pro-bono clients for Interbrand. This means the work should be new and challenging in design, not second rate.

AWARD - was an interesting concept, executed terribly, and griffin is an okay idea, that is stylistically copying other recent Australian design work.

Good? Maybe not so.

On Dec.31.2009 at 08:57 AM

Estel’s comment is:

I like the concept, and the execution; the visual identity system.
But… I’m confused. At school (and after school) I was told not to use vertical text by teachers I admire and respect for their good work (http://www.manifiestofutura.com/), because it was hard to read and not very aesthetic. But this does not look bad when looking at the whole system. It does give me a headache after a while, though.

On Dec.31.2009 at 09:10 AM

Stuart McCoy’s comment is:

The ‘19880s’ eh? Logos from the future…way in the future it appears. I guess this means the world won’t end in 2012 then.

On Dec.31.2009 at 02:30 PM

Steve Kennedy ’s comment is:

For me, the idea isn’t vertical type. It’s pretty much all horizontal type with a single word running vertically. The logo all runs vertically but that’s not the whole system.
I remember learning a lot of things at school that were wrong. I learned that 12pt is the size you should type in and full stops should have a double space after them.
We should as designers be looking to challenge conventions and question the rules.
The Moffit work is certainly not the first time I’ve seen vertical type and griffin won’t be the last. Surely they don’t claim this as their invention otherwise I’m sure the Japanese would have something to say.
We’re going to be in a tricky spot if we start ruling out all typographic devices and call it copying. What about all the people who use horizontal type? Are they copying too?
What we can do is continue to create new ideas and for a writers theatre, this feels right.

On Dec.31.2009 at 08:58 PM

Dale’s comment is:

This is everything good graphic design should not be: Self-conscious and self-congratulatory. Impossibly anti-reader.

On Dec.31.2009 at 09:45 PM

Erwin’s comment is:

I like how every Brand New post sparks a totally different kind of discussion. This time it looks like vertical type is the center of attention.

I too was taught that using vertical type is absolutely NOT-DONE. But I don’t really have a problem with the readability of the logo and promotional material above. It just doesn’t feel very “theatre” to me. “The Matrix” kind of type, blackboards, digital, airports, etc. That’s what I feel when I look at it.

So, it’s not all that bad IMHO, but just not for a theatre.

PS: No opinion on the Moffit subject, we’ll never know if it’s a copy-paste or not. And also, didn’t have a problem with the FAP!

Happy New Year to all!

On Jan.01.2010 at 07:12 AM

Gilroy’s comment is:

I like the vertical writing style. Amazing and beautiful designing. Good artwork. Clinton Duncan is truly a best graphic designer he really deserve international award.
Thanks
Gilroy Fernandez.

On Jan.01.2010 at 08:14 AM

Randy Hill’s comment is:

Gives me a massive headache. A little cool looking, but more annoying than it should be. I don’t like to have to think that hard.

On Jan.01.2010 at 11:29 AM

Eric’s comment is:

Throughout college, vertical text has been looked down upon by all my “professors”, so with that in mind, it’s hard for me to accept this concept. For some reason though, I like it. Maybe because it’s juxtaposed with their old logo, and in comparison, the new logo looks a lot better.

Perhaps it’s cause all 3 words have the same amount of characters and that element was utilized well… *shrug*

Either way, kudos on noticing “FAP”, guys, that made me smirk :)

On Jan.01.2010 at 12:48 PM

Smart Guy’s comment is:

Randy Hill’s comment is: Gives me a massive headache. A little cool looking, but more annoying than it should be. I don’t like to have to think that hard.

Since most of your print work is for religious organizations, I find this statement to be very true.

On Jan.01.2010 at 10:28 PM

Smart Guy’s comment is:

Randy Hill’s comment is: Gives me a massive headache. A little cool looking, but more annoying than it should be. I don’t like to have to think that hard.

Since most of your print work is for religious organizations, I find this statement to be very true.

On Jan.01.2010 at 10:29 PM

r4i software’s comment is:

Hi Guy’s,
It’s great. The colors are great, the execution is great, the collateral is great. It’s distinct and memorable, the words are evocative, and-to echo Katie-it makes me want to see a fappin play, and I don’t even like plays.

On Jan.02.2010 at 12:07 AM

maybe’s comment is:

ripped off.

http://www.moffittmoffitt.com/demo-magazine/

On Jan.02.2010 at 05:00 AM

grfk dzgn’s comment is:

Where’s the triple letter value?

Scrabble anyone?

The concept would work great for Scrabble re-brand - not for a theater company.

On Jan.02.2010 at 03:16 PM

HAHA’s comment is:

Very nice solution for this brand!
Love the program executions. But it might become old soon.

about some comments:

why there are always people that think “ripped off” is when using a similar execution with a TOTAL different output? I find this comments infinitely simplistic.

On Jan.03.2010 at 12:11 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

The fact that it’s hard to read made me want to concentrate on what it’s trying to say. The old logo is readable, but I don’t want to read it because it’s too boring. Although hard to read, the new identity communicates better than the old one. David Carson said - Don’t mistake legibility for communication. I agree with that. Sometimes.

On Jan.03.2010 at 08:03 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

Just noticed the fap in the middle. Wtf.

On Jan.03.2010 at 08:51 PM

Ryan Adair’s comment is:

One question:

Do we take the blue pill or the red pill?

On Jan.04.2010 at 09:08 AM

Pat’s comment is:

FAP indeed.

Hahaha, big fail.

On Jan.04.2010 at 09:20 AM

Dawn’s comment is:

I don’t mind the type play throughout the campaign - although difficult at times - I really don’t care for it as a main identity at all. I (like many others) feel that every line should say something (other than FAP) reading horizontally.

Oh, and thanks for enlightening those of us that were not aware of the meaning of “FAP”… ;)

On Jan.04.2010 at 02:05 PM

maybe’s comment is:

haha – I agree with your response to a point - I too find bland pointless phrases like ‘ripped off’ a lame excuse for a critique, however, I have to point out that it is relevant to this project.
The work was probably a stylistic take off from the work by moffit moffit for a number of reasons:

1)practically every agency in Sydney has seen the demo magazine.

2)demo magazine is also used as a paper promo by whatever paper
company produced it, and so this would further increase the possibility of direct or indirect stylistic cloning through having seen/kept a copy.

3)Moffit Moffit produces a lot of work that many designers want to emulate, and the designers at Interbrand no doubt saw this and emulated it in layout and style either deliberately or by a younger designer copying it and the art director/creative director not realizing it was a direct rip off and going “great - looks awesome, great layout skills designer x”.

We see mimicry all the time - just look at the recent ‘stylistic’ similarities of the Tata and Mad re-brands. Or how everyone’s work is photographed to look like exactly like the work of cool London studios like spin, sea, nb:studio and the rest.

monkey see monkey do.

On Jan.04.2010 at 02:07 PM

Maybe Not’s comment is:

Demo = Zembla by Frost?
Monkey see. Monkey do.

On Jan.05.2010 at 12:13 PM

Pennsylvania wrongful death lawyer’s comment is:

It works, but I’m just not a big fan of the anagram, letter jumble design. It’s apt most definitely but I think something a little more out of the box, or left field would have served the theater well.

On Jan.05.2010 at 02:15 PM

Nathan F’s comment is:

Gasp! Stacked type! In the words of John Kane, “English is not Chinese.”

On Jan.06.2010 at 02:52 PM

Phoebe S’s comment is:

Yeah, a little hard to read. Yeah, it can get a little annoying…but honestly? Once you get it the first time, it becomes readily recognizable—and most of the truly important stuff (other than their name) isn’t written vertically. The vertical is just to make you look, which is something this design accomplishes.

I particularly like the bus stop picture. Speaking as someone who has taken a few buses and subways, I might actually feel thankful towards this company for providing me with something to stare at for a little while.

My question…what do they do with the business cards if someone doesn’t have a repeating letter in their first and last name?

On Jan.06.2010 at 03:43 PM

g-sppud’s comment is:

Dig it.

On Jan.07.2010 at 09:24 AM

RWinn’s comment is:

Nice work. More brands, fewer logos.

On Jan.08.2010 at 01:53 PM

Paul Green’s comment is:

Love it!

Initially because of the colours and stacked type, I subliminally read ‘Griffin’ as ‘Giraffe’ which would have made the identity even stronger! But, it is playful and stands out against other theatre companys and the stacked type arrangement gives the theatre company a style to ‘own’.

On Jan.12.2010 at 02:17 AM

kevin blackburn’s comment is:

Strong identity and system. Looks like it could be developed in a number of ways to be playful and consistently fresh. The use of single words could become a little repetitive, creative language and flair are a must.

On Apr.06.2010 at 01:06 AM

h777’s comment is:

fap…

On May.31.2010 at 11:29 AM

increase seminal volume’s comment is:

Who thinks the recession is Bush’s fault? The Democrats! Who thinks the recession is Obama’s fault? The Republicans! Who thinks they’re both right? Me!

On Aug.17.2010 at 02:28 AM