Opinion BY Armin

Pfizer Moves Pforward

When we talk about “one of the biggest companies in the world” or “one of the leaders in their industry” or any other claim to the top spot in anything here in Brand New it’s all relatively, well, relative. Especially when you compare anything to Pfizer, the leading-number-one-biggest-you-name-it player in the pharmaceutical industry. According to their 2008 financial report, the revenue for that year was $48.3 billion. They also produce two of the most popular and well known pills in the market: Lipitor and Viagra, among many others. Needless to say anything further, Pfizer is big. Last week, rather quietly, Pfizer launched a new web site and introduced a revision to its 18-year-old oval logo, which was designed in 1991 by Enterprise IG (now The Brand Union). The new logo and comprehensive identity program has been designed by Siegel+Gale.

The “Pfizer oval” was introduced in 1991. Over time, a great deal of equity was built in that logo, and it is widely recognized around the world. But today, Pfizer is a different company. It’s changed through global growth, numerous acquisitions, entry into new therapeutic areas, and development of life-changing medicines. The new logo keeps much of the existing equity, but with the brightened color, approachable typeface, and tilted oval it signals positive change and forward momentum and asks people to take a fresh look at Pfizer because it is not the same company it was in 1991.

In addition to an updated logo, their new visual system also helps to signify this shift. The new dotted display typeface, illustration style, and bright multi-color palette work to communicate their larger vision of advancing better health for all people around the world.
— From Siegel+Gale

The new logo features redrawn typography, a color gradient and a tilted oval. “Big deal” I’m sure some of you will exclaim questioning why even change at all. Siegel+Gale presented various redesigns to Pfizer but ultimately the decision was made to not stray far from the existing logo. “The designers,” is the obvious retort, “should have pushed the client to do something new.” Well, folks, you don’t push a $48 billion company to adopt a new logo just because designing new logos is fun. Instead, this is one of the most underrated challenges in the identity industry: to revitalize a company through a new identity strategy that doesn’t rely on a shiny new thing front and center.

But let’s talk about what Siegel+Gale has decided to put front and center. The new logo is a great improvement on the old one. Instead of a semi serif, the new typography is a sans serif which makes it feel more contemporary. My favorite detail of the new type is the italic “e” that adds a lot of softness to the mark. The “z” is a little wobbly on its diagonal line but it works. And, overall, I like that there is less contrast between the thick and the thins, so the logo will hold up better when sized down on the back of a medicine box. The gradient… I guess, why not. I’m not a fan, and as the 1-color logos above show, it’s not necessary. I also like the tilted oval, it’s less symmetric and adds a bit of movement.

The logo might pass unnoticed by most viewers but the new identity applications probably will not. Siegel+Gale has put together a kit that allows Pfizer to deploy a variety of looks and messages. The first element is a dot typeface used for display purposes; it’s nothing too fancy, but in the context of Big Pharma it’s pretty out there. Following the dot appliqué is a set of moody illustrations that are at once scientific and playful. Add in a vibrant color palette and you have a recipe for real potential as the applications below — which are proof-of-concept and not final executions — demonstrate. With a few more hours of development the two designs underneath and to the right (green and pink backgrounds) would make Lester Beall and Ladislav Sutnar proud. This is not an easy project and the result is as uplifting as Pfizer’s magic blue pills.

DATE: Nov.04.2009CATEGORY: Corporate 68 COMMENTS

Von K’s comment is:

I think this is looking really good. The illustrations are an especially nice treat. The logo works best in one color IMO. The gradient does nothing for me. The top left corner of the P seems a little too close to the oval, but nitpicking aside the new logo is a nice update. I rather like the way the z's spine curves just a bit. Good work.

On Nov.04.2009 at 09:49 AM

Ty Halasz’s comment is:

So much stock photography... it hurts my eyes.

On Nov.04.2009 at 09:49 AM

Tony Spaeth’s comment is:

Excellent review, Armin. Thank you for showing the visual system in such depth.

For the record, in 1991 Enterprise Group was still Anspach Grossman Portugal, a name worth preserving in our annals.

On Nov.04.2009 at 09:50 AM

Ben Thoma’s comment is:

I can appreciate these improvements. After examining it very closely, the only thing that I question is whether or not the 'P' is too close to the oval's edge in the top left.

Overall, very nice typography and design. Only wish the photography choices could be more surprising, too.

(One more thing on further inspection: the 'n' and 'b' in 'Enable' seem to have some spacial issues at the point of intersection for the stems and arms.)

On Nov.04.2009 at 09:53 AM

Armin’s comment is:

> Re: Stock Photography

As I mentioned, these are proof-of-concept ideas. When you are showing designs to demonstrate what the identity can do, you don't spend thousands of dollars on custom photography or the best rights-managed images. These are, you know, FPO.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:02 AM

Brian’s comment is:

Something just bugs me about the "zer" - each letter appears to have its own independent contrast or weight, to my eyes.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:02 AM

samin’s comment is:

Overall rather nice facelift. I like the new, more dynamic logotype.

(One more glitch: the dotted line on the ">" of bottom right proof-of-concept ("Advance") doesn't go quite right.)

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:06 AM

Josh’s comment is:

Does the new counter in the P look a little large? I feel like it draws a bit too much attention while reading?

Otherwise a nice, simple update.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:10 AM

Dennis’s comment is:

The gradient does liven up the dull, dull blue. Isn't their little blue pill a much lighter shade of blue? With a name like "Pee Fizzer", they should look lighthearted.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:12 AM

sean farrell’s comment is:

I think it's a vast improvement.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:13 AM

Erin’s comment is:

I like the update (minus the gradient. I prefer it the solid versions) but I really like that there's more consistency in the type.

The white version really does work well on top of the new, busier visuals they have going on there. I like the idea of the bright, cheerful images and colors.

The dot typeface is cute. They make pills, after all.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:16 AM

Nick’s comment is:

Nice... I'm really impressed with the Pharma-behemoth to go with such a visual direction. It's fun, it's playful and most importantly it doesnt scream big pharma. It's cool...

As for the logo revamp... I actually think Armin said it perfectly in his review... "you don’t push a $48 billion company to adopt a new logo just because designing new logos is fun." Well said Armin, I think alot of designers forget this when they are writing their opinions. The client is very often the primary player in the development of a brand and not everything goes the designers way all the time. So with that said, I think the revamping is appropriate and a nice step forward.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:23 AM

Andrea’s comment is:

Ditto the comments on the "P" being too close to the edge of the oval, and I love the dotted display type which subtly suggests pills.

The angeled oval seems to make all the difference.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:27 AM

Brian K.’s comment is:

I'm not sure If I like the new revision too much..

The 'P' looks off at the top left corner, which is way too close to the boundaries, especially when compared to the lower right letters.. I do like the blue gradient because it adds depth and weight to the name.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:28 AM

David Airey’s comment is:

This is one of the nicest refinements I've seen in some time. Thanks for sharing, Armin.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:37 AM

slicecom’s comment is:

I like everything about this redesign except for the gradient. When will the unnecessary gradients and 3D logos stop!?

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:44 AM

Jan Henrik’s comment is:

Loved the concept of pills (dotted lines). I think there is more potential that can be harvested in that concept. On a white background the gradient is also a nice touch.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:57 AM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

Overall I think the update is quite nice. It certainly is pushing the brand in a new direction. I find the redrawn type to be a little weird frankly. I like all the letters independently quite a bit. But the ligature is super linear and then you have all these curves inserted, it just feels a little off somehow. I also agree that the counter space in the P could stand a little work. But for all the nitpicking I think this work is rather successful. The proof of concept stuff is quite lovely.

On Nov.04.2009 at 10:58 AM

Ivan’s comment is:

on logo rework - very subtle yet great execution, loving the "e". As for the dotted typeface - looks too much like something completely different



Also, what's the idea here - millions of pills aligned to make an alphabet? As for the illustrations - that's a different story and I kinda like it, although they look a bit like ads for sports goods.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:26 AM

Fleric’s comment is:

Poll options should have been "Boneriffic", "Semi" and "Flaccid".

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:28 AM

Waco Personal Injury Lawyer’s comment is:

I like it, not huge but pretty funny.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:36 AM

Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

the white-on-purple and white-on-red logos remind of Cadbury and Kit-Kat respectively. Otherwise, I'm ok with this re-tooling and update. Could do without the gradient logo, but it seems I'm going to lose this battle.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:36 AM

Jonathon’s comment is:

Looks really nice! Although Pfizer does produce considerably more than just pills so the custom typeface doesn't necessarily work for me. Semi would be my rating.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:46 AM

Carl Fox’s comment is:

Straight up!

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:47 AM

stefan hartwig’s comment is:

I really like it, but I'm going to miss the old z. Don't get me wrong, the new z has that little swoopy thing going on, which is nice too.

s.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:54 AM

JTPaham’s comment is:

"HEY! WE MAKE VIAGRA!"

The blue oval is now the little blue pill. Viva.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:57 AM

James’s comment is:

I realize the conceptual applications are just that, but I hope they change up that rounded sans serif... very similar to GE Healthcare.

On Nov.04.2009 at 12:04 PM

Sy’s comment is:

As several commenters have already said, the P is a tad close to the edge and the gradient detracts. I'm not crazy about the swoopy bits on the z but the real problem is the e, which is just a mess. Doesn't go with the rest of the letters. The proof of concept work is great though. I especially love the retro feel of the top two solid-color background ones.

On Nov.04.2009 at 01:31 PM

Guillaume’s comment is:

The serifs had the advantage that they competed visually with the f. Now all I can see is the f, and the rest of it looks like a bunch of added blurbs, hardly like a well-readable word. Also, because the bit that connects the f to the i has gone fatter, the ligature is harder to decipher.

Put shortly, the old one had all these bespoke quirks that managed to make it work. Now the coolness has taken over the readability.

On Nov.04.2009 at 02:16 PM

Marcin’s comment is:

I like it a lot.

Dotted illustrations are very cool ;)

On Nov.04.2009 at 02:38 PM

Joseph’s comment is:

Great typographic update.

On Nov.04.2009 at 02:38 PM

Kate’s comment is:

I miss the old "r". It was probably part of what I remembered most about the old logo. I definitely like the slanted oval and new "e". Not so sure about the "z" but it is OK.
Rest of identity is clean, fresh, and fitting for the industry.

On Nov.04.2009 at 03:15 PM

parry’s comment is:

The old logo was good.

The new logo is good.

The rotated ellipse is genius.

The gradient is ok, just.

The dotted type and iconography, is fun, but visually a little insipid.

The color palette is too late 90's corporate trying to be not corporate.

The stock photography is corney, and calling them FPO is no excuse.

My 2 cents.

On Nov.04.2009 at 03:41 PM

Michael Mulvey’s comment is:

While the Pfizer rebrand is fresh and looks great, it no doubt calls to mind GE's 2004 rebrand by Wolff Olins.

Key components of GE's rebrand: bright colors, new, rounded, modern typeface (Inspira).

I'm not trying to diminish Pfizer's efforts, just pointing out we're all influenced by others, whether we want to or not.

If you click around some GE properties you'll see what I mean.

http://www.wolffolins.com/ge.php

On Nov.04.2009 at 03:41 PM

Daniel’s comment is:

I like the new "r". The gradient works for me too. For me the P is too near the oval border. but in general this seems like a really good update...

On Nov.04.2009 at 03:47 PM

Rodrok’s comment is:

I relate the dotted illustrations with all the pills you need to take when using the product.

On Nov.04.2009 at 04:14 PM

Daniel Blank’s comment is:

Kudos to S+G for reinforcing the importance of brand and always pursuing forward progress however subtle. I forget where the quote comes from but "It's not about changing a symbol but rather the symbolism of change..."

On Nov.04.2009 at 04:17 PM

ChrisM70’s comment is:

The old logo suffered from it too, but I'm not crazy about the f-i ligature. It looks too much like an "h" to me (Phzer). Perhaps the ligature line should be thinner?

I like the new "at attention" oval, I like the rest of the campaign's look, but the typeface
on the logo seems clunky.

On Nov.04.2009 at 04:43 PM

Ian Storm Taylor’s comment is:

Agreed with all of the others who said that the P is too close to the oval. And for the one who said that that is nitpicking, that is what must be done for a logo... long long hours of obsessive nitpicking.

Other than that, it is a fine change.

On Nov.04.2009 at 05:11 PM

Dirk’s comment is:

Looks betetr. Friendlier.

On Nov.04.2009 at 05:45 PM

Sketchee’s comment is:

The logo is definitely one of those tweaks that will go unnoticed. But the context and full brand strategy, I get. That's really the story here. The new contexts of the logo seem a bit like those drug commercials where everything is roses. That's been done. But it's not as easily dismissed as I thought it would be in my first impression.

On Nov.04.2009 at 06:54 PM

Adam’s comment is:

Of the 12 dotted images.

The bottom reminds me of the following link.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Nine_Wide_World_Of_Sport_Three.PNG/

And the 4th image reminds me of this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/Insilicocover.jpg

On Nov.04.2009 at 09:02 PM

Xav’s comment is:

Aw. Nice. Almost makes up for firing me and my whole dept last year and sending our jobs to India. Not.

On Nov.04.2009 at 11:08 PM

GM’s comment is:

On first glance I really liked it. On second, I think it is boring and boilerplate. So many visual references of stuff seen a hundred times. Stylistically the design of the typeface for the word mark is horrid. Sorry to say but looks like "the big" corporate design agencies haven't developed their creative skills much further in the past 20 years. Nothing new on the horizont...

On Nov.05.2009 at 03:05 AM

Paulo’s comment is:

Great article, thank you for sharing. It's interesting to see how a name agency tackles what many designers would consider to be a dream job - re-shaping one of the world's largest brands. To me, the results are okay, it's hardly ground-breaking design, but then again, I'm sure the brief would have specified 'evolution' not 'revolution'.

However, it's hard to see the added value that Siegel+Gale have put into this project, when any freelance designer or small creative agency worth their salt could produce equal/better quality design work.

Finally, whether these visuals were for the client's eyes only or not, there's no way I'd ever let something like the "Advance" poster leave my computer with the amateurish dotted rendering of the greater than symbol ">".

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:15 AM

soniaelkrief’s comment is:

Pfizer new corporate identitiy: may be of any interest ?
Sonia Elkrief

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:23 AM

E.G’s comment is:

I always thought the oval was tilted just doesnt feel like new for me. The "r" is stepping on the edge of a cliff, no space to breath. About the dotted type and illustrations they look great but there is no relationship with Pfizer it could be something else and still work.

On Nov.05.2009 at 03:35 PM

brandsimplicity’s comment is:

Liking the new direction.

On Nov.05.2009 at 04:05 PM

Clinton’s comment is:

Good work.

Very much appreciate the mature review by Armin, that takes all things into consideration.

The logo is refreshed without being unrecognisable from it's very, very well known predecessor. The identity system is very nice, something completely different for the industry and positions Pfizer, visually and tonally, as an innovative leader.

On Nov.05.2009 at 05:27 PM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Couple of things that bother me about the updated logo: One, the oval has gotten more elongated. I don't mind it being tilted, just that the shape is less appealing in comparison to the existing logo. And two, most have commented on the "P" being too close to the edge, but the more obvious is kerning between the "P" and the "f". Now, I no longer read "Pfizer", it reads P and fizer. I'm surprised that the folks at S+G would make such a huge mistake.

Overall, nice facelift. I just can't get past these two issues.

On Nov.06.2009 at 09:09 AM

obse.’s comment is:

This REALLY sucks.
Especially that awful "redrawn" type, every character seems to come from a different family.

Old semi serif type rocked. A lot.

I like that they decided not to change the former brand that much, but gradients and italized weird sans serifs do not work too well for me. Specially when you mix it all up with dotted typography for institutional applications and a bright almost RGBed palette.

On Nov.06.2009 at 11:56 AM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

Looking good!

On Nov.07.2009 at 08:20 PM

Michel le Sueur’s comment is:

Very nice to see the major company of the industry updating is such a fun way. Having worked on this company's products and been involved with updating their worldwide packaging some 20 years ago it's good to see them still keeping ahead in a highly competitive industry.

On Nov.08.2009 at 05:08 AM

Amin’s comment is:

Wow! I'm impressed by the new logo.. that's for sure.. But I'm also impressed by the fact that you really took the time to show and explain the new logo to us.

On Nov.08.2009 at 08:00 AM

Jessie’s comment is:

Love it

On Nov.09.2009 at 07:34 AM

Levinson-Axelrod’s comment is:

Really cleans it up, not sure that everything's perfect but it's a great logo.

On Nov.09.2009 at 12:12 PM

Henk ’s comment is:

Two things about the logotype bother me a bit: the counter of the P looks a tad too big and the ending of the r somehow lacks... character.
Overall, very nicely done.

On Nov.09.2009 at 12:51 PM

You Know’s comment is:

I am not sure about the oblique oval and the newly stylized type. Its kind of un-trustworthy in a way. Its trying to make me feel a bit to positive. The old mark had a nice global reference in addition to its pill like shape. It felt grounded. The new mark putts a little too much emphasis on pill=happiness. Is this the sign of things to come?? Don't get me wrong drugs can really help people who need them but this update feels a bit too glamourous to me. Kind of begins to remind me of the way cigarettes made people cool in 70's ads. I question whether this mark borders on the unethical side.

On Nov.09.2009 at 08:55 PM

Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:

Owning the planet, one pill at a time.

On Nov.11.2009 at 06:54 PM

Mark’s comment is:

It's a definite improvement.

It looks much more friendlier now.

On Nov.14.2009 at 05:22 PM

kbfrench’s comment is:

At first glance, I was impressed. Sure, I thought some of the visuals look a bit "gimmicky", but overall it looked like it was heading in the less-than-typical-medical-corporate direction.

Someone mentioned how the stock photography was giving them a headache. Armin rebutted by stating that these were "...proof-of-concept ideas. When you are showing designs to demonstrate what the identity can do, you don't spend thousands of dollars on custom photography or the best rights-managed images." Which is very logical.

However, I took a trip to their website only to find that they, in fact, had not only spent a few dollars to use these supposed "concept" images as part of the visuals, but what looks to be that thousands of dollars Armin had mentioned... on more stock photography!

Upon arrival to the site, the user is immediately bombarded by the largest amount of stock imagery crammed into a one - two minute slideshow I have ever seen. This is such a fragmented conglomerate of so many different types and techniques used for the imagery, that it actually does induce mental pain and anguish. This is something I am sure Pfizer is not going for--being who they are in the medical industry. It honestly, perfectly embodies my definitions of overkill and "we get it already".

For me, this turns the slightly sloppy concept visuals into a lazy-looking identity. I was going to look past the odd, gradient which makes the logo disappear while sitting on the stereotypical and expected, grandiose-concept imagery, but the actual overall execution and poor website design destroyed it for me.

On Nov.15.2009 at 11:32 PM

James’s comment is:

The old one looked alot more appealing to me for some reason. And what's with the gradient?

On Nov.18.2009 at 04:12 AM

Vitezslav Valka’s comment is:

Good one!

On Nov.22.2009 at 05:46 AM

João Gomes’s comment is:

Hmmm... It reminds me a bit of the logos of both Samsung and HP... But yes, I have to agree that it's an improvement, and the illustrations are fresh and really surprising for a pharmaceutical company.

On Nov.23.2009 at 10:52 AM

Brandon S. Adkins’s comment is:

This is okay. Not a huge fan of it. I like it better than the original. Although, the ligature is really bothering me because my mind sees it as a really weird looking 'H'.

On Nov.26.2009 at 12:50 AM

Joshua Drake’s comment is:

I love this blog.

Pfizer should skip the gradient on this logo.

On Nov.29.2009 at 01:06 PM

Ivan’s comment is:

just FYI: the dotted typeface has been done by the esteemed Joe Finocchiaro (http://www.joefino.com/Pages_5/T56_Pfizer.html)

On Dec.14.2009 at 06:33 PM

r4i kaart’s comment is:

Thank you for showing the visual system in such depth.For the record, in 1991 Enterprise Group was still Anspach Grossman Portugal, a name worth preserving in our annals.

On Jan.01.2010 at 11:50 PM