Opinion BY Armin

Rand Rolls Off the Press

First established in 1908 and operating from a small office in Manhattan, it wasn’t until 1961 that Yale University Press (YUP) officially became a part of Yale University while remaining, all this time, financially and operationally independent. YUP has published over 8,000 books and now does so at a rate of approximately 300 titles a year. And since 1985, much of these titles have carried the idiosyncratic logo designed by Paul Rand. After this point, 24 years later, Rand’s logo will no longer grace spines, instead, it will now be the primary Yale logo — typeset in Matthew Carter’s The Yale Typeface designed in 2004 — as reported by the Yale Daily News.

In what instances might it be appropriate to create and use nonstandard logos?
To distinguish for legal and organizational purposes Yale-affiliated commercial initiatives from the activities of the University per se—for instance, the imprint of Yale Press.— A Note about Logos, Yale University Identity Guidelines

The only explanation for this is to make it perfectly clear and leave no doubt that Yale and Yale University Press are the same entity and that one informs the other and benefits from each other’s cachet. With Rand’s logo, there was an implied distance between the university and the press and for some behind-the-scenes reason that is not wanted anymore. So, strategically, it might make perfect sense to adopt the Yale logo as the press’ identity.

Emotionally — and given the large amount of e-mails I received about this change — it’s another story. Most of us are wired to react negatively to anything that rids the world of yet another Rand logo. Like many, I am an admirer of this logo and I’m sad to see it go. But it’s crystal clear that the world in which Rand created identities is not the same world they exist in now and most are reaching their expiry date… IBM being the exception. So, yes, it’s lamentable to see Rand’s work slowly dissolve in this über branded era where form doesn’t follow function but the bottom line.

Thanks to Chris Rugen for first tip.

DATE: Oct.01.2009CATEGORY: Publishing 78 COMMENTS

Roth’s comment is:

It's not necessarily that I mind an update of a Rand logo, it's the complete dog's whatsits they usually make of it. They never go anywhere interesting, always sprinting back from the edge of creativity. I blame the Gilmore Girls. Gave that place ideas above its station.

On Oct.01.2009 at 07:04 AM

M.’s comment is:

I find that the Yale Press mark was among my least favorite Rand logos (along with NeXT). He wasn't perfect, despite his amazing run of work. I hope the mark is preserved in small ways, and used actively in discreet places - given its pedigree, I somehow doubt that it will be dumped completely. Perhaps the synergy that has YP adopting the main Yale mark will also free up the Rand logo to find wider, subtler applications across the university.

On Oct.01.2009 at 07:25 AM

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

Goodbye swanky slab serif...hello slightly a-typical transitional serif

On Oct.01.2009 at 07:25 AM

Nick’s comment is:

From a branding stand point as a whole in the Yale world, I get why they did it. It doesn't change the fact that I am sorely disappointed to see another Rand logo one bite the dust.

But in moving on from the mourning... my personal opinion about the Yale logo is its nothing particularly special in a world full of schools that essentially seem to do nothing to differentiate themselves from one another, not discounting the work of Mattew Carter, it's a fine typeface... Maybe Yale can get away with it because its Yale but from a branding standpoint... eh...

On Oct.01.2009 at 07:33 AM

Drew Davies’s comment is:

"So, yes, it’s lamentable to see Rand’s work slowly dissolve in this über branded era where form doesn’t follow function but the bottom line."

Armin, I love ya, and everything that Under Consideration is up to. But let's remember one thing while we lament another Rand logo going by the wayside. As graphic designers, we ARE about the bottom line. If we were just about aesthetics without concern for a client business' financial benefit, we should either become fine artists or stop charging for what we do. Even as we replace a quirky Rand logo with a relatively uninteresting logotype, this change IS a success if it positively affects Yale's bottom line. That's what we do.

I'm sorry I'll be out of town when you visit Omaha tomorrow. Would love to chat more about this with you in person.

On Oct.01.2009 at 07:45 AM

Alvin’s comment is:

Makes sense strategically. But I am still sad.

On Oct.01.2009 at 07:55 AM

Diogo’s comment is:

Sorry, for me it doesn't make any sense... it's possible to modernize a company's image without touching the logo. Especially when it is an iconic logo like this one... or like the old UPS logo (I still cry for that one) :'(
Of course it's their strategy and I respect it. The logos don't disappear, they just become history.

On Oct.01.2009 at 08:17 AM

Andrew’s comment is:

Form still follows function.
Function, now more than ever, is the bottom line.

On Oct.01.2009 at 08:21 AM

David Ramos’s comment is:

I always thought that the right to make money always came with a responsibility to serve the public. For designers, that means work that support's the client's goals, and also makes for a more delightful/inspiring/smarter world.

Meanwhile, I look forward to more Ogilvy formula ads and Jakob Nielsen-inspired web layouts from the "form follows the bottom line" crowd.

On Oct.01.2009 at 08:49 AM

Jared Ray Scott Ramey’s comment is:

What happened to consistency? Oh, I totally understand why they did it... to tie in with the Yale brand and officially make YUP a part of the university (why they didn't do this in 1961, I'll never know). But what ever happened to "if it aint broke don't fix it?" I can understand bouncing around until you find the right logo, but after you have it, why do you kick it out the door after 24 years?

In this case, its even more tragic as the Rand logo had a quarter century to make its mark and become iconic in the publishing world. Nobody keeps what they have anymore. Ford, Coca Cola, and IBM are the only three that I can think of off the top of my head. Businesses that care about their image work hard to find a logo that will eventually become iconic, and this is no exception. YUP had it and then threw it away... all because they needed to show affiliation with all mighty Yale. I miss common sense...

On Oct.01.2009 at 08:53 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

I wonder why YUP was ever separate from Yale.

In any event, that separation brought to us the amazing Rand logo.

Given the scenario, I think the move does in fact make sense, but damn I am going to miss that logo...

Keep well,
Dale

On Oct.01.2009 at 09:00 AM

G*’s comment is:

While it's sad to see Rands logo go, I'm glad they ditched it entirely rather than try to update his logo.

I have to agree with Andrew on this one... form & function. New logo is clean and easy, appropriate typeface.

Cheers to Paul Rand though.

On Oct.01.2009 at 09:14 AM

BWJ’s comment is:

Any chance we can pull a Tropicana on this? Rally the Alum and let Yale Press know what the consumer wants? This is one of my favorite Rand logos and I was crushed to hear the news yesterday.

I think strategically it could be argued that Yale serves as the larger parent organization while Yale University Press is a product of that larger entity. Since it produces a consumer facing product with a solid brand reputation, why change that?

On Oct.01.2009 at 09:20 AM

Jeff Stevens’s comment is:

To me, this doesn't make much sense.

A University Press, whether it's Yale or the University of Florida or Rutgers, publishes titles that come from a variety of authors, some of whom are affiliated with the university but many who are not.

Branding the Press with the same identity as the university pushes the notion that all of these titles are in some way tied to the academic institution. It blurs the line and creates an assumption for customers that isn't necessarily true.

On Oct.01.2009 at 09:24 AM

Nate Tharp’s comment is:

"When a logo has been in the public domain for more than 50 years it becomes a classic, a landmark, a respectable entity and there is no reason to throw it away and substitute it with a new concoction, regardless of how well it is designed."
- Massimo Vignelli (1931), Italian designer

It's certainly a shame that Rand's YUP logo got tossed aside, but I agree that it does make strategic sense.

On Oct.01.2009 at 09:33 AM

Joseph Maguire’s comment is:

I'd actually like to see the sort of books that they publish in order to understand it. But I do agree the Rand logo is outdated at best it reminds us all of the 50s and it's really trying too hard, its not one of his best works. I do think that the new one is easily forgotten though. It's a serif it's well placed it's not that interesting, but it is well crafted. I have to say if we were thinking about strategy and sales ability I can see how well Penguin Books did with their great branding I'd like to think that all book publishers if they are to survive need to be aware of their image and if this helps them sell than so be it. Overall good job on the redesign, but is it original enough to not get re-done or added onto in the near future.

On Oct.01.2009 at 09:38 AM

Kostadin’s comment is:

After voting (on this and every other article since this option has been available) I'm just wondering if the positioning of the options affects the voting. It seems to me that the top options always have more votes.
On the topic I fully understand that the world in which Paul Rand used to create his identities is gone. That makes me a little bit sad, but doesn't stop me fighting for my (his) values.

On Oct.01.2009 at 09:47 AM

Robb Irrgang’s comment is:

I wish they'd replaced it with a new logo instead of just typing out the word in a generic looking face.

On Oct.01.2009 at 10:23 AM

Armin’s comment is:

> But let's remember one thing while we lament another Rand logo going by the wayside. As graphic designers, we ARE about the bottom line.

Drew, of course! I didn't mean to imply the contrary. My motto is Form follows Function meets Bottom line.

On Oct.01.2009 at 11:34 AM

J’s comment is:

I think the Rand logo would look great seared on the side of a cow.

Sad to see it being retired.

On Oct.01.2009 at 11:36 AM

Oisín’s comment is:

That's a real shame.

On Oct.01.2009 at 11:36 AM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

It was a safe bet to set Yale in a classic Roman font, but it certainly lacks the charm and inventiveness of the original mark. Goodbye Paul Rand, RIP.

On Oct.01.2009 at 11:38 AM

Sam Pratt’s comment is:

The whole argument in favor of changing the Rand logo based on some economic imperative ("bottom line") strikes me as somewhat silly in this context, as the Yale Press is hardly a mass-market publisher. How many YUP titles exceed 2,500 copies sold (or even 500)? What proportion of its sales go to institutional buyers, e.g. academic libraries -- who are assuredly not purchasing based on how up-to-the-minute the press' logo is? If anything, these books are aimed at a fuddy-duddy audience who will be more perturbed by the change than most audiences, IMHO.

On Oct.01.2009 at 11:57 AM

Abbas’s comment is:

Will I get lynched if I say I'm not taken on the original??

It just looks a little uncomfortable. That's not to say the new look is an improvement.

On Oct.01.2009 at 12:44 PM

Jason’s comment is:

As an academic, I for one am glad to see it go. It was, in a word, unserious. Yale is not a popular press--it's an academic press. And in the academic world, to give even the appearance of frivolity is to court being ignored. Good riddance.

On Oct.01.2009 at 02:42 PM

Jason Schwartz’s comment is:

Hahhahaha @J's "side of a cow" comment.
It's sand to see another Paul Rand classic go!

On Oct.01.2009 at 04:29 PM

damon’s comment is:

I can relate to the rationale but it is sad to see that logo go. It always had a scholastic sensibility to me, albeit maybe more in a varsity sports world for some reason.

at the end of the day the university does carry far more cache than the press and it should look like it comes from the same place.

On Oct.01.2009 at 05:11 PM

Mark’s comment is:

While I will miss the old logo for it's quirkiness I like this new logo it's succinct and straight to the point.

Sure it's not as eye catching but it's simple and a lot less complicated looking.

I'm trying my best to like this.

On Oct.01.2009 at 05:25 PM

Nate’s comment is:

Not a fan of the Paul Rand logo. As a younger designer I probably emphasise less with the rest of you regarding his work. When assessed in today's context it looks very dated and I agree with Jason's comment above entirely.

The new logo isn't frivilious and achieves its objectives in a very restrained and dignified way - extremely important for this particular brand given their market. Academics (regardless of their area of study) care greatly about their work and where and who it is published by - the way in which an academic press presents itself counts for a lot.

Nice to see design work that places the client's objective before "creativity".

On Oct.01.2009 at 06:28 PM

Brian Pelsoh’s comment is:

The original Rand logo has a lot of cachet ... it is instantly recognizable to those involved in the industry of publishing or academia. It is a coveted seal of approval and authority that curators, scholars, and designers themselves want to be a part of.

It doesn't make strategic sense to ditch brand equity.

I wonder what the people in the School of Art think.

On Oct.01.2009 at 10:24 PM

J’s comment is:

As Paul Rand said; first and foremost a logo must differentiate.

His logo did, the new logo does not.

Strategy be damned, the visual fails!

On Oct.01.2009 at 11:42 PM

grubedoo’s comment is:

Sorry, I'm going to have to agree with Massimo on this one.

On Oct.01.2009 at 11:46 PM

mm’s comment is:

Take a second to imagine if the before and after were reversed, and the circle mark was not designed by a celebrity logo designer. I'm sorry, but if that circle with the slabs was the new one, you folks would be tearing it apart.

I agree with Nate's comments. The old logo seems to quirky for serious book. Yale Press is trading a logo with a lot of respect among a niche community of designers & trade folks and replacing it with the respect of a large audience familiar with the credibility of Yale as a brand.

It's a smart move on their part.

On Oct.02.2009 at 04:05 AM

Another one bites the dust’s comment is:

How many Rand logos are left?

We can count them on one hand now:

abc - It's a classic! but what does it have to do with TV? Answer: Nothing! Well, actually, the 'b' stands for broadcasting. I'll take the CBS 'Eye' or NBC's peacock any day because they tell happy stories.

IBM - Dated, clunky, brings to mind 80s office employees in beige suits, craning their necks to squint at DOS through massive glasses. It does tell a story however, a very dated story.

Cummins - Yuk!

EF - Wha? Who?

Westinghouse We may have a winner here, it still looks hip. But then again...
Does it tell a story? An old one. Dated? Maybe 40 or so years old. I think those 3-4 prong plug sockets are the kind they use in developing countries. Not the best image for an electronics, lighting and appliance company. No worries, half of you reading this don't associate their logo with a 40-year-old socket because you've never seen one.

None of Paul Rand's logos ever resonated with me. I detested some of them *coughCumminscough* before I ever knew Rand perpetrated them. The only reason they're iconic or in any way memorable is beacuse they were implemented by such large corporations and became so ubiquitous, NOT the other way around.

Most of us have happy childhood memories of learning to type on an IBM, of receiving our first package/gift [total exhiliration!] via a big, boxy, brown UPS truck with the 'present' icon on it, or watching abc TV for hours on end.

I've always felt that Rand was was an amazing salesman, not a designer. I can't separate him from the classic tale of The Emperor's New Clothes. Hey, even savvy Steve of all people was sucked into Rand's reality distorition field. Rand even published a 100-page brochure to explain to everyone why his amazing NEXT logo was so inventive and cutting-edge because he knew no one could tell just by looking at it. You had to read the book. Hmmm, remind you of *coughArnelland hisPepsiPDFcough* anyone? Knowing Steve, I doubt the computer that the logo represented even had a manual.

Let's be honest, if any of us were to peruse Rand's portfolio, we'd drop into a coma or simply say, "I don't get it, what's the big deal?"

I dare say NONE of Rand's logos stand the test of time. I've been saying this for over 10 years and time has proved me right. Every year another one bites the dust.

Thanks BRAND NEW once again for allowing me the platform to release my pent-up Rand rage. If things stay on pace, you'll all get to hear me rant again in a year or less. My guess is that Westinghouse is next. abc will be last.

Who's with me!?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the YALE logo. I liked the old one even though it always looked like a cattle brand. -Not exactly the brand the Ivy League school was going for. The only time I ever saw the old brand-looking logo was in design books and online articles about the 'genius' of Paul Rand. I guess my brow is not yet high enough to have actually seen it while reading a Yale-published book in my bathrobe and slippers. I'm far too busy ranting about silly logos!

On Oct.02.2009 at 11:43 AM

Another one bites the dust’s comment is:

How many Rand logos are left?

We can count them on one hand now:

abc - It's a classic! but what does it have to do with TV? Answer: Nothing! Well, actually, the 'b' stands for broadcasting. I'll take the CBS 'Eye' or NBC's peacock any day because they tell happy stories.

IBM - Dated, clunky, brings to mind 80s office employees in beige suits, craning their necks to squint at DOS through massive glasses. It does tell a story however, a very dated story.

Cummins - Yuk!

EF - Wha? Who?

Westinghouse We may have a winner here, it still looks hip. But then again...
Does it tell a story? An old one. Dated? Maybe 40 or so years old. I think those 3-4 prong plug sockets are the kind they use in developing countries. Not the best image for an electronics, lighting and appliance company. No worries, half of you reading this don't associate their logo with a 40-year-old socket because you've never seen one.

On Oct.02.2009 at 11:46 AM

Another one bites the dust’s comment is:

Part 2

None of Paul Rand's logos ever resonated with me. I detested some of them *coughCumminscough* before I ever knew Rand perpetrated them. The only reason they're iconic or in any way memorable is beacuse they were implemented by such large corporations and became so ubiquitous, NOT the other way around.

Most of us have happy childhood memories of learning to type on an IBM, of receiving our first package/gift [total exhiliration!] via a big, boxy, brown UPS truck with the 'present' icon on it, or watching abc TV for hours on end.

I've always felt that Rand was was an amazing salesman, not a designer. I can't separate him from the classic tale of The Emperor's New Clothes. Hey, even savvy Steve of all people was sucked into Rand's reality distorition field. Rand even published a 100-page brochure to explain to everyone why his amazing NEXT logo was so inventive and cutting-edge because he knew no one could tell just by looking at it. You had to read the book. Hmmm, remind you of *coughArnelland hisPepsiPDFcough* anyone? Knowing Steve, I doubt the computer that the logo represented even had a manual.

On Oct.02.2009 at 11:48 AM

Another one bites the dust’s comment is:

Part 2

None of Paul Rand's logos ever resonated with me. I detested some of them *coughCumminscough* before I ever knew Rand perpetrated them. The only reason they're iconic or in any way memorable is beacuse they were implemented by such large corporations and became so ubiquitous, NOT the other way around.

Most of us have happy childhood memories of learning to type on an IBM, of receiving our first package/gift -total exhiliration!- via a big, boxy, brown UPS truck with the 'present' icon on it, or watching abc TV for hours on end.

On Oct.02.2009 at 12:13 PM

Another one bites the dust’s comment is:

Part 3

I've always felt that Rand was was an amazing salesman, not a designer. I can't separate him from the classic tale of The Emperor's New Clothes. Hey, even savvy Steve of all people was sucked into Rand's reality distortion field. Rand even published a 100-page brochure to explain to everyone why his amazing NEXT logo was so inventive and cutting-edge because he knew no one could tell just by looking at it. You had to read the book. Hmmm, remind you of -coughArnelland hisPepsiPDFcough- anyone?
Knowing Steve, I doubt the computer that the logo represented even had a manual.

On Oct.02.2009 at 12:18 PM

Another one bites the dust’s comment is:

Part 3

I've always felt that Rand was was an amazing salesman, not a designer. I can't separate him from the classic tale of The Emperor's New Clothes. Hey, even savvy Steve of all people was sucked into Rand's reality distortion field. Rand even published a 100-page brochure to explain to everyone why his amazing NEXT logo was so inventive and cutting-edge because he knew no one could tell just by looking at it. You had to read the book. Hmmm, remind you of -coughArnelland hisPepsiPDFcough- anyone?
Knowing Steve, I doubt the computer that the logo represented even had a manual.

On Oct.02.2009 at 12:19 PM

Another one bites the dust’s comment is:

Part4

Let's be honest, if any of us were to peruse Rand's portfolio, we'd drop into a coma or simply say, "I don't get it, what's the big deal?"

I dare say NONE of Rand's logos stand the test of time. I've been saying this for over 10 years and time has proved me right. Every year another one bites the dust.

Thanks again to BRAND NEW for once again for allowing me the platform to release my pent-up Rand rage. Even though it took 4 separate posts to get past the spam filters. If things stay on pace, you'll all get to hear me rant again in a year or less. My guess is that Westinghouse is next. abc will be last.

Who's with me!?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the YALE logo. I liked the old one even though it always looked like a cattle brand. -Not exactly the brand the Ivy League school was going for. The only time I ever saw the old brand-looking logo was in design books and online articles about the 'genius' of Paul Rand. I guess my brow is not yet high enough to have actually seen it while reading a Yale-published book in my bathrobe and slippers. I'm far too busy ranting about silly logos!

On Oct.02.2009 at 12:22 PM

T’s comment is:

It's pretty suprising reading through these comments at how many people don't get it — yt is irrelevent whether you 'like' Rand's logo, because, as he said;

The primary function of a logo is to identify.
Which of these is easier to identify? Therefore, which will have a more positive effect on the bottom line?

Rand's.

On Oct.02.2009 at 06:42 PM

Brandy’s comment is:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

On Oct.02.2009 at 07:47 PM

Benga’s comment is:

Wow, i can believe another Paul Rand logo is being replace with some lackluster logo. It's sad to see a well designed and well though out logo, that combined form and functions together replaced.

I'm with Massimo Vignelli, when he said,"We detest the demand of temporary solutions, the waste of energies and capital for the sake
of novelty."

Benga creative

On Oct.02.2009 at 09:27 PM

andyRespire’s comment is:

@Anotherone: hmmm, great thoughts. After reading your comments, I tend to agree - esp. compared to Bass' logos which (forthemostpart) still rock. I hate the IBM logo, but since it's such an epic, it dare not change (I'd hate to see a new-AT&T-logo-esque revision of IBM's logo.) Rand's old Yale logo is incredible, but screams 60s-70s.

@Armin: please delete Anotheronebites' redundant posts. Thanks.

On Oct.03.2009 at 12:08 AM

Lluis’s comment is:

Try again please.
Don't move Rand's logo now.

On Oct.03.2009 at 09:32 AM

Bruce’s comment is:

I admire Matthew Carter and like most of his work. The Yale Typeface is a good, solid face. But, I think Yale should have gone the other way and branded the university with Rand's mark. I'm sure there is a way to have Carter's typeface and Rand's mark work together.

On Oct.03.2009 at 04:46 PM

Ryan’s comment is:

I was glad to see it go and disagree that it was "timeless" and/or "magical"... I'm not wild about the replacement, but at least it feels like part of the larger institution now.

On Oct.03.2009 at 07:05 PM

Bruce’s comment is:

I'm going to bet that in a few years, someone will come up with a very nice mark using the new Yale Typeface. When that happens, we'll all say, "Yeah, that's it."

On Oct.03.2009 at 10:06 PM

Tess’s comment is:

"Another one bites the dust" a brave man who disses Paul Rand then links to his own portfolio, hope you got some design chops....oops, hmmm, not so much.

Anyway, the new logo is a font, not a logotype.

On Oct.03.2009 at 11:31 PM

Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:

*sigh*

Another one bites the dust, wow, that's a lot of work to denigrate a pioneer of identity design.

What does the ABC logo say about television? The ABC logo is television. Is it lacking because it's not on the nose, an illustration of a television? Utter nonsense.

Rand is immune to your criticism. He's dead. But your criticism says far more about your ignorance than it does about Rand's ability. Read some Rand, and books about him. You have a lot to learn.

Rand's University Yale Press logo? Brilliant. On the spine of a bbok published by the press, it connotes quality and intelligence. The new imprint? zzzzz

On Oct.04.2009 at 12:28 AM

handsome ninja’s comment is:

I Couldn't read the old Rand's logo... since it looked nice though.

The new one may not be as original and differentiating but its readable.
Tess, you should visit Paul Rand's website, it's full of logos made out of simple typefaces. i.b.m ?

On Oct.05.2009 at 03:52 AM

Tess’s comment is:

Handsome Ninja, The IBM letters are not a typeface, they are a custom.
iy, yi, iy.

On Oct.05.2009 at 10:37 AM

Andrew’s comment is:

@Tess

The IBM logotype created' by Rand in 1956 is typeset with 'City Medium'. It's not custom.
In 1972, Rand updated his logotype with 7 horizintal lines to suggest "speed and dynamism".

@XK9

Just pointing out the facts and offering my opinions.
I don't think anyone could 'talk the talk' better than Rand but I never felt he could 'walk the walk'. He was a much better salesaman than a designer.

No need to argue my point. The proof's in the pudding. His books may be read for decades to come but that may be the only place to see his now almost extinct brand work.

On Oct.05.2009 at 04:58 PM

Tess’s comment is:

@ Andrew.
Yes it is 'based' on 'City Medium', though as you state, it has been modified, therefore making it a custom.

On Oct.06.2009 at 11:04 AM

Aditya’s comment is:

"The proof's in the pudding"

Andrew, what 'proof' are you talking about? You make no sense.

On Oct.06.2009 at 11:08 AM

Andrew’s comment is:

@Aditya

'Proof's in the Pudding' or 'The Proof is in the Pudding' is an age-old phrase that means that the true value or quality of something can only be judged when it's put to use. The meaning is often summed up as "results are what count." - Paul Rand would enthusiastically agree.

Read post by 'Another one bites the dust' (Part 3) which speaks of Rand's logos continuing to disappear while his design philosophies remain relevant. Rand didn't always practice what he preached and basically, Rand is a much better salesman (preacher) than he is a designer (practicer) and the Proof is in the Pudding.

Going further, let's look at some logos that I believe will never go out of style or be replaced because they are loaded with classical, enduring themes and endearing metaphors.

Nike
Apple
CBS
Shell
I?NY
Coca-Cola
WWF
McDonalds
MLB
USPS
Cingular - Will live-on forever in my heart. :(..
BMW

These are the obvious, there are many, many more...

On Oct.06.2009 at 03:04 PM

Virginia’s comment is:

Aditya,

The PROOF you're looking for is at the top of the comments. There is a BEFORE and an AFTER picture. Look closely at both and see if you can determine what has happened and how that relates to the comments in this thread.

On Oct.06.2009 at 03:10 PM

Aditya’s comment is:

So, 'Andrew' is claiming (in a self-important manner) that Paul Rands logos are being replaced because they are poorly designed.

... crickets.

On Oct.06.2009 at 05:48 PM

David’s comment is:

I don't think 'poorly' is acurate. But I tend to agree that Rand's work, or what is left, certainly is not "loaded with classical, enduring themes and endearing metaphors." I believe IBM's horizontal lines were meant to represent scan lines on computer screens, while the Westinghouse logo is based on a now-antique wall socket but calls to mind Toy Story aliens. Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to what the Cummins and abc mark represented initially.

David

On Oct.07.2009 at 11:22 AM

Virgina’s comment is:

As PR wrote:
A logo is rarely a description of a business.

From:
A logo is a flag, a signature, an escutcheon.
A logo doesn't sell (directly), it identifies.
A logo is rarely a description of a business.
A logo derives its meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.
A logo is less important than the product it signifies; what it means is more important that what it looks like.

On Oct.07.2009 at 01:11 PM

Daven’s comment is:

David wrote:

"Going further, let's look at some logos that I believe will never go out of style or be replaced because they are loaded with classical, enduring themes and endearing metaphors.
Nike
Apple
CBS
Shell
I?NY
Coca-Cola
WWF
McDonalds
MLB
USPS
Cingular
BMW"

It is wrong to believe that people interpret logos this way. I certainly don't look at the 'golden arches' and think of heaven, I don't look at the WWF and think of cute cuddly Pandas. As Paul Rand said above "A logo derives its meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around".

I should also add, that logos are changed for many reasons, not just because they 'go out of style'.

On Oct.07.2009 at 05:42 PM

Paul Rand’s comment is:

I am sick to my stomach!

On Oct.08.2009 at 01:56 AM

Ronald’s comment is:

Who ever said that the golden arches represent heaven???
Now, WWF does remind me of cute cuddly pandas and how they might taste grilled-up in a McPanda combo. Supersized of course.

On Oct.08.2009 at 09:52 AM

Manny’s comment is:

It's kinda amusing that dude above with an 'etch a sketch' for a web site is dissing Paul Rand.

Way to go cowboy!

On Oct.08.2009 at 11:02 AM

Alex C.’s comment is:

Ha, ha. I like how no one mentioned Paul Rand's design of the Enron logo. (I guess we were all happy to see that one go.)

I will admit, thought I loved the quirkiness of the old YUP logo--hey, they could have made a speech bubble that said "YUP!"--Mr. Carter's design is beautifully crafted and I think it a fine choice. Maybe not an excellent choice, but a fine choice no less.

On Oct.08.2009 at 02:32 PM

Peter Bain’s comment is:

In explication of Rand's Westinghouse mark, one might recall the symbol for vacuum tubes, the schematics of a wiring diagram, and the obvious reference to a crown and maybe even a face.

Are these all valid today? No, and obviously some of the comments show unfamiliarity with them.

But Coca-Cola's mark has acquired, hopefully, worldwide recognition, and value for its owner. Maybe the Yale mark is unfashionably playful, and too flexible for a minimalist culture of rounded geometric sans. It remains highly distinctive, understandably presenting a challenge to a larger, far more extensive program built upon Carter's typeface.

On Oct.08.2009 at 07:59 PM

JM’s comment is:

"In explication of Rand's Westinghouse mark, one might recall the symbol for vacuum tubes, the schematics of a wiring diagram, and the obvious reference to a crown and maybe even a face.
Are these all valid today? No"

Peter, it simply doesn't matter if people see vacuum tubes or not. It is a symbol for what the brand stands for, not a literal representation of what they do.

This is a major point about identity design, that many designers do not seem to grasp. (see comments above)

On Oct.08.2009 at 09:17 PM

Julio Ferro’s comment is:

In Rand's own words:
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

On Oct.09.2009 at 07:46 AM

Peter Bain’s comment is:

@JM It is a symbol for what the brand stands for, not a literal representation of what they do.

I agree. Totally. I was merely pointing out that Rand had deftly woven a lot together in search of a mark of identification, not explanation, of what Westinghouse did or does do now. Marks that have ambiguity, that can imply, are in my view more effective than those that don't prompt any response, making them less memorable.

Again, I pointed out that the distinctive qualities of Rand's YUP mark made it unsuitable for Yale's larger program. The "academic" discussion here is about that decision and the weighing of equity or historical continuity (or aesthetic preference) against new priorities.

On Oct.09.2009 at 09:39 AM

Jesse’s comment is:

It's kinda amusing that Manny above with NO website is dissing dude with an 'etch a sketch' for a web site.

Way to go cowboy!

On Oct.09.2009 at 12:30 PM

Mo’s comment is:

Some of Rand logos (most of them) are really neat, but there are few, that aren't all that well designed (or at least not these days.., taste in design changes), but that doesn't mean that Paul Rand's work is less valuable. In the end it's a matter of taste.

On Oct.12.2009 at 05:36 AM

Mo’s comment is:

and something else the old Yale logo is ugly, but the new one looks like it was designed by a monkey learning to use a computer, playing with system fonts.

On Oct.12.2009 at 07:17 AM

Patrick Algrim’s comment is:

I just feel bad for the graphic designer who had to delete this beautiful mark. Either, the person didn't know what they were getting rid of, or that night they drank themselves a couple bottles of jack.

On Oct.13.2009 at 09:41 AM

Ian’s comment is:

Just to clarify something: the Westinghouse logo is not a wall socket, it's a stylized (and upside-down) riff on the schematic diagram symbol for a diode vacuum tube. The "W" is the filament/cathode and the line is the anode. The fact that the logo's outlived both the actual Westinghouse company and the technology it depicts (yeah, I know guitar amps will always use tubes) speaks to how iconic it is.

On Oct.14.2009 at 12:50 AM

Andrew’s comment is:

Ian, Peter and JM, Thanks for clearing-up and opening my eyes on the Westinghouse logo I can truly say that I it's my favorite Rand logo (tied with abc). I never saw the implied crown before.

On Oct.14.2009 at 01:08 PM

Ivana’s comment is:

I'm sad.

On Nov.08.2009 at 12:57 AM

r4i’s comment is:

Hi Guy's,
hope the mark is preserved in small ways, and used actively in discreet places - given its pedigree, I somehow doubt that it will be dumped completely. Perhaps the synergy that has YP adopting the main Yale mark will also free up the Rand logo to find wider, subtler applications across the university.

On Jan.01.2010 at 11:59 PM

r4i’s comment is:

Hi,
t's possible to modernize a company's image without touching the logo. Especially when it is an iconic logo like this one... or like the old UPS logo (I still cry for that one).Of course it's their strategy and I respect it. The logos don't disappear, they just become history.

On Jan.02.2010 at 12:01 AM