Opinion BY Armin

This is not your Mom’s Girl Scouts

With more than 2.4 million girl members, supported by nearly a million adult members working as volunteers, the Girl Scouts of the USA is the world’s biggest organization dedicated to girls — all girls as their description clarifies. Founded in 1912, Girl Scouts now counts with 100 councils across the United States that help girls find a troop to join, and even outside of the U.S., there are 90 countries helping 16,000 girls stay connected. But what we all know about the Girl Scouts around this blog is that its logo was designed by Saul Bass in 1978 and, like the rest of his identity work, it summed up brilliantly and succinctly the mission of the organization and the history behind it. Yesterday, the Girl Scouts unveiled a new identity by the newly formed New York design firm, Original Champions of Design (OCD). [Disclaimer: I worked for two years with one of its founders, Jennifer Kinon, while we were both at Pentagram.]

One thing we also all know is that you don’t mess with a Saul Bass logo. I mean, yes you can change it or get rid of it as there is no written law about it, but doing so will not win you any friends in this industry. The first smart move by OCD was to not mess with a Saul Bass logo, the second was to try to technically improve it. Working with Joe Finocchiaro and Jasper Goodall, OCD made some subtle updates to the three girl profiles.

[Changes to the profiles]:
1. Bangs help differentiate and age down the three girls.
2. The more perky nose is also more youthful.
3. Adding tension to the lips brings the girls alive.
4. And simplifying the neck makes the mark stronger.
5. The pointed trefoil begins to setup a unified system.
— OCD Project Page

Adding the bangs on the first profile really helps in making this logo more contemporary, as the old profile, with the hair pulled back, made the girl too matronly. The perkier nose is cuter and the lips look a little less numb. The one thing that stands out more in this revision is the length of the necks, where they feel a little too stretched in this rendition by being so angular, whereas before the effect was diminished by the curvature. In terms of the shape of the trefoil itself, the update is a vast improvement with the new horizontal axis asymmetry, making it look more like a badge than a four-leaf clover. And as some of the executions below show, it makes for a very playful shape.

We created a modified version of the typeface Avenir to sync up with the angle of the Profiles. Then we set “girl scouts” in all lowercase which had two advantages. It made the wordmark more approachable. And, the lowercase “g” offset the Profiles, which we placed at the forward end of the lockup, proudly leading the way like the prow of a ship.
— OCD Project Page

The new wordmark is simple and effective, but that’s nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to Avenir. I always question the need to lowercase wordmarks and this is no exception. Yes, this looks nicer and softer, but does it really serve any other purpose? Certainly, the attention to detail on the angles and placement is very welcome.

Grade levels and their shorthands, using the trefoil as a “ding”-like sound that punctuates the lock-ups.

Early proof of concept posters.

Outside of the organization logo, the rest of the identity uses Joshua Darden’s Omnes — which has been licensed to every Girl Scouts computer — and variations on the trefoil patterns as well as the trefoil acting as a holding shape for important information.

Guideline summary, otherwise known as the Cheat Sheet. Click image for bigger view.

Brand Tree. Click image for bigger view.

More than a logo or identity redesign, this project is a great example of what can be called a revitalization, breathing new life into something a lot of people are familiar with. And as long as they keep those Samoas Girl Scouts cookies coming, they can tweak the logo all they want.

Bobby’s comment is:

I love this, almost in spite of myself.

Great refresh.

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:14 AM

nora’s comment is:

The changes are absolutely perfect, except i have to agree that the necks look a bit more stretched and awkward, the curve in the previous original logo made it easier to the eye. Love the identity and the rationale behind it.
Go girl scouts!!

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:17 AM

Swifty’s comment is:

Some of the best redesigns are accomplished by nothing more than a subtle nick and tuck. Nice work.

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:26 AM

bottleHeD’s comment is:

These changes are waaay too subtle to even be noticeable.

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:54 AM

aspect’s comment is:

The nerve to think you can improve on a logo by Saul Bass. I would’ve rather seen this be completely replaced with something else than see a master’s work be disrespected. The “new” logo does not improve anything whatsoever, it just adds details that aren’t needed. Typical 21st century designer bulls##t to justify their changes when most of the changes they made aren’t even going to be noticeable unless the logo is extremely large (which it won’t be 99% of the time). The only thing you can really tell at “normal use” size is the bang, which does nothing but make it more cluttered and unclear, and the metal-pipe robot necks girls have nowadays. I’m all for straight, clear-cut lines otherwise, just not with human forms.

The rest of the update is just fine, but would’ve worked just fine without f###ing with Bass’ iconic logo too. God damn, I really need to stop subscribing to Brand New, such a downer time and time again. I don’t want to know about these things.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:08 AM

Paul’s comment is:

I guess I’m not drinking the Kool Aid. I think the “revitalization” is terrible. I have no qualms with tinkering with the original to try to improve it, or update it, but the result are a horrible hack job. The lines in the original are elegant and beautiful, and the weight of the dark and light areas are well-balanced. The new one is all over the place. The necks look all wobbly and awkward (probably to force the point on the trefoil). The faces look like three doofuses with overbites. And those bangs look like a shape that was slapped on. I really can’t believe how complimentary everyone is being about this.

I’m not especially wowed by the new type treatment either. The U/lc Frutiger looked strong and well-proportioned, while the all lowercase Avenir, with it’s “modifications”, looks like a sophomore typography class trim-job (and I’ve taught my share of sophomore type classes). It looks weak and horsey at the same time. And finally, the lockup with the logo floating off in space with some contrived relationships feels as if the designer just wanted to do the opposite of what was done before.

All in all, I’m very disappointed with this treatment, and with all the applause and back-slapping it’s getting. I might just cancel my order of Thin Mints this year (sorry girls!).

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:10 AM

Matheus Wahl’s comment is:

I came here to criticize the nip/tuck of the logo, but then I saw that the pointy edge in the bottom makes it resemble a fleur-de-lis.

This renders my complaints invalid.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:12 AM

Domonyi’s comment is:

Yeah, it’s great that it’s all user generated content.
Peace, Health, Happiness and Success.
Have a Great Day!

Karoly Domonyi
AriesTrade Network
http://www.AriesTrade.com

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:18 AM

Anonymous’s comment is:

The changes to the mark are horrible. It looks like they spent 15 minutes on this with no understanding or appreciation of Bass’ subtle spatial relationships. The heads were supposed to line up, the necks look like stakes and the “bangs” quickly read as a blindfold.

The type is nice, but they ruined the mark.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:23 AM

Jeff’s comment is:

I like the updates to the mark but the type sure is boring.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:26 AM

Martin Boath’s comment is:

All-in-all, this does seem to be like an awful lot of work gone into an identity where it’s hero – the logo – is actually worse than the original. The previous logo was balanced, with both wordmark and trefoil in perfect proportion to one another. The new one is, simply, not. The trefoil is so big I keep expecting the whole thing to tip over. And seriously, are we meant to swallow the talk of aligning the angles on the ‘s’ as a meaningful and important design decision?

As for the overall identity, you cannot fault the effort and detail in which they have gone with this. But with an organisation such as the Girl Scouts, where this material will be in the hands of – no offence meant – an Ordinary Joe (or Joanne in this case), surely this is a level of complexity that will be either ignored, unappreciated or, despite the best efforts, bastardised and distorted?

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:27 AM

sdlsd’s comment is:

This isn’t terrible, but I’m not really feeling it as a whole. I think the type choice is way too heavy. The colour palette is all kinds of ugly. The tweaks to the icon, as small as they are, really throw it off balance.

The only thing I really love is the use of the patterns on the stationary.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:31 AM

Andreas Lanjerud’s comment is:

Looked at the symbol first, without reading.
The white part looked like a fist.
The it looked like someone hitting someone else.
Never really saw the silhouettes until I read the text.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:39 AM

Oisín’s comment is:

Overall I think it’s quite a nicely revitalised rebrand.
I’d agree that the logo itself is not an improvement. The loss of clean simple lines along the hairlines is, I think, a misstep. As the differences really are something only a designer would notice I’m glad they didn’t create a wholly new identity, (I still miss Rand’s Yale logo).

On a separate note, the arrogant and aggressive nature of some posters is just that, arrogant and aggressive. I’d like to think Saul Bass would have never reacted to this rebrand in that manner, (though I know better than to speak for him or his work).

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:47 AM

Everett’s comment is:

+1 Martin Boath

The previous mark was so perfectly proportioned and balanced. Yes, the Bass logo is now a bit dated and in need of an update, but it is not sacred (come off it @aspect, it’s just a logo!). I do like the idea of adding bangs to the figures, but the execution is far too heavy-handed.

Aside from the addition of the bangs, I appreciate the trefoil shape that has replaced the Bass-designed shape which was more of a quadrefoil (the lower point was missing). However, this nice detail is ruined by the trefoil’s awkward intersection with the silhouetted necks. Overall, the point of the trefoil shape should probably be more pronounced to make it read with more conviction at a distance or small size.

Then there is poor, poor Avenir. A very nice face to start with that is nicely applied throughout the body of the identity system, but is utterly mangled in the logo.

Overall, a nice identity, but a shoddy logo.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:02 AM

Jason Laughlin’s comment is:

I’ll fall into the camp that the refresh of the brand is quite nice. While I don’t know that I’m totally in love with the lower case Avenir, the lockups are very well thought out considering the number of permutations that might be used. All the support pieces are very nice as well. I like the patterns quite a bit.

As for the logo, I like almost none of the changes. The bangs are just weird. If that’s modernization in the world of hair, count me out. The faces’ new noses and lips and whatnot aren’t terrible, but they don’t really offer much of an improvement. The only piece I do like is the more pointed bottom to move it from a four leaf clover shape to a more true trefoil shape. (Okay, fine, I had to look up what the hell a trefoil was beyond a delicious shortbread cookie, but it is still a nice change)

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:04 AM

Andy Charly’s comment is:

I like the point. I like the bangs (which do not, at all, read as a blindfold to me). The hair of the original always looked like a girl with a receding hairline to me, or like an aging jam-band guitarist with a womanly facial silhouette. I like the noses. I would prefer more stoic closed mouths from an aesthetic standpoint, but I don’t really mind the mouths all that much. The biggest ‘ugh’ is the straight necks. The curves of the original were so graceful, so beautiful. If the sole intention of the straight necks was to line up with the edges of the ‘s,’ then that’s a case of not having the priorities straight, because adjusting those angles to match doesn’t add anything to the lockup. It’s fluff. Apparently every design decision must be justified in some way or ‘meaningful,’ or so it seems.

Beyond the logo, I love the color palette, which is decidedly vintage in feel. I also love the use of the trefoil silhouette in the patterns. Granted, the concept of using the logo as the basis for a set of patterns is almost cliché by now, since it’s been a very trendy approach for the last few years, but I don’t mind clichés if they look great, and this does.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:23 AM

Andy Charly’s comment is:

Heck, I would have liked to see Omnes in the logo and Avenir for the text. That would have made more sense to me, in some ways.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:26 AM

soully’s comment is:

I think the system as a whole is pretty nice, but I definitely think it’s taken a step backwards with the logo itself. I don’t like the type and the necks really don’t work for me- I’m all for refining rather than reinventing but I think the only part I would consider an improvement is the lips and noses.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:35 AM

laura’s comment is:

I like the redrawn nose and lips, though the lowercase font does nothing for me.

However, THE BANGS ARE TERRIBLE! Yes, I’ll shout it. Honestly, I thought there was some kinda rendering error which cut off the top of the first silhouette.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:44 AM

felix sockwell’s comment is:

like the system, not a fan of the bangs addition. destroys the flow

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:44 AM

Rodrok’s comment is:

I dont know if this was done on purpose but if so, I think its very clever, on the face silhouettes sometimes they look an streeched arm doing a thumbs up! ;)

nice! :)

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:51 AM

Julie’s comment is:

Oh dear. Another clunky illustration! What awkward shapes! I really really hate the bangs, my eye goes right to them and the girls behind the first one get lost. Those bangs are not little girl bangs either, they are swept-to-the-side early 20s bangs, and they are creating a very weird negative image with the middle girl and the left girl’s hair for me. This makes the whole mark seem crookedy. The figures remind me a lot of the (seemingly hastily-drawn) Pantene Hair Star logo.

The chins ARE better (though I disagree that any of the facial tweaks made the figures look younger) and the tweaked trefoil shape would be welcome with me were it not for the weird optical illusion I mentioned. The straight necks kind of lend a military-stripe effect for me which I like, it suits the whole uniformed troop thing I suppose.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:52 AM

jayparry’s comment is:

Dont like the bangs or the necks or the trefoil. Should have left it alone and focused on the identity around it. that part they did well as a branding company, but i pity the foo that messes with saul bass timeless perfection.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:55 AM

David Airey’s comment is:

I’m not overly fussed on the type, but I do enjoy the subtle changes to the symbol, all except for the “stretched” neck-lines — with you on that one, Armin.

Great feature, though. Good work.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:58 AM

Brad Gutting’s comment is:

You know, the logo’s the logo. Wise choice to wisely leave it alone, and I think the results are purely subjective—I lean more towards the “it’s nice” camp than anything else, and I sure as hell don’t hate it. Say what you will about it, but it’s not like OCoD was utterly mindless about how they designed it. Personally, I tend to find all the “look at all these tricky angles and alignments we’re working with” a bit like a noodling Eric Johnson guitar solo—interesting but of questionable purpose—but that’s me. I’ll take thoughtfulness over vacuity any day.

What’s really strong is the REST of the branding. That’s just cool. Hangs together nicely, feels fresh and alive and totally on-target. Bravo to that!

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:00 AM

Cory’s comment is:

I’m not faimilar with GS, so I have no emotional attachment, unlike with, say, Nickelodeon Network, which was upsetting.

This change is nice. It takes the original and doesn’t mess with it too much. Just a nip and tuck. Same colors, same general shape. Newish font in black instead of green.

I love the system of ranking logos and abbreviations. Adds a dose of “cool” without trying too hard.

This is a good case of updating w/o trying too hard and fixing what ain’t broke.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:02 AM

Paul’s comment is:

I like the improvement to the overall shape but along with the awkwardly long necks, the bangs are the real deal-breaker. It totally ruins the flow of the design.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:07 AM

ninja’s comment is:

Whatever, haters. Not every logo in the world can be amazingly perfect like you want it to be. Come to the Midwest, I’ll show you some puke-tastic, heinous, offensive logos that’d make you faint if you think this is bad. Saul Bass’s logo needed a more youthful update, as did the entire Girl Scouts brand. This does it. Overall, I think it’s great and well-executed. I’m sure the Girl Scouts people love it so much that they’re jumping up and down and throwing cookies into the air with joy. And WHY ISN’T ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THE TREFOIL PATTERNS ON THE BACK OF THE BUSINESS CARDS? So FUN. Love it.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:08 AM

MWorrell’s comment is:

Those bangs just aren’t working for me. It creates an interruption that makes your eye stop for no good reason.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:16 AM

coda’s comment is:

And as some of the executions below show, it makes for a very playful shape.

Like it never did?

Pointless update to the mark. The original is timeless; I even prefer the original logo type. They could have a winner if they simply updated the colours of the old logo to match those of the new one.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:20 AM

Dot’s comment is:

As a troop leader, and marketing professional, I like the overall branding style established; though I am a little indifferent to the trefoil itself having never really like the original anyway - the faces always seemed boot-like in shape to me.

I think there was a lot of thought and consideration for the goals of the national organization with this look. GSUSA has been trying for years to shake the, “nothing but arts and farts” perception many people have, and while this wont fight that long history, I think the overall look is appealing to both girls and young woman (as mothers and potential volunteers). Have lead girls from Daisy - Ambassador, I also appreciate the unifying looks while allowing a level of individuality for each age group. National has been trying for years to balance tradition with the new needs of our girls and young women, I think this is a nice visualization of those strides.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:22 AM

Another Opinion’s comment is:

Yes, because all lowercase isn’t diminutive or anything… they are just “girls” right?

I get the feeling a lot of male designers are going to overlook or just dismiss the fact that all-lowercase is often to used to soften positioning.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:24 AM

rek’s comment is:

I don’t know about “matronly”, but the bangs turn the first girl into Veronica Lodge from the Archie comics. The necks really need to be curved; they look inhuman now.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:43 AM

Ben Peck’s comment is:

Very nice. I don’t really have a problem with the necks. They carry across the idea of it being a badge. They’re also much cleaner and iconic. I think it is very well thought out, organized and if followed will be very successful in development of the brand. Well done OCD.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:49 AM

Kyle’s comment is:

If you go to OCD’s website, you’ll see a strange hybrid of old and new logo on their “Girly Side” shopping bags.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:53 AM

A Senior in Girl Scouting’s comment is:

Personally I don’t like the changed at all. I feel that the lower case letters could be interpreted as a way of saying girl scouts are not important. I also think the changes to the logo are not even noticeable. All the changed made are changed that I could myself could do on paint or photoshop in less them five minutes, and at that it doesn’t even look right. When I first saw this at first I had no idea why there was an extra green area in the logo and thought it was a mistake on the article, it doesn’t give it a youthful look at all and in trying to give it a youthful look you lose the maturity that originally logo had that shows that the girls work hard and GROW to be mature adults through this program. If you are going to change it wouldn’t it be better to change the entire thing into something new never used before that truly shows the work and effort we as the girls in girl scouting put into our activities.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:54 AM

Stephanie’s comment is:

i don’t care for the bangs. AT ALL. they age the girls, making them look like women. also the pointed trefoil is driving me mad.
who am i kidding? i hate all of the changes to the logo.
the branding is nice. the colors in troop levels with the green really clash though.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:00 AM

Doug Bartow’s comment is:

I think the typography is the strongest element of the redesign. I hate seeing Uncle Saul’s original designs altered as much as the next hyper-sensitive designer, but this is an evolution, not a revolution. Now, can someone address the ever-shrinking number of thin mints cookies per box?

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:01 AM

Mike’s comment is:

“Yes, because all lowercase isn’t diminutive or anything… they are just “girls” right?”

Ahaha! This one takes the cake! Hilarious comments on this site.

Despite what holier than thou designosaurs may think, the re-design is a success. The silhouettes have gone from ‘Ladies’, to ‘Girls’.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:04 AM

Kevin’s comment is:

I hate the bangs. Hate them.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:14 AM

Eric’s comment is:

The overall system looks great, and looks like the result of a lot of smart, creative work.

However, I don’t agree with the updates to the mark. Each update listed seems to be solving a problem that didn’t exist.

The bangs disrupt the rhythm and make the foreground girl look like a factory worker from the 1940’s. The pointed clover feels out of place among the soft curves. The straightened necks feel unnatural. The changes to the mouths and noses are so minor they seem unnecessary.

The only problem with the original mark were the necks. While formally beautiful, the elongated necks made the females look less like girls and more like lanky adult supermodels.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:20 AM

Chris’s comment is:

If you think this is bad, do you remember the wholesale destruction of Saul Bass’s UPS logo?

These are just minor tweaks, and I think they are mostly successful. I agree that adding bangs makes the girls look younger, but it also makes the logo more cluttered.

I like the pointier bottom, and never made the connection to the old logos until I saw them all side by side.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:28 AM

John’s comment is:

I don’t think this is an improvement.

I always thought the old logo was a synthesis of girls’ faces and a cloverleaf. In the new version, the cloverleaf is lost. No, sorry, I don’t see a lilly in the new version either.

Sample ads look sooo much like ads for a wireless provider, not very appropriate nor creative.

Okay… the alignment of the type lock-in is nice.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:28 AM

Cash’s comment is:

I can understand the need for this identity revamp, but yowzers, this feels dated right out of the box. The all lowercase type will be something that we look back in, oh, 5 years or so and wonder why it was all the rage.

And the changes to the girls faces. Dear lord. Bangs? Really? WIll you have to revisit this in another decade when bangs fall out of fashion?

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:32 AM

Marwan Salfiti’s comment is:

First off, you really do never mess with a master’s work. I hate to sound redundant, but really, if you really have nothing to add to the piece, save your energy. There’s nothing to change with the original. I admit I hated when they gave Paul Rand’s UPS logo a makeover, but its grown on me. Plus, the shield, though it takes the same shape, is different enough that it could be seen as a progression. 

This work, on the other hand is just indulgent. It is rebranding for the sake of rebranding. I really love the use of Type with the logo system. It is fun, young and fresh. The mark,though, is just a misstep. I believe if Saul Bass were to see this rework on a class environment, he’d shred the the comp!

The mark reworking brings no ingenuity or new thought, so why touch it? I am all for high profile design rebranding and making good design great, but the mark updates themselves are simply indulgent with the notion that OCD has made a great mark even better. 

I agree with the bang theory, they make the girls look younger. However, the other details are lost, I’m afraid, on the average consumer. This is not to mention that the bangs now violate the negative space. There’s a reason why the mark was so successful before, it was simple and recognizable. You look at the mark and it communicated with negative and positive shapes. This piece, now spoils this idea and further supports the theory that simple IS better. 

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:42 AM

nick’s comment is:

What!? No Girl Scout Cookie Packaging revamp… As long as they don’t change the cookies, I’m a happy camper!

As for the ID system, I think it’s a nice evolution, especially with the addition of the secondary visual language… lovely.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:45 AM

Joel Felix’s comment is:

You just don’t mess with Saul Bass, I think the addition of the bangs and other manipulations of the mark are unnecessary and poorly executed. Booooooo!

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:52 AM

Doug Bartow’s comment is:

Curious as to how many of the commenters/designers here who are offended by the notion of Bass’s original logo being slightly altered would actually turn this rebranding job down if offered it…

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:54 AM

jen’s comment is:

The mark is okay but not really an improvement (puffy bangs are contemporary?). The identity system looks like a hot mess to me…I just hate the physical placement of the badge by the name. It feels off-balance or something.

I wish they’d left it alone, actually. But I admit I am not being objective. I just hate the whole thing.

On Jul.07.2010 at 10:57 AM

Anonymous’s comment is:

I do not like the bangs, not one bit. I do like the new pointiness of the Trefoil but I also do not like those straight necks or all lower case letters. The mouth and nose are subtle enough to not make a difference to me.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:18 AM

John Leschinski’s comment is:

The bangs bug the hell out of me. Makes it unnecessarily heavy.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:20 AM

BJN’s comment is:

Bangs? Looks like a bomber hat to me. The original logo is more open and fluid. The redesign has chunky top that makes the logo more squat and the straight line necks are reminiscent of military stripes.

Not that I’d ever be approached to redesign the Bass logo, but yes, I’d tell the Girl Scouts to either keep a great Bass logo or go with a new design.

And just what does the obese Omnes font communicate to today’s girl scout in the marketing collateral?

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:21 AM

Will Burnett’s comment is:

I love everything about this.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:25 AM

Jim’s comment is:

Great redesign, refreshing -breathes new life to the identity. His lasted 31 years, we’ll see if this will do the same.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:36 AM

Alex P.’s comment is:

“I like your bangs.” Yay for the new hair style.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:42 AM

Carlo’s comment is:

Blah. Without the red lines you wouldn’t even know something changed. Type is uninspired, mark is virtually unchanged.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:52 AM

Hibryd’s comment is:

Jim -

I doubt this will last 30 years. The old logo and wordmark didn’t look like it came out of the 80s: it was just kind of simple and timeless. The new all-lower-case-san-serif-mostly-gothic-letters scream “2010”. Which means it’s going to look dated and require another refresh in 10-15 years.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:59 AM

DFL’s comment is:

Looking at the before and after I can’t help to notice Bass’s original logo is much more elegant. I don’t buy any of their arguments,the bangs are confusing, the stick necks are awkward (straightening them only lengthens them) and the overall shape of the trefoil is more pointy and less pleasant.

They did a great job with the system but the design firm should have told their client there was absolutely nothing wrong with the logo and built a program around Bass’s original.

Add another bad redraw to the UPS, ATT, et al. pile.

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:01 PM

Cadette Leader’s comment is:

I like the updated faces and point on the logo but not the bangs and the neck. Not so sure I like the lower case letters since that seems to marginalize the Girl Scouts. I’m wondering how much time and money were spent on this instead of being spent on programs? Girls don’t join for the logo!

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:05 PM

Rafe’s comment is:

@Chris - I believe that the UPS logo was designed by Paul Rand [1961]. Never the less, I have to agree with Marwan - the redesign of the mark is a misstep. What was lost in the balance and form through the redesign is not offset by the minor changes to the hairline or the tension in the lines of the lips - the angularity of the necklines is to mechanical, it has lost the humanist element that was in the curved lines. I do like the idea of the comprehensive identity program - the posters and the patterns that seem to be a part of the branding are engaging, but they also could have been part of the identity without reworking the mark.

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:12 PM

Margot’s comment is:

This is by far my favorite feature on Brand New. Seems to me that time and time again the posted re-brands fall short in at least one major way. Like there’s obviously some kind of weird political client/designer/marketing mash-up that happened and you can see it in the final outcome.

It’s arguable that some of the smaller details of the logo could be re-worked, but those kinds of comments will always be at least a little subjective and relative to personal taste. No one can argue that there is still a strong presence of Dear Old Saul, and this is a successful update overall.

I would even go further and applaud the extension of the brand and how well it traverses from kid to adult. And how refreshing it is to see a female targeted brand with barely an ounce of pink. It’s just a completely comprehensive story top-to-bottom. Everything from patterns, to photography, to usage guidelines, and fonts (they licensed ALL the Girl Scout computers with them!? So awesome, go Darden) has been expertly attend to.

And c’mon, not just saying this because I’m a chick, but who doesn’t LOVE those darn cookies and everything this organization works to do? Girl Scouts have just jumped up there with the handful of other brands, like Apple, that really get it done.

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:14 PM

Christopher Simmons’s comment is:

On the mark: I’m one who really appreciates subtle and thoughtful updates. I consider this one of those cases. I think I preferred the visual form of the original hairlines, but the bangs make sense and contribute some diversity to the silhouettes. I agree with Armin/OCD that the very subtle changes to the lips and profile vitalize the three figures. Seeing the pointed trefoil in use as a pattern or holding element explains that choice. The most significant update is the improved spacing between the chins. For all those believe in the infallibility of Bass, here’s an example of technical improvement — the improved spacing works better at small sizes in print and online.

On the type: This notion that lowercase somehow code for the diminishment of women is nonsense. Utter nonsense. Commenters on Brand New are generally quick to lambast over-analyses like these when they come from the designer (even though the designer is privy to research and information that we are not). Let’s hold the comments to the same standard. ABC, AT&T, Amazon.com and Adidas (just to start with the A’s) all employ lowercase logotypes without any negative implications. In this instance the lowercase seems a little younger, a little fresher and a little more welcoming. Whether all-lowercase will ultimately be viewed as a dated trend doesn’t really matter until 5 or 10 years from now when we can view it with some perspective, so at the very least it is contemporary which is what a revitalization is about.

On the application: The revitalization of the mark and type are, in themselves, fairly subtle. What these changes allow however is a much more playful and flexible execution of the identity in application. This is where the brand really comes alive and where the greatest success is realized. The execution is interesting and malleable — ranging energetically from cute to hip with many point in between.

On Bass: One of the greats, no doubt, but the notion that even a great designer’s work categorically cannot be improved is close-minded and foolish. As designers we are required to think critically and in context. In my view, this update is sensitive to the legacy of the logo; it preserves its concept and form but refreshes its execution. More importantly, it is sensitive to the organization’s history and to its future.

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:15 PM

Christopher Simmons’s comment is:

And on perspective: To say that the original logo was “perfect” is to judge it solely (and incorrectly) on its aesthetic merits and to ignore the context for which it was created. Moreover, it suggests that the Girl Scouts hasn’t evolved as an institution in the 32 years since Bass’ logo was introduced. That position elevates the role of the logo and its designer above that of the organization. If anything marginalizes young women and the organizations that support them, its stunning arrogance of that kind of attitude, not the typesetting.

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:21 PM

Mike’s comment is:

Well said Christopher Simmons.

Here is another beauty for you to take on:

“And just what does the obese Omnes font communicate to today’s girl scout in the marketing collateral?”

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:31 PM

Mike’s comment is:

Actually… apologies, that comment must be a joke…

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:40 PM

Andrea’s comment is:

Hate the placement of the logo up and to the right of the wordmark. That to me is the biggest flaw. Hate hate hate.

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:44 PM

Alex P.’s comment is:

I know this might be a blasphemous statement against the almighty holy one, Saul Bass, and all sacred creations but I think this new update is an improvement. As far as I can tell, the changes to the graphic were done very gently and intelligently. Had there been gradients, glows, and sheens decorating the mark like the UPS logo, then I guess the critics here would have a legitimate case but that isn’t happening here. The mark still has Bass all over it. Besides, the Girls Scouts organization are obligated to their brand and the girls they serve (and providing myself Samoa cookies), and not to Saul Bass.

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:48 PM

Matt W’s comment is:

I like the service-mark redesign except for the straight necks and the pointed trefoil. Just preference.

The angle of the 3-word lockup is terrible (are they going to invent a new way to justify text, called “girl scouts angel?”)

I don’t like that they minisculed the wordmark. I understand that lowercases are more “approachable,” “likable,” “humane,” blah blah, but come on, we’re talking about the girls scouts! A world-wide oil company might want to use lowercase letters for this reason, but the girls scouts? Who’s more likable, affable, and humane than the girls scouts?

On Jul.07.2010 at 12:57 PM

Stereo Radiation’s comment is:

The logo demands a awful lot of white space in its layout, but the color contrast brings it alive.

Also, it made me think a little of:

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:04 PM

Tyler’s comment is:

This is great! Subtle changes, but great changes, nonetheless. Great to see someone “jump off the beaten path”, so to speak, and use Avenir in a situation where the designer very easily could’ve chosen Gotham. (Not knocking Gotham, of course, but it seems Gotham is becoming the new Helvetica these days!)

Of course, I am a guy, so my opinion probably means nothing! :)

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:11 PM

Allyjs’s comment is:

I agree with the neck stretching comments. One thing that bug me is the color coding of the different ranks. The daisies and the brownies fit but juniors have green uniforms and so the purple threw me off.

However I’m not too opposed to changing the colors of each because really, it was all variations of greens and blues. It’s just a bit of a shock.

I do love the use of the trefoil in the different patterns and on the poster ideas.

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:12 PM

GUS the Gamer’s comment is:

A lil disappointed because there is no Cookie packaging (u_u)

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:14 PM

brand designer’s comment is:

This is a travesty. The logo is a disaster.

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:15 PM

Nate’s comment is:

The makeover is well calculated, but here’s my beef:

1. The bangs. Why? It completely fucks with the whitespace of the logo.

2. Original Champions of Design. How cute that your name is also an acronym for a compulsive disorder. Teehee! Confidence is great, but calling yourselves champions is a narcissistic stretch.

Saul Bass, now there’s an original champion of design.

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:17 PM

obse.’s comment is:

Is that Zooey Deschanel there?

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:25 PM

MooseDesign’s comment is:

I’m on the fence here which is unfamiliar territory… The bangs seem forced and really interrupt the dynamic flow. The necklines seem to be rendered solely for their pairing with the typography, and not because they were right for the mark. It dehumanizes the mark, which is a shame. And the angle that pairs the profiles to the “s” is not the strongest line, being on the outside of the negative area, rather than the positive. So the glue isn’t even that great which makes me question the neckline choice all the more…

I do like subtle tweaks to return to the trefoil form, as well as the facial profile updates to create greater contrasts. I can imagine their effect on printing at the fringe of reproduction and in smaller screen application being beneficial.

The typography is decent. The lowercase lends a much more youthful air than the corporate, upright and stiff rendering of the original which feels like more of an afterthought.

So, the things that I found to be thoughtful and well rendered changes seem to be balanced by those that seem ill conceived so the obvious question becomes not whether this was well executed, but whether it was necessary in the first place.

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:47 PM

David’s comment is:

The bangs are weird, and distracting. For me, They take away from the uniformity of the mark. Bass had it correct. The other facial adjustment are nice and the type is really great. Not sure about the shape of the mark as a hole. Its kind of a clover, but not. On its own (without the silos) its kind of a weak form. The ultimate test for this new mark will be how it looks on a cookie! Will the banks hold up?

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:50 PM

Huntley Brinkley’s comment is:

The old design may have been a bit dated, but this refresh only makes things worse.

On Jul.07.2010 at 01:59 PM

Joe Marianek’s comment is:

Original Champions of Design nailed it.
I cannot recall a more appropriate, humble,
and well executed brand refresh.
This tastes better than the cookies.

On Jul.07.2010 at 02:00 PM

Mr MIyagi’s comment is:

Is nothing sacred? Why bother changing a Saul Bass logo that has been successful for 30+ years? They might as well have just added eyes and eyelashes. My sentiments toward this resemble how I feel when Google adds things to their simple search engine which people use because it is simple and it works. Sort of like a few weeks ago when they added the horrendous background image you could not change from the search page. Thank God it eventually went away.

On Jul.07.2010 at 02:04 PM

David Boni’s comment is:

Wow, nice way to totally fuck up a perfectly good logo. What a bunch of assholes!

Why are their necks straight as hell? Extremely awkward. Bangs are awful, I hate bangs, and I agree with what others said: it unnecessarily complicates the mark. Makes it look like the first girl has a giant fro instead of there being two girls now.

Old logo was so much more than this. Elegant, simple, lovely. This is pretty sad.

On Jul.07.2010 at 02:05 PM

Alvin Martinez’s comment is:

Doug Bartow: “I hate seeing Uncle Saul’s original designs altered as much as the next hyper-sensitive designer, but this is an evolution, not a revolution.”

I nearly fell off my chair in laughter after reading the words ‘hyper-sensitive designer.’

: )

~ A

On Jul.07.2010 at 02:38 PM

Doug Bartow’s comment is:

@Alvin Martinez: I’m here all week…try the veal.

On Jul.07.2010 at 02:41 PM

Peter Romich’s comment is:

The implementation is very contemporary and trendy, and the main wordmark and its sub-wordmarks are all a bit softer and an undeniable improvement on the original - however, the tweaks to the main logo illustration are problematic.

The foreheads weren’t the difficult area, the elongated necks and the stripes they create were. Isolating the strong trefoil outline as a symbol on its on its own was the right idea, but when it comes to the logo itself, adding the bangs to the head in the foreground if anything diminishes the equality on the three girls represented and fails in its stated mission to represent different age groups.

However, the lack of consideration in the logo alterations is almost compensated for by the solid implementation in the identity guidelines and posters.

On Jul.07.2010 at 02:46 PM

David Timmerman’s comment is:

I am ok with everything except the change in the hair, and the necks of the Bass logo 2.0.

While ‘matronly’ ma be considered a bad thing, I find the new bangs make the hairdo dated. Also, instead of the slight curve in the neck stripes, they are straighter, and I just do not like it.

The revised shape? I like it, as it draws a spirit from the Scouts earlier logos.

The branding? I am ok, but the Girlfleur seems to dominate more than the Bass 2.0 logo. I am afraid that the Bass 2.0 logo, floating above words, or relagated to the corner just will get lost, pahsed out over time.

New typeface? Its fine, but then again, it looks like everything else. Like when Garamond/Times dominated in the 90s, or Gotham now - but then again, its all about the logo and they can get a new typface in a decade

On Jul.07.2010 at 03:43 PM

Chris Rugen’s comment is:

To echo many others here: the updates to the girls don’t work for me (though some of the intentions do).

The necks in particular don’t feel quite right to me. But the bangs also violate the rhythm of the original and do some funky positive/negative shape things that disrupt the image for me. However, I see that some of these changes aid the pointed tip on the overall mark and have some angular relationships with the wordmark.

Overall, though, this feels like a winner.

On Jul.07.2010 at 04:07 PM

Max Keenan’s comment is:

Wow, a branding using all lowercase letters! How original and refreshing to see!

On Jul.07.2010 at 04:25 PM

collin_corcoran’s comment is:

I understand the the majority of the public will not even realize that the mark has changed but I noticed some major flaws in the “re-working” aka Bastardizing of this near perfect mark. Firs thing is the necks, they just seem unnatural. The straight lines are kind of awkward and make the people look like aliens. Secondly, the addition of the bangs on the girl in the foreground.. why? The organic curvature of the original hair treatment created a balance with the curvature of the necks. Thirdly, the hardening of the outer form, the points where the outer-shape dip back into itself have been made a bit more acute. This “hardens” the outside shape make it visually more difficult to comprehend. There is just too much information in the new mark, which causes your eyes/brain to try to focus on too many things at the same time. There is only one subtle improvement and that is the profile of the nose (congratulations!)Albeit, these are small changes and literally the design community will be the only ones who scream and hollar. This project is completely WOMBAT. Waste of money, brains and time.

On a side note, I did think the overall system was a complete success. Redefining the brand essence was well thought out, so Kudos on that aspect.

On Jul.07.2010 at 04:33 PM

da5id’s comment is:

I must plant myself in the camp of those who dislike it. Adding the bangs seems a bit pointless and the logo looks strange off to the side of the lettering. Why not center it above or something?

I know it’s slightly off topic, but it looks like they’ve had a re-design here down under as well. We call them “girl guides” here, instead of “girl scouts”. Here is the new logo -

Not sure what to think about the “L” there, which is suppose to mirror the bottom of the clover symbol.

On Jul.07.2010 at 05:15 PM

Reno’s comment is:

Reminds me of the Australian Neighbourhood Watch logo, interesting:

On Jul.07.2010 at 05:27 PM

Glenn Sakamoto’s comment is:

The Saul Bass logo is still the best. It had subtlety and a flowing elegance.

On the flip side, the style elements of the identity are really well done and exciting.

Should have left the mark alone…

On Jul.07.2010 at 05:30 PM

Brendan’s comment is:

I agree with Paul all the way up the top, I really don’t like how its feeling. Its not as feminine and inviting as previous. Trying to make it line up and relate to the type has made it look masculine and industrialized.

On Jul.07.2010 at 05:42 PM

Libby’s comment is:

Hey designers, guess what? We’re not the audience.

What we have here is an admittedly gorgeous logo that, like it or not, was dated and not speaking to the young girls the Girl Scouts wanted to reach. It feels old now, and it felt old when I was 12 (though as an awkwardly uniformed future-designer, I appreciated it’s strengths).

All and all, this is a gentle redesign that preserves a historic (to designers and to girl scouts) mark, without any gradients or bevels, as part of a smart, contemporary branding system that takes the organization forward by leaps and bounds from the disjointed teal mess they’d been dealing with for at least a decade. And I think its going to help them speak more effectively to their audience…which isn’t us.

As for the wisdom of bangs…eh. I do like the point on the trefoil, though. The old shape always looked too cloudy to me.

On Jul.07.2010 at 05:54 PM

Mark’s comment is:

WTF have the done to the logo???

what woman depicted as having long hair taboo now?

WTFWTFWTF?

there was nothing wrong with the old logo why mess with it?

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:17 PM

Tim Gengler’s comment is:

The previous logo’s shapes are as good as (if not better than) this revitalization’s, and its color was far more distinctive. I love the color green and even thought of changing my own logo to the shade chosen here several years ago… but at this point it just feels like trend-hopping.

The additional branding built around this new logo, though, is pretty well done and versatile. I’m tempted to say this is one instance where keeping the branding intact for nostalgia could be valuable, but I’m sure the young girls themselves much prefer this direction.

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:24 PM

Ebbe’s comment is:

The changes to the icon strike me as something a 15 year old would do to make the girls comply with modern beauty standards.

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:40 PM

Kim’s comment is:

The bangs are really bad. Really bad. They suck. The neck, not necessary; but, whatever. The pointy tip, real nice.

The BANGS SUCK. What designer stands back and looks at the bangs and thinks it is good? I would have been embarrassed to have shown it in my beginning graphic design class.

On Jul.07.2010 at 06:46 PM

Mark’s comment is:

I’m sorry about my previous gripes, that was my poor gut reaction, after taking a long look I actually like where this is going.

First of all the bangs, at first I hated it, now I LOVE IT! here’s why it makes the girl look younger, it fills the space better, and it breaks up the monotony of the old logo (yes I said a Saul Bass logo is monotonous)

Second of all the shape LOVE IT! it gives the symbol a more authoritative look , plus it leans more towards a fleur-de-lis which is appropriate. Plus the shape is something that can be played with and used in different ways. This is taking a brand into a new dimension, the shape can be manipulated into many things, I like where this is going. They did an excellent job with this logo I am impressed.

This is a very well done rework of the logo. I think Bass would be impressed with this.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:08 PM

Diana’s comment is:

I’m quite interested to see how the rebrand is works in the girl scout cookies packaging! that needs a major overhaul!

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:39 PM

Jon’s comment is:

While I do not think the refresh is a home run as others have outlined well, I do like how they took the mark and used it to make the proof of concept materials come to life. As this rolls out, the regional GS offices will have their hands full as the apply the “shorthand” and “grade level” versions, lots to deal with on the color front and with general placement. Also, looks like the legal department did not get invited to any meetings… none of this stuff has a TM or a circle R, good luck applying a TM to the shorthand version and not having it be a wart. Wow, I mentioned legal requirements, me = dork.

On Jul.07.2010 at 07:56 PM

Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:

This is certainly one of the most spirited discussions I’ve read on Brand New in a while.

Blindfolds, Rosie the Riviter — examples of projecting personal associations onto a form. Though I’m keenly aware of what Zooey Deschanel has bangs, an stylized icon of a girl with bangs does not make me think of her. Though an interesting exercise in semiology and psychology, these associations are neither right nor wrong but offer little in the way of valuable critique.

Formally, I think the re-drawing of the mark feels less feminine and more militaristic, and is certainly not as poorly executed as many posters have suggested. The angled hazard-stripe necks evoke badges and shoulder epaulets, while the Bass mark seems more dainty and floral with its gentle curves and graceful necks.

Given that the concept of the mark hasn’t hasn’t changed (thankfully), judging which formal execution is more successful has more to do with how well its gestalt aligns with the organization’s communication goals and strategy.

I’ve always adored the original mark formally and conceptually, but I’m definitely not offended by the update.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:07 PM

Bingham’s comment is:

What girls wear those bangs?!? SERIOUSLY?!?! They look more like Beiber bangs! He sings like a girl…maybe OCD was listening to one of his “songs” for inspiration.

On Jul.07.2010 at 08:36 PM

Jim Walls’s comment is:

First they came for the UPS logo, and I was silent…

I was waiting for this day to come. I knew that some day, somehow, someone would find a way to fark up one of the most beautiful logos of all time. This job was doomed to fail before the brief was even written.

On Jul.07.2010 at 09:32 PM

Christopher Simmons’s comment is:

Jim,

While I’m sure Saul Bass would appreciate your defense of his logo, I have to believe he’d be disgusted by your distortion of Niemöller’s famous speech for that purpose. I know I am.

Those lines — First they came for… — are a condemnation of German inaction while the Nazis exterminated more than 11 million people, including 6 million Jews.

It’s sadly ironic that in your outrage over the changing of a logo, you yourself chose to alter one of the most poignant and enduring statements of German guilt resulting from the Holocaust.

I’m disturbed by where you’ve chosen to place your respect and reverence for history.

On Jul.07.2010 at 11:07 PM

pzg’s comment is:

Maybe with the exception of the lip and nose job, the old one looks better in almost every aspect.

On Jul.08.2010 at 03:37 AM

Nate’s comment is:

Godwin’s Law in full effect.

On Jul.08.2010 at 03:40 AM

da5id’s comment is:

ps, down under it’s not called “bangs”, it is called a “fringe”.

On Jul.08.2010 at 04:08 AM

James’s comment is:

Sorry but I prefer Saul’s original - it definitely reduces in scale better, and what’s with the clunky type choice? They had a perfectly clean and memorable logo before, and not only have they changed it for changes sake, but totally ballsed it up in the process. Another classic logo defiled… And this one was a real favourite of mine. Sigh

On Jul.08.2010 at 04:56 AM

telechat’s comment is:

what a mess! my opinion is mostly identical to Aspect. (except i will always continue to come here on brand new, i love here). This logo is so beautifull, one of my favorite ever.

On Jul.08.2010 at 05:29 AM

Anonymous’s comment is:

I hate the logo for the most part. (I wasn’t a super fan of the old one. I used the old 1920s version.) My problem is that making the nose pointier and the lips thin but pouty makes them look whiter.

I always assumed that the three women were not supposed to be different ages, but different races.

On Jul.08.2010 at 06:50 AM

m’s comment is:

I’m with Saul’s too
That hair change looks horrible to me, necks to straight…

On Jul.08.2010 at 07:12 AM

Brent’s comment is:

It does look a bit like a bomber hat. Any Girl Scouts in need of a good warm hat for winter trips just send us a note and we’ll set you all up with discounted bomber hats. Four kids, mom and I just spent five days at Crawford Notch in New Hampshire with chilly mornings and could have used bombers in July! Then off to northwoods Maine which experienced Virginia like heat wave. Can’t win them all but girls both caught 20” trout, saw moose, baby owl, foxes and enjoyed the camp trip. Keep up the good work getting our girls outside.
mad bomber

brent@madbomber.com

On Jul.08.2010 at 07:36 AM

Emma’s comment is:

The new mark completely downgraded the hairstyle of the girl to the right. If she was a real person, she’d be crying in her bedroom with the door locked right now.

The placement of the trefoil in relation to the wordmarks is awkward and forceful, and the new point on the trefoil is harsh and uninviting. I don’t think that was a necessary or successful “rebrand.”

On Jul.08.2010 at 08:20 AM

Rob O.’s comment is:

1. The bangs totally messes up the leftmost profile and is a complete showstopper for me.
2. The more perky nose is nice.
3. Subtle change to the lips is ok.
4. The straight necks are all wrong and do lend it a militaristic feel. The curved necklines were more feminine & graceful.
5. I like the pointed trefoil!!

Seems like women would read the new wordmark as a downgrade. Dropping the caps to lowercase seems a bit, er, un-enpowering.

On Jul.08.2010 at 08:47 AM

Matt’s comment is:

I just want to say thanks for ruining a Saul Bass classic here. Great job on killing the icon.

First of, bangs don’t mean ‘youthful’ grandmothers have bangs, and a perked up nose? Are you serious? This throws the icon’s balance off, it doesn’t flow as nice as the original and feels like a new face was just pasted over the existing with no real thought put in to it. The arguments backing up the changes are pretty basic and unappealing at the same time.

The new stationary is pretty shocking and feels tacky. Using the icons badge as a background to put one word messages in it… really? Also looks off center.

Things like this annoy me, something that took time and dedication. Screwed up by someone who just shat out the captain obvious answer to a brief.

A new pallet would be more than enough.

This looks like a parody.

On Jul.08.2010 at 09:23 AM

Marnie’s comment is:

I’m not a fan. In addition to the straightened necks looking alien-like, they are not particularly body-image positive, which is a consideration for a group aimed at providing a supportive environment for girls.

I agree that the old logo looks a little old timey, but the update does nothing to fix that. I’m honestly baffled that anyone thinks bangs are somehow more contemporary than no bangs. Hair changes season by season and two years from now no bangs may be hip. Besides, the hair on the leftmost profile looks like a bad cross between Bettie Page and my grandmother. http://images.smarter.com/blogs/betty%20paige%20bangs.jpg Not particularly fresh! And it ruins the rhythm of the original.

And if one must update the logo, why not make each of the girl’s faces unique and have them look more ethnically diverse? That would be a meaningful change.

I think going to lower case for the word mark was unnecessary and awkward. The problem with an “ungrammatical” (actually, technically it’s mechanics, not grammar, ahem) word mark becomes clear when you look at the posters: girl scouts (tm), but Be a Girl! Join the Girl Scouts. The first should have caps but doesn’t, the second (Girl) shouldn’t have caps (in the middle of a sentence?) but does (unless they mean Girl as a short form for Girl Scout, which apparently sometimes needs a cap and sometimes doesn’t), and the third is finally correct. It all seems a little random and haphazard.

On Jul.08.2010 at 10:45 AM

Russ’s comment is:

Although I have always loved Saul Bass’s original mark, I think it’s actually quite brilliant how, with just very subtle retouches, the new human forms appear more contemporary, as well as younger. Saul Bass’s figures feel very 70’s to me, which would be appropriate for when it was designed (I assume). However, the first thing I saw was the bangs, and although I see why they did it, I think it’s visually cumbersome and destroys the visual flow and elegance of the original. But hey, props to how much they were able to accomplish with such minimal changes.

On Jul.08.2010 at 12:59 PM

Julia Spangler’s comment is:

I understand the reasoning behind the bangs, but I’m not sure they looked at very many real-life examples of bangs. The sideswept bang doesn’t come down so far on the swoopy side, and straight bangs would have a corner, not a curve. It comes off looking distinctly like a circle was place over the icon’s forehead. Other executions of the bangs might have allowed a little more white space to stay near the top, more closely maintaining the balance of the original.

On Jul.08.2010 at 01:35 PM

Ana’s comment is:

I don’t hate it, but I don’t love it either. The bangs are strange; at first I thought they had interrupted the profile just because, and then I thought “no, actually, this is my grandmother’s Girl Scouts.” The point on the trefoil seems odd, with all the curves around it. It reminds me of the Brownie pin that would never stay upright, besides.

Other than that, I’m a little bit confused about the level colors. Do they intend to update the uniforms to match? If not, I can’t imagine that the new colors will get much use.

On Jul.08.2010 at 01:58 PM

pixel’s comment is:

All I can say is that god they didn’t make it pink.

On Jul.08.2010 at 02:07 PM

Tom’s comment is:

Should have eliminated the faces altogether - just like many of Bass’ 1970s logos, while technically excellent, this one hasn’t aged well. The trefoil alone is recognizable enough to stand on its own merits.

On Jul.08.2010 at 03:04 PM

Cassie’s comment is:

Wow, such vitriol! Many of my thoughts have been stated quite well by others, but I want to reiterate what some folks have said about the audience. This is a mark meant to instantly appeal to modern young women and girls, the vast majority of whom have NO idea who Saul Bass is and frankly, don’t care. As a 30-year-old woman when I look at the old mark I see the silhouettes of old hippies, or worse—kerchiefed, old-world grandmothers. To everyone decrying the bangs, the old mark is 70’s hair all the way. No way is some Teen Vogue-reading tween going to look at that and *relate*. And don’t worry about this being too trendy. Sweeping bangs like this have been “trendy” for a decade already, and show no signs of giving up.

A mark isn’t a historical building, preserved as a museum—it needs to continue working in the here and now. The old mark is wonderful, but small updates to keep it relevant are perfectly reasonable. As for disrespecting the original, please. The new mark is such a slight update on what is clearly considered by all involved to be a strong, recognizable, and important symbol of the organization. The fact that the update is so minor after 30 years of use is a testament to the success of the original.

As for the necks, while I adore the visual effect of the soft, curved lines of the original, those lines imply a soft, ladylike grace and elegance. But this is the Girl Scouts, not the Daughters of The American Revolution. The mark needs to imply strength, confidence, and a “take on the world” attitude. Girls sail solo around the world, join the Peace Corps, own their own businesses, and buy houses without getting married first—*that* is what I see in the new mark.

On Jul.08.2010 at 03:29 PM

fuchs’s comment is:

Siding with the haters.
While Bass’ logo does indeed look a bit dated, it flows really well and is extremely balanced. Those “bangs” alone completely mess that up. Apart from the fact that the new, rounder trefoil shape makes it look like the girl on the left, in addition to having had her forehead smashed in by something round-ish, has her hair tied in an old lady knot- so much for the “youthfulness”. The straight necks don’t work either on this, as the old, curved ones managed to offset the elongation while the straightening enhances it.

On Jul.08.2010 at 04:51 PM

Josh Shayne’s comment is:

I have to concur about the bang change. The rest of the redesign is fine - the neck-shape, the clover-shape - all ok with me, but the bangs destroy the fluidity of the faces. They close them off and look unnatural. I preferred them opened up.

That said, the brighter, finished look of the new logo is definitely a marked improvement.

And a great article detailing the process - thanks!

On Jul.08.2010 at 06:40 PM

Jan’s comment is:

Clumsy. The bangs? An update? Remember the bangs and feathered look from 1980s? And the perky little noses turn them all into perky little non-ethnic girls even more than the original. Nothing improved with this update.

On Jul.08.2010 at 09:15 PM

John’s comment is:

This is really nice work. Well done, OCD.

The intensity of the negative comments here makes me think my fellow designers are *&^%ing mental. Really, seriously, truly mental.

On Jul.08.2010 at 09:45 PM

Note’s comment is:

My immediate reaction was: someone had the cheek to charge a probably obscene amount of money just for putting a stock font next to the old logo. I hadn’t noticed any differences first, only after closer inspection.

On Jul.08.2010 at 10:23 PM

Matt’s comment is:

Finally, a logo for girls that isn’t led by the ruler of their grandmas. I think this modernization is 100% necessary and excellent, especially the straight necks. Besides the bottom tip looking like a breast, the only thing to complain about here is the shitty Brand New commentators.

“The nerve to think you can improve on a logo by Saul Bass. I would’ve rather seen this be completely replaced with something else than see a master’s work be disrespected.”

Oh my god, shut the fuck up!

On Jul.09.2010 at 12:34 AM

Max Batt’s comment is:

With all respect for the late and great Bass, this update was overdue. The hair looked really weird in 2010, like she had a receding hairline. And that color was old school. The new bangs give her a more youthful appearance. Also like the simplified necks, it adds focus to the faces.

The new typography is a bit odd though. I agree with others that the lowercase san-serif dates and stylizes this in a way that could diminish its longevity. I also find the placement of the mark in relation to the type (exponent-style) weird. It’s awkward to the eye.

On Jul.09.2010 at 04:16 AM

Deb’s comment is:

As a lifetime Girl Scout I’m Not a big fan of the changes. I think all the logo needed was the change made to the point on the bottom of the trefoil. That’s it! I think the words Girl Scouts should be capitalized. Yes, it balances out the logo, but is it worth it at the sacrifice of the image of the otganization. We aren’t some rinky-dink group for God’s sake, we’re the Girl Scouts. It a proper name and grammar rules state it should be capitalized. Remember, these are children we’re teaching here. SHould the right thing come before the cute thing? I think this was a huge waste of money that can be better spent on the girls. Just one scout’s opinion.

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:17 AM

tom vasquez’s comment is:

boo. they totally missed it. looks like 4 different people designed this. for the same reasons stated in a lot of the earlier comments, they over-thought the details that NOBODY cares about. so what? bangs? (kills the flow and repetitive strength the original had going for it.)
straightened-out the necks? who cares? side-by-side, at small scale, these two logos are INDISTINGUISHABLE! the main point of difference is the addition of the bangs, which, looks like a printer error… like some trash on the roller created an extra ‘blotch’ of green ink on the press-run.

they would have faired better retaining the trefoil shape with a totally new treatment. too bad.

On Jul.09.2010 at 07:40 AM

Cindy Gombert’s comment is:

I wish they would have done a little something more with the typography. But, that being said, the overall corporate identity and brand treatment is brilliant. Very well done. I feel it makes the brand relevant again and provides an aspirational persona to the brand. The photography, brand system, personality, tone, patterns and overall look in feel is SPOT ON in my opinion. Girl Scouts are relevant again. What a great example of how to honor the heritage of a brand and generate a whole new buzz for a new generation. KUDOS to all involved.

On Jul.09.2010 at 08:17 AM

Rob Russo’s comment is:

Wait a minute!? Does this mean the shape of the cookies will change?

Only get smaller, I presume…

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:53 AM

Glen Hawkins’s comment is:

Has anyone said WHY they had to mess with one of the best, most iconic logos ever made? It’s a real shame, if the designer had any integrity they would have passed on this one. All it needed was the new brand extension. Sad day for design.

On Jul.09.2010 at 02:16 PM

Meline’s comment is:

This is the classic case of knowing when to restrain yourself. The changes to the logo simply are not improvements. Forget Saul Bass designed it. Just look at it. They put bangs on the girl. It’s an icon, it doesn’t need to be sporting the latest trends in bangs (which have already changed while I wrote this) or have collagen injected into their lips.

The changes to the mark are designers flattering themselves. The rest of the work is great. But it could have just as easily used the old mark and shape. Hey look at me I improved on a saul bass logo = [insert feather in cap.]

On Jul.09.2010 at 03:34 PM

abee’s comment is:

Don’t mess with success. If you want to change, then change. I think the bangs clutter the design, and the necks, YUCK! I don’t mind the designs with the trefoil, but leave the logo alone. A Girl Scout for 43 years.

On Jul.09.2010 at 06:16 PM

Michael’s comment is:

I disagree with most of the vitriol on here, and actually thing the designers did a nice job keeping the spirit of the original mark alive, while making it contemporary.

I find it ironic that so many would bash the bangs (there’s a turn of phrase), and yet defend
Bass’ outdated ponytail.

Anyway, Libby nailed it: this is mostly designers thinking they are the audience, and looking for nits while missing the big picture. I wonder if some of the folks on here slamming the work would have done half as good a job; looking at some of their portfolios, I’m very skeptical.

On Jul.09.2010 at 09:11 PM

Ezequias Viana’s comment is:

Eu não me agradei muito do novo ícone, o ajuste no cabelo não era realmente necessário. Quando aplicado pequeno causa uma pequena dificuldade na visualização. A mudança da fonte também não era importante.

On Jul.10.2010 at 08:50 AM

Mark’s comment is:

I love it, the changes are so subtle that you could barely tell the difference at first.

On Jul.10.2010 at 02:02 PM

Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:

So, like, I have this idea on how the Mona Lisa could be better. First, she’s WAY too 2D. C’mon it’s 2010. Let’s take advantage of technology; let’s make her protruding parts enjoy some z-space. Second, she looks way too much like a dowdy middle-aged lady from eons past; Renaissance, my ass. Let’s update her hair style, and show more cleavage. Third, that enigmatic smile. We all know that she kept her mouth shut because of her terrible teeth. It’s about time we show those ultra-pearly whites. Oh, and let’s make her wink! That’s sexy.

The logo DID NOT need to be redone. That said, IT WASN’T. Bangs? Straight necks? Pointy trefoil? Why? These did NOTHING to improve the inspired work of a Graphic Design Master.

That type solution is AWFUL. It’s a tightly letter-spaced, widely word-spaced mess. Hacking the lower case is amateur typography. If the solution needs to be that tight, why not experiment with ligatures, something that might solidify the broken type solution. It’s bad. Really bad.

Perhaps a new design system might have been initiated like the one seen here. But the creators turned a vital, timeless symbol into yet another disposable identity.

On Jul.11.2010 at 03:44 PM

Mark’s comment is:

I wish the mental,paranoid,stubborn,mental designers would say something nice or say nothing at all.
The logo needed changing, it WAS outdated and your comparison to the Mona Lisa is baloney. Logos aren’t untouchable pieces of artwork they’re brands that evolve. RARELY do logos stay the same, and that’s because they’re timeless. The old logo wasn’t timeless it was DATED, IT NEEDED CHANGING. I could care care less than two ****s about who did the old logo, IT NEEDED TO GO!

On Jul.11.2010 at 04:12 PM

Mark’s comment is:

[QUOTE=me]I could care less than two ****s about who did the old logo, IT NEEDED TO GO![/QUOTE]

I’m sorry about that comment, I was in the midst of emotion when I made that statement, what I should of said:

With respect to Saul Bass who did an excellent job on the previous logo, this needed changing to keep up with the times.

On Jul.11.2010 at 04:27 PM

Mark’s comment is:

Two things that bother me, the straight necks and the bangs, that’s it I like the rest.

The old logo seemed fine it was well executed but it was dated. I prefer the old logo over the new but it definitely need changing.I’m gonna miss that old logo, I expect the logo cookie shapes to change due to the new logo.

Is there anyway to update the old logo without sacrificing the strengths of the old logo?

On Jul.11.2010 at 04:36 PM

Sharon’s comment is:

I liked the old logo. I saw no reason to change it. With that being said, I do like the point at the bottom of the redesign. It looks more like a Trefoil. The bangs, nose and mouth made no impression on me at all. I don’t like the straight line of the necks. It makes the faces look too harsh. A bit like turkeys sticking their necks out.

On Jul.11.2010 at 05:55 PM

Michael’s comment is:

Bill Dawson, as a design ‘professional,’ (if that’s what you are), you should watch your language. It is unprofessional to slam your peers, and frankly only makes you look bad.

It is wonderful that you are so successful that you can turn away choice brand refresh projects like GSA, or if you take them never cave in to any of your client’s whims. For the rest of us on planet earth, jobs like this come along, and we do the best we can.

Your whiny insults really just make you look petty and unprofessional. And, as someone who advocates regularly for the importance of design, and for designers to stand together as our profession takes hit after hit, it is saddening to see those such as yourself trash what is arguably strong work because you have affixed supernatural qualities to the work of the master, Saul Bass.

And, the same comment goes to the rest of you who think, because you’re online, you have the right to be rude and nasty. Grow up. Sersiously.

On Jul.11.2010 at 10:44 PM

MSGDS’s comment is:

I like the subtle tweaks with the exception of the necks. They look very awkward and make the heads look like they’ve been stuck on sticks.

On Jul.12.2010 at 09:10 AM

Christopher Simmons’s comment is:

The Mona Lisa is painting, an expression of an artist’s view.

A logo is an expression of a brand, which is an expression of a business strategy.

To equate the two is to fundamentally misunderstand design. To say that the “logo did not need to be redone” to is presume knowledge of the client’s current status, ambitions, challenges, constituents, finances and a host of other variables that have nothing to do with individual aesthetic preferences.

On Jul.12.2010 at 11:09 AM

Daho’s comment is:

Love the rebrand and execution, but see the bangs as being in the profile’s eyes. A bit too film noir looking.

On Jul.12.2010 at 11:31 AM

Me’s comment is:

Although I like the refresh. I have to say the way the logo is laid out it is very difficult to work with. Having the icon float to the upper right like that gives no flexibility when trying to incorporate it into other design elements. Forces you to use so much extra spacing that is just not needed. I would say if they floated it to the left on the same plain as the type or allow flexibility in the arrangement it would be spot on.

On Jul.12.2010 at 12:40 PM

Mary Shu’s comment is:

I agree, there are some fairly mean spirited comments and extremely myopic and cynical views here.

The whole argument against altering “an inspired work of a Graphic Design Master” is utter nonsense. It’s a logo, not a piece of art in a dusty old museum. We should all remember it was the client who felt THEIR logo needed to be refreshed, the designers were responding to the brief.

I would also ask people to live with this for a while before passing judgment. It’s human nature to resist change, especially change to the familiar and well loved, but of course change can often bring progress.

Clearly the designers have an enormous amount of talent and have the best intentions here. For the record, I think the refresh is solid, I appreciate subtle and thoughtful updates. I think the added design system is particularly strong, it gives the logo an army of visual elements to build a young, spirited and relevant brand upon.

Well done.

(PS. The Cheat Sheet is a wonderful piece of design.)

On Jul.12.2010 at 02:13 PM

Mark’s comment is:

I’m glad they kept the basic shape of the logo even with the enhancements, it shows that they still think Bass’s logo still works for the Girl Scouts, they just changed a couple of things for the better. They used Bass’s logo as the base for the new logo and started from there.

I would be much more upset if they completely dumped the famous three headed motif.

I LIKE it!

On Jul.12.2010 at 04:58 PM

Linda’s comment is:

I still want to use the traditional trefoil as my Girl Scout pin.

On Jul.12.2010 at 05:06 PM

Lore’s comment is:

I love the patterns and concept posters, but the logo…i really don’t know if i like it…don’t see much improvement.

On Jul.12.2010 at 07:37 PM

carrie’s comment is:

i wish they wouldn’t have messed with it. other than the color change (from icky sea foam-ish teal to green) and extending the point, the trefoil was just fine. i’ll keep my 1980’s trefoil pin, thanks.

don’t get me started with the lettering change. is it a must that the girl scouts must forget about capitalization? does this mean that the organization no longer embraces appropriate rules of grammar? is the title of the organization no longer important enough to deserve capital letters? (isn’t it ridiculous how writing look without the use of capitalization?) what’s next: elimination of “irl couts” as the girl scouts becomes just another meaningless abbreviation, standing for nothing as went CNN, KFC, etc.? (as if we would forget what the abbreviated letters once stood for, huh USA?)

On Jul.12.2010 at 08:52 PM

Manny’s comment is:

Carrie said:
“isn’t it ridiculous how writing look without the use of capitalization?”

No. Not at all. What I find ridiculous is your sense of indignation and panic.

It’s very common to use all lowercase.

eg:
intel
amazon
adidas
nickelodeon
five TV
pepsi

On Jul.12.2010 at 10:03 PM

adrienne’s comment is:

the reason i don’t like it?
as a former girl scout, i know the colors are wrong.
juniors are green, not purple
cadettes and seniors are blue (although i think they changed to tan since i was a scout).

otherwise, the trefoil does look gorgeous, but i just cannot get past the change in colors.

On Jul.13.2010 at 12:38 AM

Girl Scout Volunteer’s comment is:

Just another case of trying to be everything for everyone and getting lost in the masses. The colors now associated with each level have no ties to the group past GS Brownies, and what’s up with the volunteers as grey? Do they want us to fade into the background that much? The logo does go back to the traditional trefoil shape (the pointed bottom), but in doing so does looses the grace shown by the 80s design (not to mention the fact that there was a “traditional” logo already in the trefoil shape). The longer necks seem to add a streched, giraffe-like look, the bangs seem to make the faces older instead of younger and the noses and lips are just not even noticiable. As for the text changes, using all lower case letters gives the brand the feeling of casual unimportance, not to mention the fact that any five year old can tell you that names are supposed to be capitalized. I have to wonder how much GSUSA paid for this logo that could have easily beeen created in a few minutes time. Is this the reason we are loosing camps and program centers across the country, to pay for some clipart?

On Jul.13.2010 at 06:47 AM

Former girl member who's been in 35 yrs’s comment is:

Are you kidding? When the Boss logo was first introduced members were scratching thier heads while asking themselves, “Where did the Trefoil go?” That logo is aweful and we’ve suffered with it ever since. At least this one has the right shape. The bangs thing is dumb. Not all young girls have bangs and girls with long hair DO wear it pulled back in GS because they are busy and don’t have time to worry about it falling in thier faces or getting in the way.

And the font is too casual… All lower case. Is a contradiction if you want to be taken seriously as a leading organization advocating for girls and women.

All in all, J. Low must be crying over her dutch oven meal and s’mores. The changes in the organization in the past 3 years has morphed GS into a social club searching for identity and the only thing it has is the name. Just look at the latest catalog: the cover has not a single girl in uniform. It looks like a JC Penny flyer. Why so many casual clothes? National is telling members to be ashamed of identifying themselves as members so don’t wear a uniform.. wear casual clothes with the words Girl Scouts in script with swirls and flowers….

Sad, really sad. I’m glad I was a girl member in the 70’s thru 81. Glad my daughter graduated before this. If I had a young girl now….

On Jul.13.2010 at 07:25 AM

Old is new, prefer old’s comment is:

The design team at The Original Champions of Design, and the PR firm CRT/tanaka are earning their bucks, paid for by the girls selling cookies BTW, not corporate grants, government grants or donations of former Girl Scouts and supporters of Girl Scouting. The Girl Scouts, as a corporation have been falling to “fads” both in style and substance for nearly two decades… You are correct, “it’s not my mother’s nor my organization,” and has not been for a long while.

There were vary valid reasons what certain things were done a certain way, and to “break” those rules was bith “in your face” and “catchy.”

I KNOW there is something “wrong” with this but what is it? Oh how clever.

Nope! That does not work. And while some “branding” has followed e.e. cummings, like lemmings. It is not the same weight as a serious organization or corporation. The use of all lower caps is VERY juvenile, uneducated/unlettered juvenile. Same for having to prefix “everything” with Girl Scouts, opps it must be “girl scouts or girl scout” now.” no proper puncuation.

The new stuff is disconected from the historical movement. Then again, “tradition” is an impedment to change, and we have to shed our “unhealthy devotion to tradition” you know.

The Girl Scouts are not a Movement, with an organization structure, but a Corporation looking for markets to conquer.

On Jul.13.2010 at 08:50 AM

Isabelle’s comment is:

The Redesign: The bangs do seem a bit out of place. But really, I wouldn’t notice the rest of this change as a casual viewer. Then again, I’ve never been very good at those spot-the-difference games.

The spacing: This seemed…familiar. Where have I seen lowercase to the power of something else? Oh yeah, MapQuest. Really, though, this whole ‘placing the logo/letter to the upper right of the text’ thing really annoys me. Mostly because I read it ‘girl scouts to the power of awesome Saul Bass logo’. But it does look nice in the grades, like something to show they’re grades.

On Jul.13.2010 at 09:06 AM

Jayne’s comment is:

I hate the lower case lettering. Period.

The only thing good about the pin is the pointy trefoil bottom, but then I remember when this stupid thing came out in the first place. We called it the tampon pin because it looked like the Rely tampon logo. PERKY, by the way? you want my girls to be perky? They’ll creek stomp you. What a sorry day for this organization!

There’s a reason why the Boy Scouts do almost everything the same way they’ve done it for a hundred years. THAT is recognizable. And as the mom of an Eagle Scout AND a Gold award scout, I know.

We need to stop trying to be everything for everyone and be something that means something. And don’t tell me you have to do this to keep girls because I’ve run the most traditional troops in our Service Unit for 18 years and I still have 13 girls between the ages of 13 and 16 registered with me.

On Jul.13.2010 at 10:00 AM

Angela’s comment is:

I really hate this logo change and all the other recent changes in GS. I am a Girl Scout leader and feel that the whole campaign to change and update Girl Scouts has been nothing but wasted money. The 1980’s logo served fine for it’s purposes, and the major change that should take place in updating the Girl Scout image is to have advertising that shows girls in action and what opportunities are out there for girls of all ages… not adding bangs and giraffe necks to the logo. And the lowercase lettering….PLEASE….terrible. What an insult to dumb down our organization this way. Choose a new font, don’t make us look illiterate!

On Jul.13.2010 at 11:30 AM

Luke Dorny’s comment is:

Wow. While some of the comments here have interesting points and counterpoints, most of them are laughably wack. Also, some of the comments rant on reasons, style and proper noun considerations but are littered with punctuation and spelling errors. This isn’t a nitpic, these errors reflect your own history, persona and attention to detail.

As far as typography goes, it’s a new look.
As far as lowercase signifying immaturity, I felt that initially, but many brands are going lowercase to appeal to a younger crowd, arguably to who this brand/club was created.
Overall this was an unnecessary but fairly well thought out and executed revisioning.

On Jul.13.2010 at 11:49 AM

Lynn’s comment is:

Unnecessary, expensive and will have minimal impact and minimal exposure (except inhouse/with members).

On Jul.13.2010 at 01:54 PM

Former girl member who's been in 35 yrs’s ’s comment is:

Ok, Luke. So, the lower case font in the new branding is acceptable as a means of targeting the younger generations because WHY? Other companies are doing it? So, we dumb down the immage of the organization as a means to attract young potential members because we must expect less from them? What kind of message is that? How does that build girls of courage, confidence and character?

We are a visual society. Branding means so much. If we don’t take ourselves seariously, how do we expect others to, including our youth?

On Jul.13.2010 at 03:18 PM

Katie A.’s comment is:

I am a Senior Girl Scout and I don’t like the new changes. The bangs look odd and they make the forehead of the middle girl look weird. The straight necks make the pin looks striped and they are out of proportion to the heads. Overall, I don’t like it and won’t be getting a new pin. I think it was a waste of money and time.

On Jul.13.2010 at 04:13 PM

Mistress Lisa’s comment is:

Absolutely abhor the use of lower case for the name. It completely dumbs it down. I’m saddened by these “updates”.

On Jul.13.2010 at 04:50 PM

Dan’s comment is:

Ver similar to the neighbourhood watch logo.
http://www.vicpark.wa.gov.au/images_site/NeighbourhoodWatchLogo.jpg

On Jul.13.2010 at 06:33 PM

Manny’s comment is:

“What kind of message is that? How does that build girls of courage, confidence and character?”

It doesn’t, it’s a logo you Idjot!

On Jul.13.2010 at 07:33 PM

Former girl member who's been in 35 yrs’s ’s comment is:

Manny, I was refering to the dumbing down of the organization and how the new brand symbolizes/represents it. It is not neccessary to insult.

On Jul.13.2010 at 08:46 PM

Save Your Money...’s comment is:

Regarding the logo, the only part worth changing is making the bottom pointier like the original design, other than that why bother. Also, what’s with the purple Junior colors…shouldn’t that be green?

I have to agree with Jayne! Regardless of what folks might say or think about Boy Scouts of America, their IDENTITY is forever recognizable. GSUSA gives lip-service to Juliette Low but she’s no where to be found in today’s Girl Scouts. My and my mother’s Girl Scouts left the station a long time ago. How sad.

On Jul.13.2010 at 10:42 PM

Shannon’s comment is:

I think it is a massive waste of resources for so small of a change. I also disagree I think the “bangs” look outdated, so few girls wear bangs, they seem very 80’s to me. I asked my two girls scouts a daisy and a junior, I pointed out the differences and didn’t say which was new and witch was old only “which do you like” I had to point out the differences because they said “they are the same” after I pointed out the differences they both liked the first current image.

I think the same marketing can be accomplished using the old trefoil and the fun and new uses for the shape.

On Jul.14.2010 at 10:55 AM

Squish’s comment is:

As a former Girl Scout, I absolutely love it. I’m excited to see the brand revitalized for today’s youth.

On Jul.14.2010 at 02:38 PM

Ian Bateson’s comment is:

Saul Bass must be frowning from above.

On Jul.14.2010 at 04:41 PM

Rich’s comment is:

Looks like girls scouts, sponsored by NBC.

On Jul.14.2010 at 05:27 PM

Crikey’s comment is:

Best comment yet:

“Same for having to prefix “everything” with Girl Scouts, opps it must be “girl scouts or girl scout” now.” no proper puncuation.”

Har har har…no proper punctuation…after that ramble. This must be ironic, no?

And, then there’s Ian Bateson’s comment…go look at his site. Seriously, this guy is talking about graphic design. Wow.

On Jul.14.2010 at 08:55 PM

MEW’s comment is:

This looks like a piece of costume jewelry, not a pin representing what was a respected movement. It seems to be a huge waste of resources for no apparent good.

On Jul.14.2010 at 10:46 PM

ruthersish’s comment is:

My first reaction was, “so what”. But I’ve actually come round to appreciated the tweaks in the trefoil and the development of the overall system. Still feel the lowercase thing is a little tired/lazy and can’t help feel Avenir is a little cold for the girls. The rounded dot on the ‘i’ is great, but I think it needs more of that.

On Jul.15.2010 at 04:40 AM

Quanonymous’s comment is:

How much money did you waste on this? No wonder you’re always fundraising. I like a lot GS much better when we/they spent more time thinking about the girls and less time thinking about their image.

On Jul.15.2010 at 06:52 AM

Sharon Kuchenbecker’s comment is:

I think the “bangs” are very old fashioned…something whispier would be more current…also, the nose change further accentuates a stereotype that young girls do not need…it is very “Barbie…ish”. Look around you, how many girls do you see with a perky little nose….really? The neck change is just bad…The lips are better and the trefoil is sharper, but all in all this “update” is a flop and probably not worth the money it took to create it.

On Jul.15.2010 at 11:37 AM

Becky’s comment is:

I really really really dislike the bangs. It looks like they are all in her eyes and make her look stupid. How can she see where she is going? I think they should keep it the same and stop messing with changing everything.

On Jul.15.2010 at 12:13 PM

SmartyGuy’s comment is:

Saul Bass isn’t god. As someone else stated, his turning the Warner Bros. logo into “stylized poo” was a mistake. Let’s start from a place where all brand identity might need refinement no matter who did the original work.

On Jul.15.2010 at 12:31 PM

Wolf’s comment is:

Unfortunately, the bangs don’t very reduce well, everything else, system included is excellent.

Congratulations to the design team.

A-

On Jul.15.2010 at 02:35 PM

Wolf’s comment is:

Unfortunately, the bangs don’t reduce very well, everything else, system included is excellent.

Congratulations to the design team.

A-

On Jul.15.2010 at 02:36 PM

Sabrina’s comment is:

I’m a bit shocked and astounded at some of the things being said in these comments. The way people are stating their criticisms is pretty unprofessional and not at all constructive. You’d think this was a far right-wing political blog based on the feedback here. As a recent design school graduate, I’m really appalled that this is the behavior some adults will succumb to. Believe me, you don’t come off any more intelligent or wise by ripping apart a fellow designer’s work. If you want to be taken seriously, offering advice on how to make it better would be more useful than insinuating that the designer has committed some sort of design-treason by updating and old logo.

On that subject, do you really think that Saul Bass wouldn’t make a few updates if he had the chance? We are designers, not artists, and what we make is never truly “finished” and can always be improved upon.

I personally really like this. There are a few things I would change (the bangs, while I don’t mind the idea conceptually, the execution is a bit distracting). I think that using capitals would create greater visual balance but I do not agree that lowercase letters = dumbing down. It’s funny how so many comments from people affiliated with Girl Scouts are complaining about the new system looking dumb, stupid, shallow, or what have you. Judging based on appearances? Does that mean that a blonde, blue-eyed girl has no place in your organization because she looks pretty and dainty and therefore must be of little intelligence? For one, I think its great that the system is universally appealing. It doesn’t seem to target any one “type” of young girl. A lot of the people who dislike the system seem fond of the old one, which isn’t uncommon, but I would love to know how the target age group responds to this.

I hope people will be open-minded though and not dislike something on the basis of it being “new” or “different”. It’s 2010 and we live in an era where we should welcome change, not shun it. At least give the system a fair chance.

On Jul.16.2010 at 10:48 AM

Mary Shu’s comment is:

Well put Sabrina.
There sure are some whiny little babies on this particular post. Their indignation would have been better directed at the abysmal ‘YMCA’ re-brand…oh wait, that’s right, the original YMCA logo was not designed by a “Graphic Design Master” grasshopper.

Bangs or no bangs, the whole redesign is an impressive accomplishment by a young and talented design studio finding their feet.

“If you want to make enemies, try to change something.”
~Woodrow Wilson

On Jul.16.2010 at 03:00 PM

rayray’s comment is:

The trefoil looks a little awkward…it’s lost it’s classic elegance. Especially the first girl’s hair…it looks so unnatural. Looks like she’s wearing a hockey helmet :/ The facial profile work is perfect, but he hair is forced.

Love the id system and applications.

On Jul.16.2010 at 08:31 PM

RailScout’s comment is:

I was in college (and a Campus Girl Scout) when the Saul Bass trefoil/logo came out in 1978. My first reaction was “What the hell is this? Where’s the Trefoil? How does this symbolize Girl Scouts in the USA, as opposed to any other country’s Girl Scouts/ Girl Guides? We’re a girls’ organization, we’re multicultural, that’s no news — but so are others like the YWCA and Camp Fire and Girls’ Clubs. This doesn’t say Girl Scouts of the USA to me, not at all, except for the type next to it.”

Even my non-Girl Scout friends were unimpressed by that logo — comments varied, but most of them were on the order of “That looks like a broken cookie, not a Girl Scout symbol.”

The National Organization has been attempting to shove the Saul Bass design down our throats for the last 32 years, with varying degrees of success. Many members — both girls and adults — try to avoid purchasing Girl Scout merchandise with the Saul Bass design on it, especially if a “traditional Trefoil” item is also available.

The 1940’s and 1960’s symbols shown above, while used decoratively and to a limited extent, were by no means the official Trefoil.

The official “traditional Trefoil,” still in use, had evolved by the 1940’s to a clean, distinctive, well-proportioned eagle-and-shield with “GS” lettering enclosed by a clear trefoil shape. The alternate, used in cases where full detailing wasn’t necessary, used the “GS” letters inside the trefoil shape, very similar to the center of the 1960’s symbol above.

The new logo by OCD is clearly done better than the Saul Bass design. At least it looks like a trefoil, even without the profiles. (The Saul Bass logo, absent faces, is easy to place upside-down or sideways — I’ve seen it happen too many times.) And the style guidelines are clear, leaving room for multiple uses and formats - a far cry from the guidelines used with the Saul Bass logo. Some don’t agree with the color choices made for the styles used in reference to the grade levels, but I think they’re clear and effective. To those who complain about the “gray-for-volunteers” choice: Have you got a better idea that goes with the rest of the design?

Bottom Line: Original Champions of Design took a design that was less-than-great, and did the best they could with it. I like the font choices they made! Pity they apparently weren’t given the opportunity to throw the Saul Bass logo out, and use ideas from the many, many good trefoil designs around the world, that show both the primary symbol of Guiding/Girl Scouting and also pride in being part of the Movement in one’s own country.

On Jul.17.2010 at 12:03 PM

Ken Loh’s comment is:

They did one thing right…and that was to say you really shouldn’t mess with a Saul Bass logo. They should have stopped right there. This redesign is nowhere near an improvement. If all they did was refine the profiles, that might have been ok, but the bangs and neck re-draw completely kill the flow of the lines, not to mention completely disrupting the balance of positive/negative space. The shape is bumpy now. The sad part is, no one will notice this got worse.

On Jul.19.2010 at 04:01 PM

lizzie’s comment is:

It doesn’t really work (even with its magenta-guide underwear* showing), and the addition of the bangs strikes me as disruptive, especially at a small scale.It feels meager as a change from the previous logo + mark: it has suffered lack of a clean lock-up, the addition of a second color, and seems to lack some its previous grace. Those don’t feel like forward-momentum changes.

I do like the new green (more energetic) and the transition to lowercase, though the new typography feels too heavy.

* Such things are necessarily part of a style guide (instructional), but when they are used to convince one of the solidity of a mark, the mark has failed.

On Jul.20.2010 at 12:55 AM

Peter Tang’s comment is:

Being a purist and coming from a traditional line of graphic designers, I’m pretty sure Saul Bass is freaking out inside his coffin right now!

This is a perfect example of “What NOT To Do” in rebranding!

Can’t believe you had the guts to “add bangs” on the girl’s hair…!

big client, big job, good concept, but bad execution.

On Jul.26.2010 at 04:05 PM

mk’s comment is:

Who re-designs Saul Bass? Lame.

On Jul.28.2010 at 03:13 PM

Dirck’s comment is:

The combined word mark and logo may invoke the image of the proud prow of a ship, but why are the girls looking out over the stern?

On Jul.31.2010 at 12:02 PM

Linda Gulley’s comment is:

I need someone to explain why Girl Scouts is no longer capitalized. Texting has done enough to destroy the English language; please don’t encourage it. Girl Scouts is a proper noun. It should be capitalized.

I like the point on the bottom of the logo, but the rest of the changes are awful. If you want a new logo, make a new logo. Don’t wreck the one you already have.

The bangs look like the poor girl grew a tumor and the necks look like robotic giraffes’.

On Jul.31.2010 at 10:05 PM

Gail Schrader’s comment is:

Girl Scout for 60 years.

There is no traditions in Girl Scouting anymore. National has destroyed the vary traditions that Juliette Low founded the organization on.

The new revised trefoil is horrible just like the 1980 model. I will only use the original 1920’s version.

You do not see the Boy Scouts changing things every few years. They
keep their traditions and the Eagle Scout award means something to
everyone. Can anyone even name the highest award in Girl Scouting?
It has been changed 4 times and means nothing anymore.

At the rate National is going Girl Scouting will be lucky to survive to their 100th anniversary.

On Aug.01.2010 at 09:33 PM

Kelly’s comment is:

I love the new branding! It is clean and effective and hopefully will make Girl Scouts seem more contemporary and relevant to girls and adults alike.

On Aug.03.2010 at 12:23 PM

johannes a’s comment is:

we are all fighting and argueing over a bunch of details that - true, Saul spent alot of time on getting right (as did OCD) - are important but i truly think that we should take a step back and look at the new identity as a whole… what does this do to today’s girls and thus to their reaction towards the organization? i truly believe that the effect is good because i can fully imagine today’s young ladies feel more recognized, their trends more valued, and identify better with the more modern look of the chicks in the emblem; if i were a girl, i would definitely feel that the organization is talking to me - the logo as mr Bass did it was talking to my older aunt or my mother’s youth pics. Saul did make a representation of the girl that fitted in the organization at the time - we all grow older and hors-trend - so did the girls in Saul’s logo (with all respect to the master). the redesign is absolutely valid, as was the initial logo at the time!

On Aug.06.2010 at 11:25 AM