NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
The only thing more exciting than a large merger — and the ensuing identity design — is the occasional demergeralization. It’s like a divorce on steroids times hundreds of millions of dollars. The latest case, as you may have heard, was the separation of DaimlerChrysler, formed in 1998, as Chrysler Holding LLC in the U.S. and Daimler AG as its German counterpart. — nicely down the middle, just like any good settlement. Chrysler, now blatantly dubbed “New Chrysler” (New Coke anyone?), has revived its old logo, the “Pentastar”, for the new chapter in this company’s life.
Pentastars, variations on a theme
The Pentastar (a pentagon, broken up as a star) was originally designed by Lippincott & Margulies (now Lippincott Mercer) in 1962 and has, despite the merger, been a part of the company for more than 40 years. On the Chrysler blog — a light attempt at the corporate transparency trend — Robert Stanley, “vice president and Chrysler account executive at Lippincott & Margulies,” the design is creditedrecalls the project, and explains how the moniker came to stick, “One of the execs called me up and asked ‘What do I call this thing?’ And I said, ‘Call it the Pentastar.’ That’s where the name came from.”
“Medallion” logo from the 1920s, also used in the newer logo
The Chrysler symbol was a ribbon like those awarded at country fairs, emblazoned with the Chrysler name and two “thunderbolts”, which were actually Z’s in honor of Chrysler engineer Fred Zeder.
— Nice summary of the Chrysler logo history
Before the Pentastar came the “Medallion” logo, which has also been an on and off part of the Chrysler identity, for the past eighty years. Most recently as a blink-and-you-will-miss-it detail in the last Chrysler logo, which was used mostly as the hood ornament on Chrysler vehicles. And like other automobile companies, Chrysler has adopted the tradition of translating, literally, a physical object as a corporate identity mark and, in this case, it has taken it to monolithic levels… Just look at this animation; the only thing missing is 2001’s theme song.
The original Pentastar had five triangles which floated independently in a pentagon shape, broken by a five-pointed star in the middle.
The new Pentastar, with some changes by Trevor Creed, Senior Vice President — Design, conveys strength and precision by fusing the ends of the five triangles to enclose the star and complete the pentagon.
You say tomayto I say tomahto. It’s still a star in a pentagon with massive dimensionalization regardless of how much reverse psychology you use. However, after experiencing now more than three years of this new method of “identity improvement,” I’m not as easily startled anymore by it, and I was actually surprised to read Tony Spaeth’s finger-waving comment: “I have seldom seen so graphic an expression of how far we have fallen, in 45 years, from the skill and confidence of modern design.” I’ve definitely seen worse. *cough* ups *cough*.
Chrysler did the right thing in drawing from the equity it had in its Pentastar and it acted how most organizations do: by doing what others in the marketplace have already done. And in the automobile industry that means metalizing your logo. And to some, this may be cause for irreconcilable differences.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
JonSel’s comment is:
I can see this symbol looking stunning as a brushed steel logo on the trunk or hood of the car. In that respect, I find it a successful reinterpretation of the pentastar logo. The real shame, to me, is that this had the potential to be a very well-drawn black and white mark. Perhaps it would be too similar to Mercedes' tri-star (which could make LOTS of people uncomfortable), but I wish they had done it.
What bothers me so much is this "NEW" business they've stuck on there. And it doesn't look so horrible in the centered lockup, but it's the horizontal version that's got everything all over the place. It looks tacked on and amateurish. Let "new" be the message of PR and advertising, not corporate identity. It's really a sign of how little confidence Chrysler's execs have in their company as a standalone from Daimler.
On Aug.09.2007 at 11:56 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
So let me see if I got this straight? They are splitting from the company that kind of saved them with cars like the 300M; and the German wing that many American consumers have recognized as the design geniuses who made us stop and look at Chrysler again? And to symbolize their "bold step forward" they are bringing back the logo that drove them to the brink of bankruptcy?
Hmm... Smarts!
On Aug.10.2007 at 12:01 AM
Roland’s comment is:
Hey, since we're talking of big mergers that went bad, does anyone know if this was seriously the only identity that AOL Time Warner had?
On Aug.10.2007 at 12:11 AM
Unit B’s comment is:
Corey nailed it. I'd add that there is simply nothing elegant about the new logo, just industrial. Flair? Zero. The Chrysler brand equity? It's on display in the ribbon logo, not the pentastar. It just seems like such a blown opportuity.What's next? Bringing back the Dart?
On Aug.10.2007 at 12:52 AM
Dale’s comment is:
I don't mind the Tranformers-y riff on the "pentastar," but the typography is lame. It looks like a minor redraw of the previous type, with tighter letter spacing, but...why? The circa 98 typography--with its extreme extendedness--made sense with the medallion mark. Both were long, horizontal things. But it has no relationship to the pentastar thing.
And the "The New" is just pathetic. I couldn't agree more with the previous poster who said "the new" is the business of PR, not logo-design. It's obvious the designer struggled with this element, and hated it...the type is so frail and apologetic...it's just a spiderly blight on the identity.
On Aug.10.2007 at 01:16 AM
Andrew Dupont’s comment is:
Whether you like the brushed metal or not, it's still a net gain, since they retired an awful logo and resurrected a great one. It's easy to snark on Chrysler, but hard to argue that the Pentastar isn't a classic logo.
I'd go even further with my praise, in fact — the metal logo would look great in the pages of a magazine or on the side of a bus. Hopefully they've got a simpler version for, say, fax cover sheets.
On Aug.10.2007 at 01:19 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
Good move to go back to the pentastar, and dimensionalizing it is just fine. I could do without the brushed metal, though. (We Mac users are eagerly awaiting Leopard).
Slight improvement:
No whining about faxing, please. Of course they'll have a lineart version (Armin posted it), but they're not gonna put that on their website, now are they?
I second the motion on "The New". Ugh. What's next -- "The Ultra Chrysler"? "The New & Improved Chrysler with added Clorophyll"?
And the "new" Chrysler uses the old typography? If they weren't hyping "new" so blatantly, I could see them using the old type as a recognizable holdover, but this just doesn't make sense. They're already using an instantly recognizable symbol; they should have invested in some "new" type.
On Aug.10.2007 at 03:01 AM
stefano picco’s comment is:
sorry, but it looks inferior as the new compaq logo
what da hell is goiing on :(
On Aug.10.2007 at 04:22 AM
Daniel Green’s comment is:
And in the automobile industry that means metalizing your logo. And to some, this may be cause for irreconcilable differences.
Or worse: irreconcilable indifference.
It wasn’t until I saw the enlarged version of the logo on this site that I realized that it mimicked brushed metal. At a small size, it just looks like a weak, tepid grey...which is quite possibly how the company itself will appear.
On Aug.10.2007 at 08:54 AM
Jason B.’s comment is:
I'm slightly confused, so correct me if I'm wrong here. But I was under the assumption that the Pentastar was making a come back as the logo for Chrysler Holding, the parent company. The vehicles would probably retain the existing "winged medallion" badges.
As a side note, nothing says "new" like using the same typeface for "Chrysler" but tightening the letterspacing.
On Aug.10.2007 at 08:55 AM
Daren Guillory’s comment is:
Concerning the demergeralization:
The good news is, they come away with the experience and expertise of German engineering.
The bad news is, they no longer have the experience and expertise of German engineering.
Undoubtedly, the quality and manufacturing process of the automobiles will suffer, but then again, who drives a Chrysler anyway...
On Aug.10.2007 at 10:45 AM
tsand’s comment is:
Cool - it's like Mercedes tri-star has sprouted two wings. Take that Daimler. :)
On Aug.10.2007 at 10:58 AM
Jeremy H’s comment is:
I think Jason is correct. If you check out the chrysler.com site (where the vehicle line-up is located) they are using the "winged medallion" while chryslerllc.com is using the pentastar.
Either way, I feel like the pentastar is evocative of a failed time in Chrysler history. I think that if they plan on slapping that on a hood they could be in for a rude awakening.
On Aug.10.2007 at 11:12 AM
Christapher’s comment is:
I have fond memories of playing with the big plastichrome hood ornament on our big red 89 chrystler van as a kid (we later traded the van in and vowed to never buy another chrysler again because of awful service and quality, but thats neither here nor there).
But now when I think of Chrysler, I think of the 300 [and drool] or the Crossfire. Sexy, clean, beefy but not bulky, and just plain classy. This mark (and the accompanying animation linked in the article) look more like something for a big heavy duty truck the way the brushed metal slams into the picture plane (a la 'Built Ford Tough' at the end of Ford truck commercials).
I dont see this big brushed metal monstrosity being slapped on something like the aformentioned 300 or Crossfire. They can put it on the PT Cruiser and I wont have any problem, that thing cant get any less a**ugly.
On Aug.10.2007 at 11:32 AM
I LOVE MAD MEN ’s comment is:
“We were looking for something that would not be too complicated for people to remember and still have a very strong engineered look to it,” said Robert Stanley, the Detroit office vice president and Chrysler account executive at Lippincott & Margulies, who is credited with creating the Pentastar.“
First and Foremost, I've never known an Account Manager to put PENCIL TO PAPER on any Identity Design in reference to IMAGINEERING or CREATIVE STUDIES.
If this is TRUE, Robert Stanley is the First Account Manager in Lippincott & Margulies History to be Credited with an Identity Design.
Account Managers are involved in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of an Identity Project, which is Analysis and Planning.
Account Managers are not responsible for putting PENCIL TO PAPER in Imagineering or Creative Studies.
It goes against the Grain of Policy and Procedure.
It's akin to Peter Campbell, Jr. Account Executive on last nights episode of Mad Men a Junior Executive Pitching and selling an Idea to a Client.
Peter Campbell's responsibility was to make the client happy, give him anything he wants and sell his BOSS DON DRAPER'S CONCEPT.
PUTTING PENCIL TO PAPER is the responsibility of the Identity Designer, i.e. The Creative Director or Design Director and his/her team.
Robert Stanley may have named the CHRYSLER PENTASTAR. Mr. Stanley had nothing to do with the Design Aesthetic of the Pentastar Design.
Credit for Design of the CHRYSLER PENTASTAR should ultimately be given to THE DESIGN TEAM.
We're trying to find that 411 out from Greats that were at Lippincott & Margulies at the time aware of its History.
Lippincott & Margulies was an Identity Consultancy that did not Reward Public Acknowledgement of who Designed an Identity.
Credit was always given to the Consultancy.
The General Public didn't know until a Designer left the Consultancy and Publicly Acknowledged they were Responsible for the Design.
I'll comment later on the Identity with and upload of the Original Chrysler Identity.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
On Aug.10.2007 at 11:36 AM
Glen’s comment is:
This does not inspire any kind of emotion at all. It comes across as stodgy and boring.
The only good news is that, with the addition of the word "new," we can expect another design change within the next 5 years.
On Aug.10.2007 at 12:22 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
In Robert Stanely's post on the Chrysler site, he uses the "royal we" in describing the creative process at Lippincott. He only refers to "I" once, when he says "And I said, Call it the Pentastar".
I suspect the phrase "(Robert Stanely is the creator of the original Penatstar)" was mistakenly added by someone at Chrysler.
As a profession, we would do ourselves a favor by acknowledging all of the contributions a team makes to a successful identity project. In 25 years of working in the identity busines I have never seen a single logo created where there were absolutly no useful suggestions or insights provided by the firm principals, planners, design directors, designers and/or - hold your breath - the client.
To think otherwise strikes me as a move backwards to the days of the "suits and wrists" mindset.
On Aug.10.2007 at 12:34 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
My Sentiment exactly which is why I commented.
The Article States Lippincott & Margulies submitted approximately 800 Designs for the CHRYSLER Identity, 1962.
Not Robert Stanley, VP Account Executive at L+M.
Very True everybody is involved on some level from Principals, Marketing, Design and the Client.
No Design Annual ever give Credit to Marketing for Design or the Client. Marketing is about Selling Design. not Creating the Design.
In many long conversations I had with DON ERVIN, Identity Design GOD responsible for Metropolitan Life, Transamerica, Cargill, CONOCO, TRW, MELLON BANK, Abbott Laboratories, many others.
The Great DON ERVIN informed me Identity Design in the Good Ole Days meant putting Pencil To Paper. Not Planning or Direction. DON ERVIN, informed me If you didn't put PENCIL To Paper in Ideation, Imagineering and Creative Studies Designing an Identity you couldn't claim it.
I asked DON ERVIN if he Designed the Identity for Pitney Bowes. Mr. Ervin emphatically stated, "I Directed the Identity, I did not Design the Identity".
I only take Credit for work I Designed meaning PUTTING PENCIL TO PAPER.
Otherwise, I take a Credit for Direction.
Seem today everybody want to be Credited for something they didn't Design or others mistakenly crediting others
or the Respective Design Team.
THE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE???!!!
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
On Aug.10.2007 at 01:40 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
I think design is far more about thinking and seeing than putting pencil to paper.
Saul Bass was designing long after he stop putting pencil to paper.
Do you believe that if Paul Rand had lost the use of his hands he would have stopped being a phenomenal designer?
On Aug.10.2007 at 02:40 PM
Frank’s comment is:
The winged medallion badge looks so much better on the cars.
Also, the pentastar now actutally is just a star within a pentagon shape while the clever thing about the original was that it consisted of 5 triangles *not* touching at the points.
So that's gone as well.
On Aug.10.2007 at 02:43 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Oh yeah and the "The new" part is pathetic as it can get.
On Aug.10.2007 at 03:08 PM
DesignMaven ’s comment is:
Yes, I agree DESIGN is Ultimately about the IDEA.
Saul Bass had many, many Great Ideas. He also put PENCIL TO PAPER. I'm not talking about CRAFT that's another Can of Worms.
There is work Saul Bass Created and there is work Art Goodman Created. The Credit was always a Joint Credit.
The Rule of Thumb at Saul Bass and Associates and Bass Yager. If work was signed it meant Saul Bass Designed and Illustrated.
If it read Designed by Saul Bass it mean Art Goodman Actually did the work for Saul Bass.
Saul Bass was very Generous with Credit. Lippincott & Margulies was not.
Robert Stanley instead of being a Media Whore should've acknowledge Lippincott & Margulies Design Team. HE DID NOT???!!!
Again, Marketing is about Selling Design not Creating Design. That's where the Conflict Arouse in Last Nights Episode of Mad Men. Don Draper is a Creative Director, Peter Campbell is a Junior Account Executive.
In reference to Paul Rand he was a Designer not an Account Executive.
I never Read where Paul Rand was given credit or took credit for Bill Bernbach's copywriting or vice versa.
DM
Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
DM, I repeat my question:
Do you believe that if Paul Rand had lost the use of his hands he would have stopped being a phenomenal designer?
I understand he wasn't an account executive
If Saul Bass was so generous with credit why does it say in all references I've seen that he designed the AT&T mark?
How could Art Goodman's work be a "joint credit" if it said Designed by Saul Bass? (please answer that one slowly and carefully)
While I was at Saul Bass, a guy from Hawaii, that had worked there for 20 years, showed me Saul Bass's signature he had created for posters. It was a 15 layer deep photostat compilation of signature pieces.
Looked to me like Saul Bass didn't even design his own signature, just directed it.
The reality is these pioneers were mortals – not gods – and had the same character flaws that we all share.
On Aug.10.2007 at 03:38 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
A debate between Jerry Kuyper and Design Maven on Saul Bass? This is far more interesting that the Chrysler refresh...
On Aug.10.2007 at 03:52 PM
DesignMven’s comment is:
My last comment, I've got more to do WITH MY TIME than Go Back and Forth.
We've been down this road before.
YOU MAY HAVE THE LAST WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have said all I need to say on subject.
I have No Idea what Signature you Referencing.
I have Video Tape Footage of Saul Bass Signing his name and signature.
In reference to AT&T I have Credit for Art Goodman, G. Dean Smith.
Credit is soley the Discretion or Lack thereof the owner of the Consultancy.
The Joint Credit in reference Saul Bass and Art Goodman was published in Annuals, Crediting Saul Bass as Art Director and Art Goodman as Designer
or vise versa.
Certain work, special projects were credited Solely to Art Goodman or Saul Bass.
I have more work Credited to Subordinates and Associates working with Saul Bass than I have with Lippincott & Margulies. I have No Work published in Annuals that name any L+M Designer.
When you read the Stories of Lippincott & Margulies Marketing Professionals always Received Credit not their Designers. Why is that. Seem to me Walter Margulies or J Gordon Lippincott didn't have Respect for Design.
If you have the publications, Idea Magazine, Graphis, International Poster Annual, many others. You wouldn't have to ask such a Rhetorical QUESTION.
Why does all the work in the same Annuals showcasing Lippincott & Margulies say Designed by Walter Margulies or J Gordon Lippincott.
Fact of Matter, Walter Margulies and J Gordon Lippincott never actually Designed any of their Identities.
Statement of Fact, Lippincott & Margulies are taking Credit for a SAUL BASS Design 1969, DIXIE.
I asked you and many others that are Alumni of L+M how this Happend. Everybody Plays DUMB, HEAR NO EVIL, SEE NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL.
Lippincott has also taken Credit for SAUL BASS AT&T Design. Want me to Post the Letter I wrote the CEO Hollis Harris in the 1990s where He Swore to GOD AT&T was Designed by Lippincott & Margulies. I learned this information when I inquired about the Designer of the Redesigned Continental Airlines Identity.
Why is Lippincott continued to be named after J Gordon Lippincott when he only worked at the Firm a couple of years.
Neither, Lippincott, Margulies or Landor were actually involved with the Creative Aspect of their Business, just Marketing.
They take Credit for the work. Walter Landor said himself in his own Book, Idea Extra Issue Walter Landor Associates, 1978. He never put PENCIL TO PAPER in regards to Identity. His Expertise was in the Board Room, Packaging Structures, and Marketing. Not Design per se.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
DesignMaven’s comment is:
An aside:
I've never known SAUL BASS to Blatantly take CREDIT for Another Design Consultancies work.
This Practice seems to be the MODUS OPERANDI with Lippincott & Margulies and date back to
the 1960s NBC and Nebraska Television Debacle.
Lippincott & Margulies coming up with the same Design as Nebraska Television.
Many Noted Designers in the Industry called L+M's Identity Practice CRIMINAL.
It is the Sole Reason TOM WOLF Publicly Desecrated L+M's Identity Practice and Abstract Identities in General.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
On Aug.10.2007 at 04:18 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
How many final words and asides are you going to take?
I'm talking about Saul Bass's signature that was often printed on his posters.
I think you have gone way too far in calling Robert Stanley a Media Whore in a public forum when he said:
"I was a vice president and Chrysler account executive at Lippincott & Margulies, the design firm charged with coming up with the symbol. We wanted something simple, a classic, dynamic but stable shape for a mark that would lend itself to a highly designed, styled product. What that meant, basically, was a classic geometric form."
He never said he designed the logo.
Referring to you comment "Why is Lippincott continued to be named after J Gordon Lippincott when he only worked at the Firm a couple of years."
I'm not defending (or even talking about) Lippincott and Margulies, but I'm curious just how few years do you think Lippincott worked at the firm?
Ten minutes on Google provide me with some information.
The firm was founded by J. Gordon Lippincott, a civil engineer, who opened an industrial design office in New York in 1943. Walter P. Margulies became a partner in 1945. The firm's original focus was on traditional product-oriented industrial design, including the innovative but short-lived Tucker automobile.
- Hagely Museum and Library
J. Gordon Lippincott, US industrial designer who graduated from Swarthmore College in 1931 as an engineer, and obtained a Master’s degree in architecture and civil engineering at Columbia University.
He joined the faculty at Pratt in 1936 with Donald Dohner and assisted in the establishment of its design education program. He began consulting as an industrial designer while teaching and wrote Economics of Design in 1937.
He opened a design office in New York with Donald Dohner in 1943, which was known as Dohner & Lippincott, in partnership with the Douglas T. Sterling Company of Stamford, CT.
Upon Dohner's death, Lippincott continued editing of the industrial design section of Interiors magazine, and the firm became J. Gordon Lippincott and Company in 1944. In 1944 Walter Margulies (See below) joined him and the firm became Lippincott & Margulies. Lippincott wrote Design for Business, published by Paul Theobold in 1947.
Lippincott retired in 1969, selling his interests to Margulies, and engaged in travel, investments and consulting.
- IDSA
J. Gordon Lippincott, who helped design the Campbell soup label, the Tucker automobile and the interior of the Nautilus nuclear submarine before pioneering the new field of corporate identity, died on April 29 at his home in North Haven. Conn. He was 89. He died of a heart-related illness, said his grandson, Jonathan Lippincott.
When Joshua Gordon Lippincott, an engineer by training, joined forces in 1943 with Walter Margulies, an architect, the two men were hoping to make their mark through product design. They succeeded quite quickly. They designed hotel restaurants, changed the silhouettes of typewriters and selected patterns and colors for ceramic dishes. Three years after they started their company in New York, they received the Campbell packaging assignment.
"We probably got it because I had graduated from Swarthmore College" in Pennsylvania, Mr. Lippincott recalled in a memorandum he wrote for the company 20 years after his retirement in 1969. "In those days," he continued, "guys from New York were suspect. The entire budget was $5,000. I remember telling the president and his key guys that this was for the long haul and not to confuse it with an ad layout." ...
- N.Y. Times
I would say that it makes sensel to calll the firm Lippincott because he was founder of the firm and he appears to have clocked in for 26 years (1943 - 1969). It was certainly more than a few years. If anyone knows otherwise please let us know.
J. Gordon Lippincott is not Robert Gale.
Please remember, I am for more accurate and complete credits.
Final aside, most knowledgeable designers believe the NBC debacle was an unfortunate coincidence not a criminal act.
Lippincott is generally considered to be one of the founding firms in corporate identity and the spawning grounds of many other exceptional firms. I have never heard anyone describe their practices as criminal. Design Maven, you have often referred to them as a first teir consulting firm.
The benign takeover over of corporate identity truth.
On Aug.10.2007 at 05:24 PM
student designer’s comment is:
If Saul Bass was so generous with credit why does it say in all references I've seen that he designed the AT&T mark?
Who is Saul Bass? It appears as though he works for a guy named Jerry Kuyper. Urgh. I just don't know who to direct my love to.
On Aug.10.2007 at 05:30 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Good catch. This was my humble attempt to set the record straight. In the curious world of Logolounge.com one cannot submit a logo without it defaulting to the firm of the person submitting the logo. Please note my credit to Saul Bass and Dean Smith.
This was clearly done at the office of Saul Bass, Herb Yager & Associates in 1983. I have gone on public record describing how many people made contributions to the design of the AT&T logo.
Logolounge.com doesn't encourage a dozen listings.
I'll try to find the credits. In the meantime share the love as broadly as possible.
On Aug.10.2007 at 05:45 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Student Designer, I found it.
Posted on Design Observer, October 31, 2005
______
Giving credit where credit is due.
Most authors acknowledge their writing was informed and inspired by numerous individuals.
Oscar winners often thank God and their mothers.
I have yet to see a film where the gaffer and best boy were not credited.
However as a profession we are not very generous in crediting the collective effort required in creating an identity program. There is a certain mystique in imaging the master emerging from their cave of inspirational seclusion to deliver the masterpiece to the world.
When I read of Bass's finest moment and Bass's AT&T logo I translate that into Saul Bass/Herb Yager and Associates' finest moment. It may not be as snappy or fluid but it is more accurate.
Without diminishing Saul Bass's role in creating the AT&T mark, I would like to set the credits straight. This program, like most corporate logos and all corporate identity programs, was a team effort.
The strategy work was led by Herb Yager and Herb Kessler led the naming component.
Saul Bass provided creative direction and Dean Smith was the design director.
The design team included Chuk-Yee Chang, Brenda Ehlert, Darrell Hayden, and myself.
Certainly others in the office provided additional contributions. For that matter, the client deserves full recognition for their contribution to the creative process and outcome.
With our dismal record of sharing credit, it is no wonder the Design Maven can't think of a single superstar identity designer working within the identity consultancies. I know many, they are there working in complete anonymity much like the Design Maven Dream Team was decades ago.
____
As you can see the esteemed Design Maven (I love you man) and I have been debating these issues for years.
I'm going back to my cave now.
On Aug.10.2007 at 05:56 PM
Joe M’s comment is:
The Pentastar is still alive partially because the DaimlerChrysler "wing" rollout never fully occured/flopped across the flyover states—used and new car dealerships across the country seemed to tentatively or slowly update their signs (too costly?) and the current conditions are currently mixed like this one.
On Aug.10.2007 at 06:28 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
I sending Arm a Bunch of stuff to upload. Its his sole Discretion whether or not he want to upload. I cannot upload anything.
Saul Bass Signature Silk Screen on his Poster was his own.
Whether or not Robert Stanley stated he Designed the CHRYSLER Identity is nether hear of there.
The Fact of the Matter, The Editorial Alluded to the Fact Mr. Stanley Designed the Identity or can't you comprehend that error. Doesn't matter who made the mistake.
Fact of matter, I have a Dozen emails from Designers asking me who actually Designed the Identity at Lippincott after they read the article sent to me by a friend.
You didn't address why Lippincott & Margulies is taking Credit for Saul Bass Dixie Paper Products Identity or AT&T THAT YOU CLAIM TO DESIGN.
You Publicly Blast Saul Bass a Deceased Designer for not giving you credit for Design of AT&T. If you didn't say it you've alluded to the fact.
Isn't that an issue you should've taken with Saul Bass?!
You've said nothing about Lippincott taking credit for AT&T and Posting the image on their website in the late 1990s early 2000.
The Bigger Sin is you not addressing this issue and choosing a public forum to discuss or resolve Personnel issues you should've addressed in 1984 with your employer .
It behooves me why someone who worked at a consultancy has to search Google for information.
So I got the dates wrong, an Educated Guess, I'm not infallible.
Here's some Factual information you didn't provide. According to Maestro Tony Spaeth who worked at Lippincott & Margulies in the early days.
From Maestro Tony Spaeth in reference to the name change from Lippincott & Margulies to Lippincott Mercer:
"The sacrifice of "Margulies" is a huge cost, perhaps even more a cost in meaning than in name equity. Walter Margulies was the sales genius who in the late 50s-mid 60s (while Walter Landor's firm was still primarily in packaging and product branding) first recognized and conceptually formed the modern corporate identity consulting business. (Partner Gordon Lippincott, a product designer with little interest in identities, had withdrawn by 1966.
http://www.identityworks.com/reviews/2003/lippincott_mercer.htm
If the link doesn't parse go to identityworks.com and click on Reviews 2003, then click on Lippincott Mercer. to read the full story.
Perhaps you need to stop embellishing the truth and stroking your own EGO and stick with the Facts or What you know.
FYI, Robert Gale was a Superior Identity Designer to J. Gordon Lippincott who only took credit for others Design.
If you read the early issues of Communication Arts Magazine you would find the reference of a very Prominent Designer alluding to the Fact the NBC and Nebraska Television Debacle was Criminal.
Most Designers saw the Debacle for what is was.
I'll ask Arm to post the Article among other informaton and allow the Community to Judge for themselves.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity.
On Aug.10.2007 at 06:29 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
DM,
The only difference between me and you is I have actually worked in these consultancies and you haven't.
My reference to Robert Gale was not intended to diparage his design skills. He was at Siegel & Gale fora very short time. You can't state publically the Lippincott was at the firm several years and get away with it. 3 does not equal 26. Educated guesses weaken your credibility.
I don't give a hoot who designed DIXIE.
"You Publicly Blast Saul Bass a Deceased Designer for not giving you credit for Design of AT&T. If you didn't say it you've alluded to the fact.
Isn't that an issue you should've taken with Saul Bass?!"
I honor Saul Bass for all of his contributions. As a youg designer I was astute enough to recognize that when Saul Bass listed hinself as the designer of AT&T that was his perogative. He owned the firm, I was living from paycheck to paycheck.
"You've said nothing about Lippincott taking credit for AT&T and Posting the image on their website in the late 1990s early 2000."
Lippincott has done significant projects with AT&T over many years. Occasionally firms place the logos of their significant clients on their website. I don't recall this or condone creating confusion.
" I'm not infallible."
I'm with you 100% on this one.
On Aug.10.2007 at 07:18 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Thank you Student Designer.
GOD BLESS YOU!!!!!!!
"DesignMaven, the only difference between you and me I've actually worked at these consultancies and you haven't.
I'm a Better Identity Designer and I'd RUN CIRCLES AROUND YOU IN EVERY ASPECT OF IDENTITY PRACTICE.
Do I need to post the email you sent PRAISING MY SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE AND ASKING ME HOW TO PRICE SIGNAGE FOR ONE OF YOUR CLIENTS.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Your modesty overwhelms me.
You know more about corporate identity than any living person and some of it is true.
On Aug.10.2007 at 07:48 PM
Yotam’s comment is:
Ironically, and continuing the post's "divorce" theme, Lippincott Mercer goes by only Lippincott nowdays.
On Aug.10.2007 at 07:57 PM
felix’s comment is:
Mavey,
Settle down.
Yes, youre running circles
around us all.
You're our prodigal son, but
what happened to family?
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Felix,
Thanks for the calming voice. Ten minutes ago, I was filling up my car and I saw a concrete truck run a red light and smash into a car. As a half dozen fire trucks and ambulances arrived, I forgot why I was arguing with Maven about events that may or may not have happened decades ago.
It put everything in perspective, here's to looking forward, not backwards.
On Aug.10.2007 at 10:10 PM
Dale’s comment is:
To return to the Chrysler logo, thanks Splashman for this:
"And the "new" Chrysler uses the old typography? If they weren't hyping "new" so blatantly, I could see them using the old type as a recognizable holdover, but this just doesn't make sense."
I knew there was another reason it was bugging me, and you crystallized it perfectly.
On Aug.10.2007 at 10:36 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
New has been one of the most devalued words in advertising for decades. And now we have the New AT&T and the New Chrysler with their new dimensionalized logos. I can't wait until the New New Ford comes out with a holographic log.
On Aug.10.2007 at 10:43 PM
joel’s comment is:
The logo really seems like it's lacking passion and story. Admittedly a logo shouldn't be art unto itself, and in that sense it does its job.
But, well, it shouldn't look like Photoshop Filters 101 either.
It is change for the sake of change and convenience, not anything genuine.
Time will tell, but I'd be willing to be the logo says more truth about the company now than in recent years: dull, devoid, directionless.
Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:
http://www.chryslerllc.com/aboutus/
Is anyone else bothered by the sudden, subtle shift of the pentastar at the last split second? I find it really distracting. It looks like they forgot to center the elements during the animation process and made a quick edit at the very last frame.
Maybe I've done too many Flash animations in my time (forgive me, I was young and needed the money).
A.R.’s comment is:
I have never seen the Pentastar as being appropriate for any car company. One would think the need would be to portray themselves as aerodynamic, light, fast (more like the previous mark) instead of dated, geometric, and heavy (their new mark). It's almost as if the new mark (as presented online) itself will cause the hood of the vehicle to implode due to its' weight.
Maybe their current focus is simply being "new". In that regard, I can understand the mark quite well. Past experiences have brushed and tarnished their reputation, but they have gotten past that and cut down into a fresh layer with an untouched and polished image.
The mark still doesn't make me want to go buy a Chrysler, though. I guess I'll have to see it in person to decide if I still feel the same way.
On Aug.11.2007 at 11:21 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
The mark still doesn't make me want to go buy a Chrysler, though.
I think we ascribe WAY too much power to a logo if we assume it could be the deciding factor in a buying decision, especially such an expensive purchase as a car. The logo is meant as a visual identifier, to convey trust in an organization, not to carry the entire weight of the company brand on its shoulders.
On Aug.11.2007 at 11:49 AM
brendan’s comment is:
Many years ago I arrived at a small school in Kansas with some record times and a world of potential. My coach at the time sat me down with the other freshmen and explained to us that we all had potential. His job, and the job of the university, was to help us realize that potential.
That in many respect is how Lippincott works. Lippincott recruits, trains, encourages and guides people and clients, from many disciplines, to help them reach their potential. Every project involves a mix of disciplines, individuals, cultures and organizations.
On Aug.11.2007 at 12:57 PM
JimD’s comment is:
Good gawd, why don't you guys just shut the hell up already with the AT&T garbage... nobody really cares to hear your bickering – especially over such an ugly "me-too" logo like AT&T.
Regarding the Chrysler logo, I don't like or dislike it either way. But the brushed metal is so overdone now. I prefer the "plastic" version Splasman did above. Either way, it's better than the wide hood-ornament logo being used the last few years.
The typography is horrible though. The font appears to be horizontally scaled, and quite sloppily at that. "The new" is just about enough to make me turn and run, and I'm left wondering if I'm going to see a "beta" stripe running across the logo any second.
On Aug.11.2007 at 02:03 PM
Nate’s comment is:
What's wrong with the UPS logo? I propose you do a whole post on it. I know it happened a few years ago, but it is a very old company and that was quite a change. I for one am a fan of the UPS logo. Very Web 2.0...
On Aug.11.2007 at 02:11 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
Splashman, your version is much improved. Removing the brushed metal does wonders to that logo. That being said, I can't see the pentastar logo without thinking about the AWFUL Chrysler K cars that I remember. I think they are making a mistake reverting to the image that presided over some of the most pathetic cars ever produced.
On Aug.11.2007 at 02:19 PM
Joe Bob’s comment is:
Some of the new Chrysler's are going to be made in CHINA. The deal is already signed.
Why would you want american people to associate these cars with quality in the future. They will be made in CHINA. They are just setting the bar low by going back to the dumpy logo, people wont expect great cars, just great prices.
On Aug.11.2007 at 02:20 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
One thing is obvious, Jerry was a Star Wars fan.
On Aug.11.2007 at 02:52 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
@stock_illustration:
My first reaction to the pentastar was positive, in the sense that it's a simpler/stronger image than the wings, but you and others have brought up a good point -- the pentastar has some nasty baggage. When you mentioned "K-cars", I had an "ah-ha" moment. Aries, Reliant, LeBaron, Lancer, etc. Blech. So much for "The New" Chrysler.
@Nate, just curious -- in your estimation, what percentage of competent designers would consider "very web 2.0" to be a compliment, when describing a logo?
On Aug.11.2007 at 04:21 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
What's wrong with the UPS logo? I propose you do a whole post on it.
Here you go, Nate: http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/001403.html
On Aug.11.2007 at 04:46 PM
Yael’s comment is:
Very interesting commentary. As some noted above, the original pentastar logo is from the era of the almost-dead Chrysler. The newer Daimler-era mark, a.k.a. wings mark, was (and is) the mark now associated with the 'new' that most people recognize - a confident, more luxurious, stylish car brand.
The cars have improved aesthetically - at the least - and divorcing themselves from the old pentastar logo (associated with bad cars) was the smartest thing they could do, besides upping their total image and branding.
Going back to the pentastar is a fatal move, in my opinion (but who am I, anyway.)
If they're smart, they will keep that logo strictly for Wall Street and leave the wings on the cars and in their branding campaigns.
Just because the pentastar may be a wonderful logo (as far as logos go), it doesn't mean this is what consumers will respond to the right way.
Right is not always right.
On Aug.12.2007 at 12:33 AM
Joe Brander’s comment is:
The new logo makes me think of one thing... and it's not good:
The 1987 Dodge Caravan with wooden side panels and a maroon velvet interior!
On Aug.12.2007 at 02:04 AM
A.R.’s comment is:
I think we ascribe WAY too much power to a logo if we assume it could be the deciding factor in a buying decision, especially such an expensive purchase as a car. The logo is meant as a visual identifier, to convey trust in an organization, not to carry the entire weight of the company brand on its shoulders.
Logos give first impressions as well as introduce you to a product.
It doesn't make me trust the company either, and therefore, makes me doubt the company who adopted this look would make a car that I would find interesting. It makes me think the company is "dated, geometric, and heavy", too.
Like I said, "I guess I'll have to see it in person to decide if I still feel the same way." I'm still open to buying a Chrysler, but the initial corporate impression isn't very good, and now it's up to the car's performance and design to convince me otherwise. :)
On Aug.12.2007 at 09:12 AM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
We do not ascribe too much to a logo, it is our natural reactions that form impressions. Think about how many companies you have been put off from simply because of their logo. Bad logos, logos that misrepresent the service or product, etc. We have been raised to observe logos, and that is what we do. They speak volumes for a company, way more than a two-page press release.
Right now I am jumping out of the Chrysler bandwagon simply based upon the "new" logo.
On Aug.12.2007 at 10:17 AM
Larry Miller’s comment is:
DesignMaven asked me to comment on the creation of the Chrysler CI program and the provenance of the Pentastar.
Early '60s I worked, for Lippincott, at Chrysler. Those days I was a redheaded, rebellious, "young Turk" designer. 40-plus years later, I am a formerly-redheaded, still rebellious, aging Jewish designer.
Did Bob Stanley design the Pentastar? If he says so, and I am not sure he did say that, I can't say otherwise. I knew him as an outstanding executive, who interacted with graphic designers, architects, signage people, clients, and L&M hq at 430 Park in NYC (do I have that address right?). But I came to the program after the Pentastar had been created. Never met or knew Arthur King far as I remember so no opinion about him at all.
I designed a number of pieces for Chrysler, and for a printing vendor, that won awards and gold medals from the Detroit Art directors Club.
Ray Poelvoorde, more supervisory than I, more involved with facilities design, and subsequently president of L&M, drew a dozen or so brilliant architectural drawings for a Chrysler piece I designed, written, as I recall, by John Codella, a freelance writer. Herb Schiebold, a local illustrator/designer, illustrated some pages brilliantly. I hear he passed away recently.
I designed Ray Poelvoorde's personal card, using his mantra, "P-as in Paul, oel, V-as in Victor, double-O, rde." In a way, that tiny little, long-forgotten job, defined how I was to think about design and communication, as a conversation.
Hank Fein, conservative but beret-wearing, was another graphics person, quite excellent. Jack Goldstein and Irwin Susskind were more 3-D than I, perhaps mostly doing signage (not sure). Ray Something (I forget his last name) who was a talented hand-letterer and calligrapher, drew several of the product logos.
Bob Stanley periodically invited us to shoot pool in his house in Grosse Pointe. Bob looks great in a beard. Now he does look like a designer. So who knows.
We ate for a while in the executive dining room. I put on weight. Long gone.
One indelible and awful memory: everyone stopped work one day (you’ll know the date) to listen to the radio as we learned that President John F. Kennedy had been shot and died.
On Aug.12.2007 at 12:11 PM
DSS’s comment is:
To All Concerned:
Before this topic grows cold and DesignMaven’s comments become cemented as fact regarding this albeit brief moment of design history, I feel it necessary to set the record straight regarding Robert Stanley’s work on the Pentastar in the early ‘60s. Furthermore, as a gentleman, I feel compelled to do so, if only because it is truly disgusting to witness a grown person so easily throw insults such as "media whore" at a fellow designer whom he has never met and (obviously) knows nothing about — remember, one needn’t be well known nor highly praised to have accomplished notable things in this life.
Now, for all those who have taken DM’s comments to heart regarding Mr. Stanley’s creation of the Pentastar, you may want to step back a moment and consider the basis that he appears to be using. To avoid undue suspense, I’ll state up front that, yes, Mr. Stanley did indeed put pencil to paper with regard to Chrysler’s logotype in 1962. No ifs, ands or buts. He is the creator of this mark, not Arthur King, as DM asserts rather vehemently.
At this juncture, it is instructive to recognize that regardless if one is an expert on a subject, unless you have proof positive that your information is 100 percent correct, it is wise to temper your comments until all the facts are in.
Of course, I can fully understand that after 45 years DM may truly believe that all history on the Pentastar has long been written, and therefore whatever facts he holds to be true are the end-all be-all. For this, I grant him a bit of leeway regarding his general assertion, though I in no way approve of his tone and the ugliness with which he has disseminated his allegations.
Now, back to Mr. Stanley and the Pentastar. I firmly believe that the basis for much of DM’s comments is tied to the assumption that Mr. Stanley was only an account manager at L&M, which is far from the truth. Robert Stanley was schooled in design and worked as a designer at L&M for eight years prior to that firm’s winning of the Chrysler ID program.
Mr. Stanley was fully engaged in his design position at L&M during the planning and conceptualization phases of the Chrysler program in 1962. What is not readily known nor understood is that following the completion of the creative phase of the program, Mr. Stanley was promoted to vice president and hand picked by Gordon Lippincott and Walter Margulies to represent L&M in Detroit.
Oddly, this position of account executive, on which some in this forum seem unduly fixated, was a title and responsibility given to Mr. Stanley by Lippincott and Margulies because they believed not only that he possessed the aesthetic sensibilities, but also the managerial and organizational skills necessary to act as liaison between L&M and Chrysler’s Corporate Identity office.
Understand if you will that L&M's involvement in the implementation phase lasted approximately three years, while the original creation of the Chrysler mark took only a fraction of that time. From this, it doesn’t take much of a leap to understand that, for reasons of brevity when discussing his work on the Chrysler ID program, Mr. Stanley typical uses this later title when describing his position at L&M.
It has been stated in this forum that it would be “a first for an L&M account manager to have put pencil to paper on any identity design with regard to imagineering and creative studies.” While this is an accurate statement, it is neither germane nor does it apply to Mr. Stanley.
With all due respect to the many capable and hard working account executives out there, it is no small tribute to Mr. Stanley — a designer first and foremost — that Messrs. Lippincott and Margulies held his abilities in such high esteem that they handed him the reins to guide L&M’s contribution to Chrysler’s ID program through its critical implementation phase. To allow one of their key designers the opportunity to take on this important responsibility, especially on such a high-profile and expensive program, is certainly noteworthy. I couldn’t tell you if this was truly a first at L&M; that is for others to decide.
It is the height of irony that DM labeled Robert Stanley a media whore. If he truly was such, there no doubt would be reams of documentation littering DM’s shelves and filing cabinets attesting to and glorifying his part in the creation of the Pentastar. But Mr. Stanley is not one to actively seek public acclaim, and as such, the dearth of information seems to have led to the aforementioned and unfortunate assertions.
Because of this vigorous denouncement of Mr. Stanley’s key role in the mark’s creation, I have encouraged him to take the time to provide details of the Pentastar’s development at L&M. The following was provided to me this afternoon directly from Mr. Stanley to clarify, edify and hopefully end the debate once and for all. I trust you will find it adequate in confirming the validity of his statements originating in the Chrysler blog last Monday.
--DSS
========================================
For the record --
I joined L&M as a Designer in 1954 after three years at Donald Deskey. I became an L&M Design Director in 1958.
In March 1962, Chrysler Corporation retained L&M as CI Consultants. I was named Design Director on the account; Joseph Murtha (later of Sandgren & Murtha) was the Account Manager, and Phase One began.
In July 1962, Phase One (“Findings and Interim Recommendations”) was completed and I presented the findings/recommendations to Chrysler’s CEO, Lynn Townsend (four others were present at this meeting: Walter Margulies; Joe Murtha; and for Chrysler, Dick Forbes, Director of Advertising; and F.W. Misch, VP Finance). Having successfully gained the CEO’s approval, Phase Two (“Design and Final Recommendations”) was initiated.
In Phase Two, from the scores of candidate mark ideas -- which I and the staff designers under my direction had produced -- three were eventually chosen for further development and presentation:
• The Pentastar which was one of the marks I had personally designed, but was not yet named
• A “cog” mark reminiscent of a “C”
• An octagonal figure with “Chrysler” in the center
and
• A “hollow square” which Walter Margulies insisted be prepared and added to the initial selection of three, which I processed for him
After 45 years, it is difficult for me to recall who was responsible for the “cog C” or the “octagonal” mark. It was a crash program and it could have been any of 10 or more designers. Bob Sioss, John Voytko (sp?), Emil O. Biemann (Fabled of Story and Song) are names that come to mind.
In August 1962, I presented the final recommendations. Included in the presentation were test tube applications; the results of surveys measuring each mark against the design and image criteria established in Phase One; and the recommendation that the Pentastar (still unnamed) be the Corporate Mark. At the conclusion of the presentation, Lynn Townsend approved the recommendations and authorized L&M to initiate Phase Three (“Implementation”).
In September 1962, Chrysler established a CI office (F.E. Cogsdill, Director); and in October, L&M opened an in-plant design office within Chrysler Headquarters, staffed with 10 to 15 individuals including graphic designers, architects, interior designers and product designers. It was at that time that I, now L&M Vice President and Account Executive, moved from NYC to Detroit to head the new L&M office.
The next three years saw the L&M Detroit office undertake over 250 individual/major identity projects for Chrysler Corporation.
In 1965, I resigned from L&M to start my own firm.
Returning specifically to the parentage of the Chrysler Pentastar: In July 1962, I sat at my design table in the northeast corner of L&M’s NYC offices on Park Avenue -- between 55th and 56th streets -- and to coin a phrase, “putting pencil to paper,” brought the Pentastar to life.
The hand-lettered alphabet was done under my direction by John Schaedler, of “Pinwheel” fame (aka Schaedler Quinzel Inc.).
Structural changes are a reality in corporate life. One example is that at some point, 20+ years after the Pentastar was implemented, I know that L&M did work for Chrysler, one item of which was a signature rework. The Pentastar’s design remained intact and unchanged, but greater emphasis was placed on the words within a color-coded signature system.
The mark remained unchanged for 45 years until recent modifications were made by Chrysler to accommodate the Corporation’s purchase by Cerberus.
The facts I have stated above are offered in the spirit of Bernard Baruch (1870-1965), who said: “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.”
--Robert Stanley
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
DSS and Robert Stanely,
Thank you for your detailed, articulate and fascinating establishment of the truth.
The reinforcements have arrived.
On Aug.12.2007 at 06:50 PM
Jose Nieto’s comment is:
DSS and Robert Stanley should also be thanked for providing a rare glimpse into the inner workings of a design consultancy during the classic era of identity design. Frankly, I prefer to see designers of this generation as talented, hard working professionals (that is, human beings) and not as "gods" or "kings."
On Aug.12.2007 at 08:03 PM
John’s comment is:
When I was in college, oh-so-getting-to-be-so-many years ago, I drove a good ol' Chrysler K car, a LeBaron. This car lasted me a good six years or so. It was not stylish. It was not classy. It was not anything to get excited about. It did not ask for anything more than what it was expected to be. I can sum it up in one word: perfunctory.
Just like this new logo.
On Aug.12.2007 at 08:07 PM
C-LO’s comment is:
It's Plymouth!!! They've returned!!
But yeah there really doing a number to themselves with this. Just adding the word "New" to it is gonna make people start scratching their heads. Wonder what's new about it. immagine a beat up, nine year old, rusty, "new" chrysler. It's gonna loom ridiculous on the badge of the car.
On Aug.13.2007 at 01:19 PM
Bart O'Dell’s comment is:
I dont care honestly for the "new" Chrysler mark. Seems very rushed to me.
And about all of this bickering about who designed what with AT&T, all I know is I remember being 7 or 8 years old and sitting on my parents floor trying for all of my might to design the AT&T "death star" logo.
So whoever did design it, is irrelevant to me. It made me want to be a designer in the first place, as I have told Jerry a couple times before in emails.
On Aug.13.2007 at 09:57 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
To my understanding, what is pictured in the "before" and "after" columns isn't actually the logo change. The logo pictured in the "before" section is Chrysler's consumer product mark, the mark that goes on it's vehicles. This "before" falls in the family of their other consumer product marks, such as the dodge logo.
After DeimlerChrysler agreed to sell controlling interest of its Chrysler division to private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, Chrysler became independent of Deimler.
As a result of this division's independence, they retook their previous corporate name, and of course they could not longer use the corporate logo of DeimlerChrysler.
However, since Deimler still owns a good deal of Chrysler (but not controlling interest), they didn't have to change their name or identity.
It made since for them to go back to the heartwarming Pentastar, the corporate logo which preceded Deimler acquisition of Chrysler. It makes me sad though that it's fake steel matched with the type from their consumer brand (type which was not created to go with it). I'm not even going to touch on the "new" part.
On Aug.13.2007 at 10:32 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
nothing better than a rambling internet argument to make the day go by faster. i think someone needs to up their dosage.
i just really wish one major identity didn't feel the need to add brushed aluminum or other misc. textures, drop shadows, and gadgets. no matter how much you try to make it look like something else it is still going to look like a cheap flat immitation.
the type has been bad since after that original 20s version so i didn't expect much, luckily my expectations were met. but i do have to say that in terms of legibility the new logo is much easier to read than the previous version. did they actually expect people to read the ribbon at the size it is here? it's 2" and that's actually quite large and you can't make anything out.
On Aug.14.2007 at 10:23 AM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
disgruntled designer,
I think it's time for us designers to suck it up and realize that for some reason businesses are looking to Photoshop-like Elements to make their logos look more modern. I think it has to do with the emergence of more mediums than paper, and they try to imagine their work on TV and Internet. Plus, the price of printing has dropped dramatically over the last 100 years, printing is better and more reliable (as if printing could really be reliable), and designers don't use clay stamps anymore.
We designers like a pure form of design for the same reason we like to duplicate a drawing as opposed to tracing it. But it is obvious that bevels and web 2.0 designs aren't going anywhere and we need to deal with it. That is, if we want to work for anything other an art museum. Look on this site and you will see how many "NEW" logos are not much more than beveled versions of the old, or a flat logo was replaced with an embossed one. It's the market of today; and reality is CEO's are generally two decades or more behind Designers. But, they write the checks and sign off on the final approval so we will continue to experience frustration.
In my region the catch-phrase seems to be, "can you make it more 3D-like?" Or, "Can you make it a little more flashy?" A Photoshop-effect or two later, on the exact same design, and I have consent and a check in hand. It is what it is; but needless to say these works do not end up in my portfolio.
On Aug.14.2007 at 11:11 AM
exigent’s comment is:
What a completely horrible move to make! I have always and WILL always hate this logo. I have always thought of chrysler as a classier car than those of it's competition... exept buick. This new logo will undoubtedly do absolutely nothing to show any sort of elegance.
Idiots... what a backward move. The wing could remain, and possibly put the pentastar mark within the center. THAT would make more sense if they choose to do this abysmal move.
On Aug.14.2007 at 11:40 AM
exigent’s comment is:
Shot at 2007-08-14
Just a quickie to show what I mean.
On Aug.14.2007 at 11:56 AM
Frank’s comment is:
"But it is obvious that bevels and web 2.0 designs aren't going anywhere and we need to deal with it."
Well i predict they indeed *will* go somewhere..down the toilet that is, to be more specific.
I'd say like 3,5 years from now we'll only see like 15% of nowadays web 2.0 logos being left.Simply because 50% of all these beveled, dropshadowed 2.0 startups will have gone bankrupt or simply disappear within the next 2 years anyway.The other 35% will follow soon after.Chances are 15% of these companies will survive *despite* their Photoshop shiny shiny logos..:)
In addition, web 2.0 graphics are a *trend* and trends do change so that is reason enough to say
that "bevels and web 2.0 designs" will indeed go to logo hell, sooner or later.
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
I (we) can only pray that you are correct Frank...
On Aug.15.2007 at 09:29 AM
Me’s comment is:
Has anyone noticed, the new Chrysler symbol looks remarkably like a cats sphincter?
...
On Aug.16.2007 at 03:29 AM
Eric’s comment is:
The K-Cars (as butt-ugly as they may be) helped save Chrysler from oblivion.
Most of the credit goes to the minivans, of course.
I am having a difficult time in understanding the need for 2 Chrysler logos (badge branding on consumer products and corporate pentastar.)
I recently received some crappy direct mail from Chrysler hyping "The New Chrysler" complete with the Transformers Pentastar. Inside, were pictures of the complete lineup of cars which feature the wings and ribbon badging. Confusing, to say the least.
I think the 'new' aspect of this is to say "Non German" or "Non Daimler", but I would let copy and PR handle that stuff, not a logo.
Truth is, the DaimlerChrysler marriage was doomed before it even began. My uncle recently retired from there (he was Prez of Chrysler Financial) and the Americans and Germans didn't get along too well.
On Aug.16.2007 at 03:26 PM
Jason Warth’s comment is:
Interesting discussion here (as always). Just thought I'd mention that the Chrysler Headquarters Building in Auburn Hills, MI, actually features the "penta-star" logo in the building's design. I've been told that the penta-star is actually a big window off of the executive hallway.
-Jason
On Aug.16.2007 at 09:34 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
I was brought back to this Editorial Thursday Night, 8-16-97 by Robert Stanley in a Private email.
In Reference to DSS and Mr. Robert Stanley:
More importantly, it is the Integrity, Candor and Forthrightness of Designers to Disseminate Factual Information of what they Commenced on an Identity Project.
I have five or six credits from different sources for the CHRYSLER Identity from various sources in my Archive.
None of them name Robert Stanley as Designer of the CHRYSLER Identity.
The surviving members of L+M I checked informed me Robert Stanley was in fact Head of the CHRYSLER Identity Project. None remembered who was actually credited with Designing the Pentastar Identity.
I'm continuing to wonder why Mr. Stanley and DSS who shared such a Rich History and Matter of Fact information refuses to name or acknowledge the Creative Director and/or Design Director for the CHRYSLER Identity Project, 1962.
For the Record, there are several names continuing to float around who are possible Designers of the CHRYSLER Pentastar Identity.
Sources in my Archive either named Lippincott & Margulies as Designer or they named Walter P. Margulies. I'm aware from experience Lippincott & Margulies never acknowledged Individual Accomplishment for their Identity work.
The consultancy was always credited.
As I said earlier within this Forum and I'll say it again. No Disrespect.
If Mr Stanley Developed and Designed the CHRYSLER Identity i.e. naming the PENTASTAR, PLANNING and DESIGNING the Identity as Vice President, Account Executive it's never been done in he History of Visual Communication.
That's a MONUMENTAL FEAT in and of itself.
I not aware of another Vice President, Account Executive that has taken credit or given credit for Developing, Designing and Naming an Identity.
I thought Identity Practice was a TEAM EFFORT.
You're the First. I take my Hat off to You!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is noteworthy and should be recorded in the History Books.
Definitely Strange because the Legendary Albrow Downe Vice President of Communications Planning L+M never took Credit for Design of the Royal Bank Identity although he was in Charge of the Account.
The RCA Identity Project was a sixty (60) person Design Team Headed by President Walter P. Margulies, Albrow Downe, Vice President Communications Planning, Russell D. Anspach, Vice President Account Services, and Eugene J. Grossman, Creative Director.
Guess what, Eugene J. Grossman is the only person associated with the Identity Project at Lippincott & Margulies ever Credited with Design of the RCA Identity.
I disseminated the information Arthur King provided me when I asked what other Identity Projects he was involved at Lippincott & Margulies.
It was not clear to me at the time whether or not Arthur King Designed those Identities or Implemented the programs.
Nevertheless, when a Designer says these are mine X Y Z it is a literal acknowledgement and interpretation by me the Designer is saying he Designed said Identities. Certainly, if Arthur King did not Design the CHRYSLER Identity he should've stated what he actually commenced on the Identity Project.
When asked, Arthur King informed me the Identities for Cities Services Station, CITGO, NEW YORK LIFE, HERTZ, EASTERN AIRLINES, and CHRYSLER were his Identities.
Why would any SANE PERSON question the word a Reputable Source and Acquaintence.
Mr. Stanley and DSS. If you have a BEEF with anyone. You have a BEEF with Arthur King, (not me) for not making clear TO ME his involvement with the CHRYSLER Identity Project.
Mr. Stanley, if I'm wrong in my assessment of your Design Capability and Contribution to the CHRYSLER Identity. At the same time HONORNING the word from a Designer I Respect.
TO ERROR IS HUMAN, TO FORGIVE DIVINE!!!!!!!!!!!!
There have been instances in the past where others have taken credit for someone else Design because of Death or ill fated circumstances beyond the Designers control.
I have Documentation of several accounts as well documented accounts from Creatives in the Industry.
It is my responsibility to myself, my audience Speak Up / Brand New / Design Observer and other Blogs I write on to report the Truth.
As Adults, we know THE TRUTH IS RELATIVE and THE TRUTH can be EMBELLISHED.
Again, I have yet to talk with anyone from Lippincott & Margulies to inform me Robert Stanley NAMED, DEVELOPED, and DESIGNED, The Pentastar Identity.
Those I was able to contact informed me he was Chief of the Project.
The same alumni of Lippincott & Margulies I spoke with informed me there was never any conversation in reference to Robert Stanley Designing the CHRYSLER Pentastar Identity.
I'll go on Record to say, I'll accept Mr. Stanley's word until I find different.
The Media Whore comment was an Off the Cuff Remark PROTECTING the Honor of Arthur King who informed me the CHRYSLER Identity was his among others.
In Hindsight the comment should've never been used.
What I find ODD, Frightening, Perplexing and Absurd.
Mr. Stanley felt the need to Justify whether or not he Designed the CHRYSLER PENTASTAR Identity TO ME.
If someone didn't believe I was responsible for the Design of an Identity, that's their cross to bare, not mine.
I wouldn't waste my time trying to prove other wise.
Ole saying, "A HEAP SEE, BUT A FEW KNOW".
I'm among the few.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
catalyst’s comment is:
Me thinks thou doest protest too much
On Aug.17.2007 at 11:15 PM
Sandy’s comment is:
God, all this talk, and not a single person explains WHAT the PentaStar STOOD for !
The PentaStar has 5 points. When it was originally designed, it stood for the 5 DIVISIONS of Chrysler Corporation !!!
* IMPERIAL
* CHRYSLER
* DODGE
* DODGE TRUCKS
* PLYMOUTH
While I like the emblem and it is instantly associated with Chrysler Corporation, it IS now OBSOLETE !!!
There is NO Imperial Division, there is NO Plymouth Division and Dodge Trucks have been rolled into the Dodge Division and are no longer couinted as a seperate division.
(CryCo is hopping nobody recalls WHAT it stood for!)
Sandy
~ Professional Mopar Salesman - 30 years
Founder of the Imperial Owner's Association
Author of several books on MOPAR History
Receipent of "Old Cars Weekly" "Golden Quill Award" - 1985
Mike’s comment is:
I don't think it looks that bad. It's appropriate that they went back to the Pentastar, and they do have to keep it trendy. In a couple years, when the brushed-metal backlash begins, Chrysler will be able to rock a new simplistic version.
and if you want to see monolithic, check out their pentastar-shaped headquarters in auburn hills, MI.
On Aug.20.2007 at 10:14 AM
Billesberger’s comment is:
* IMPERIAL
* CHRYSLER
* DODGE
* Desoto
* PLYMOUTH
No, I think it was Desoto instead of Dodge Trucks
On Aug.21.2007 at 03:49 AM
rschroeder’s comment is:
I really enjoyed this entry.
I read some VERY interesting and I must say, eloquently expressed CI history compliments of Jerry Kuyper, DSS and Robert Stanley.
I also got the usual comedic/mental/hysterical interludes compliments of DM.
Great reading!
Oh and I have to side with my good friend JonSel (as I so often do, go Yanks!) regarding this "the new" business. It has got to go. It's so contrived and apologetic. Come on people! A car company needs balls!
Why not place "New and Improved" or better yet "Old and Improved" over the top corner of the pentastar in a burst shape while we're at it...
Lastly, I don't agree with re-introducing the pentastar.
It's obvious Chrysler needs to reinvigorate and reposition themselves. But, I (and I am quite sure the stakeholders too) would like to see Chrysler going forward and not backward. I feel this endeavor would have been better served by pushing forward with some (preferably simpler) representation of the wing symbol.
On Aug.22.2007 at 06:01 PM
Elio Delgado’s comment is:
Es un nuevo cambio al logotipo, de acuerdo a la modernidad en que vivimos, al estilo que se esta dando actualmente. El logo refleja lo que siempre ha diseñado chysler, la elegancia y fuerza de sus autos se ve relejado en el logo.
On Aug.25.2007 at 03:52 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
This is a big big mistake. The wings give the image of quality. The star looks cheap and outdated.
On Aug.27.2007 at 12:23 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
the ribbon-medallion is classic, high-flying chrysler, complete with the winged badge. the only good thing about the penta-star was it was used when Iacocca was there to pull it away from bankrupcy.
On Aug.28.2007 at 09:06 PM
Ramón’s comment is:
muy buena opción excelente aplicación, en lo particular me gusto mucho el re-diseño
kolocotronix
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Rick Schroeder:
Insightful words from another No Talent.
"I also got the usual comedic/ mentally/hysterical interludes compliments of DM".
For Future Reference.
Leave my Name / Moniker out of your Post on Brand New.
You're Squandering Prescious Billable Hours at Siegel+Gale.
Most Consultancies have adopted a No Blogging Policy.
If I were Alan I'd Fire Your Ass!!!!!!!!
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
On Sep.12.2007 at 09:58 PM
Josh H’s comment is:
To throw my two cents in:
Chrysler had no choice in the abandonment of Daimler... DaimlerChrysler after acquiring Chrysler some years ago, decided it was not performing to standards and decided to sell off its Chrysler division.
I am in agreement with most on this thread: The "Pentastar" has defensive/militant connotations in a largely war-ambivalent culture, as well as ties to an unsuccessful part of the company's history.
Chrysler added the wings before the DaimlerBenz acquisition. The 300M from the late 90s was the first to see it.
Sad that Cerberus couldn't do a little more market research before going with the most mediocre of the 800 ideas.
On Oct.03.2007 at 06:22 AM
Terry Stewart’s comment is:
I hope they bring the Concorde back and make it look like the 1993-1997 ones.
I really like the 1993-1997 design, and I have one of those currently, a 1996 Concorde LXi.
I've seen TONS of those things on the trucks carrying those crushed cars, you know, though...
But my Concorde is a faithful car, had it ever since '96. Only problems: wipers, CD player and a small, fixable $175 transmission problem.
james’s comment is:
I say with all the new retro models comming back they should bring the penstar back!!!!!!
On Dec.06.2007 at 08:47 PM
Daniel’s comment is:
I know this discussion is about Chrysler, but in the seventies, subsidiary Dodge came up with this great futuristic logo.
Seeing it on my Dad's '78 Chrysler built '78 Hillman Avenger sparked an early interest in design.
Anyway, hasn't the star always been somewhere on the cars? Glad it's back at front.
KP’s comment is:
DM,
I think you owe this blog community an apology. I comment rarely, usually when I find interesting design work unfairly criticized because of lack real thought. In this case, it was clear that you hijacked a thread, made insults, called people out on facts while fudging some of your own, and shrugged it all off when finally, the person you were speaking about presented their history.
Let's take it line by line, and keep out the snark because it's neither interesting nor helpful:
"The Media Whore comment was an Off the Cuff Remark PROTECTING the Honor of Arthur King who informed me the CHRYSLER Identity was his among others."
Protecting your friends is fine, crapping on the integrity of strangers is not. You didn't have the whole story and it was filled out for you. You applauded Robert Stanley for getting design credit as an account manager when he clearly was a long-established designer. The chip on your shoulder about this belies a seeming inability to see the team for it's members. In other words, cheap shot, DM, and you know it.
"In Hindsight the comment should've never been used."
Immediately after this is where your apology should have appeared.
"What I find ODD, Frightening, Perplexing and Absurd. Mr. Stanley felt the need to Justify whether or not he Designed the CHRYSLER PENTASTAR Identity TO ME."
And to me, and to the blog community. It appears he was sought out by DSS, otherwise he wouldn't have read your vitriol. And RS' outline of events managed to avoid the methodology of intimidation through attack and simply presented a personal history.
"Ole saying, "A HEAP SEE, BUT A FEW KNOW".
I'm among the few."
This may be true, DM, but this kind of bragging doesn't help you disseminate your knowledge. I'm less inclined to listen to the blowhard, even if he happens to be the wisest man in the world.
And lastly, have you met Jerry Kuyper? I've never worked for him directly, but I know he's a true mentor, generous, forthright and full of integrity. You should hope that someone could outline the same traits for you. Continuing your current writing style on this blog will not let that happen.
Again, you should apologize. If you have that much respect for design and designers, then it shouldn't be a problem. If it's merely about your ego, and how much you think you know, you'll find fewer and fewer people responding to your posts, no matter how insightful they might be.
PS. Huge missed opportunity to walk away from the wings and the pentastar. To walk towards a holistic view of transportation with the heritage to be a leader. To diversify and build a company that moves people instead of a company that builds cars. This logo drawing is particulary poorly drawn in the face of the Citroen chevrons (not a great wordmark, not really interesting graphic device, but the drawing was well-conceived and deft).
On Feb.24.2009 at 03:41 PM
KP’s comment is:
Yes, I know...late to the part. Valid, I think, nonetheless.
On Feb.24.2009 at 04:11 PM
Fonto’s comment is:
Hopefully, everyone on this site gets real cozy with this mark, BECAUSE WE ALL PAID FOR IT. Sure hope they didn't spend any of my freaking tax dollars to fund this. I'm going to print this off and carry it around in my wallet, just in case they did. Maybe the next time they get a Get Out of Bankruptcy Free card, they can pay for some revisions on that type.
On Feb.24.2009 at 10:24 PM
Mark’s comment is:
this logo is butt-ugly compared to the previous Pentastar, WAY too much shinyness going on. Why don't the just make the outline of the shape and the star solid while the inside of the logo white space,like it looked on the old Chryslers. It would've looked BETTER that way. Why does the whole thing have to be solid?
On Apr.20.2009 at 08:20 PM
jRod’s comment is:
Dang it, i know its late, but it just reminds me of the badge they put on the K-Car series and that is never a good thing. those cars we probably the most uninspired cars ever built.
On Apr.21.2009 at 09:45 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
