NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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 toughest task a designer can undertake is creating an identity for oneself. Who hasn’t taken endless months to decide on just the right symbol, the perfect typography, the best paper stock, and, of course, that extra cool finishing touch: which letterpress printer to use? Most of us only have ourselves to please in this regard (and maybe our significant others). So imagine when a global identity consultant decides that not only do they need a new identity, they’re going to change the name as well. Fare thee well, Enterprise IG. The powers-that-be have elected to join The Brand Union.
Brand agencies are notorious for not exactly embracing the notion of a visual identity for themselves. Landor, Interbrand and even Pentagram get by with a classic red serif typeface. A few sport some, if not overly dramatic, symbol. Futurebrand has its circle-F. CoreBrand waves the flag. Sterling has a cute pointer. And DesGrippes Gobe has a small star. And to top it all, I don’t think Wolff Olins even has a single visual identifier anymore. The overall message they are all saying is that our identity is really our clients’ identities. The client defines the agency, instead of the agency defining itself. No wonder the land of branding seems a bit muddled these days.
As a bit of background, Enterprise IG, a part of the WPP holding group, was built from design agencies that were merged in 1996, including legendary NY studio Anspach Grossman Portugal (look ‘em up, kids, they defined corporate identity in NY in the 80s), SBG from San Francisco and Sampson Tyrrell in London. Unfortunately, what happened was not atypical: they all merged together under a generic brand that neither clients nor internal staff ever really embraced or knew much about. Leadership finally recognized this and have made a great step in defining themselves as clear as possible.
With their new logo, The Brand Union (and don’t leave out the “The”) wanted to set themselves apart from the other identity-less firms. US CEO Rita Rodriguez says that the refined positioning of the company reflects a dedication “to mastering the art and science of brand building”. That the word “art” was actually included is, frankly, shocking to me. I have always gotten the impression that art, being so subjective, is better left in the backroom while the focus is on the more nebulous, but business-approved, notion of branding, where you can at least offer some metrics. What I’ve been told is that the senior executives truly wanted the company’s creativity to be expressed in their logo, to ensure that clients understood that side of the equation. I think they’ve done it. Building the symbol out of the counters and negative space suggests a creative way at looking at a design problem and supports the overall positioning of a company with a wide breadth of offerings and a global network to support it. In press-release-speak, this is noted as symbolizing “the process of bringing together the people, ideas, and touchpoints that brands need to thrive.” Not exactly unique language, but the logo speaks better for itself. The blue and gray, while conservative, are nonetheless nice and pleasing. At least it’s something, considering the previous color was black. Overall, it’s a nice left-brain/right-brain balance.
To further express the creative nature of the organization, the shapes within the mark are used as a graphic language, from patterns to maps to anything you can make out of it. Some ideas for using the shapes that were kicked around internally ranged from post-it notes to ice cube trays. Seriously. And while those might seem a bit nutty, having a visual language where pretty much anything can be created gives this identity a long life and the ability to be refreshed and updated along the way.
So while the symbol is a nice breath of fresh air in this space, I can’t say as much for the name. Clearly, Enterprise IG had to go. They had a name conflict with Enterprise rental cars. And while that seems odd, it caused conflicts when legally naming the organization in different countries of operation. Hence the “IG” tacked on that never really made sense. But the biggest issue was that the name just didn’t explain enough what they did, causing a lot of confusion and making business development a still harder task. But, “The Brand Union”? Hmm. With the proliferation of “Brand” in every agency name out there, it risks being lost in the crowd. Interbrand. Futurebrand. Corebrand. BrandLogic. Brandient. BrandEquity International. Yes, we get it. You guys do branding. But I like the “Union” portion, as it’s very clear, not elitist, and to the point: a merging of client and agency with a singular focus.
The agency is based in London, but the final design was developed in the New York office by Jaime Burns and led by Executive Creative Director Wally Krantz.
Those ice cube trays.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
darrel’s comment is:
"So while the symbol is a nice breath of fresh air in this space, I can't say as much for the name. "
Yep. You summed that up well.
It's sure nice to look at, though.
On Nov.06.2007 at 01:50 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I'll definitely agree that designing a personal identity is the most frustrating enterprise a graphic designer can undertake.
That said, I'm not sure that I buy this identity; I suppose it makes sense given the agency's emphasis on creativity and "art" in branding. But when I step back and take in the mark as a whole I just can't get over the lack of cohesion and structure between the individual components. I'm reminded of kids' tangram blocks scattered on a table.
I do find The Brand Union's willingness to be bold and playful with their identity refreshing, and there is something charming in the liberties taken with the placement of the counter shapes (B + A, especially). But for a company undergoing a name change in addition to a visual re-branding, I think a little more legibility would make sense.
On Nov.06.2007 at 01:52 PM
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:
Well said, JonSel.
The identity is refreshing, but the name is just another step in the "bland" direction. For the life of me I find it impossible to understand how companies specializing in "branding and naming" can't seem to grasp the whole naming concept themselves.
Allow me to share just a small excerpt of the "bland brand" landscape...
• Brand-DNA
• Brand A
• Brand 2.0
• Brand Channel
• Brand Design
• Brand Doctors
• Brand Evolve
• Brand Evolution
• Brand Fidelity
• Brand Forward
• Brand Institute
• Brand Juice
• Brand Ladder
• Brand Link
• Brand Maverick
• Brand Mechanics
• Brand Meta
• Brand People
• Brand Positioning
• Brand Salt
• Brandscape
• Brand Scope
• Brand Sequence
• Brand Slinger
• Brand Solutions
• Brand Spark
• Brand Union
Christian Palino’s comment is:
Visually, this could have been an interesting application/interpretation (albeit not very original) of a well designed wordmark – but in this case, the logo and its wallpaper-like applications is destined to become dated very quickly. While I would imagine that a vast majority of The Brand Union's prospective clients would likely want their own visual brand to be timeless, those clients certainly will have to look further than their chosen agency’s namesake to find an example of such competency.
On Nov.06.2007 at 02:07 PM
BobSchro’s comment is:
Couldn't agree more Jon. Nice review.
I can't say that I like the name either. Well, the "brand" part of it. We should team up and each think of 4-5 new words for "brand." I am tired of saying it, seeing it and being it.
But, I have to say, the ID is a really fun wake up call in the brand consultancy space. It definitely has legs.
On Nov.06.2007 at 02:14 PM
felix’s comment is:
Sorta reminds me of Duffy's Bahamas identity. But not as good.
Jonsel, I'm surprised you're surprised by the "art & science". Its the same as "imagination & information" or "intuition & knowledge". Either way, its combined effects read design, right?
Unfortunately they don't do a whole lotta design do they? Branding is primarily marketing, but you knew that.
On Nov.06.2007 at 02:18 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
Isn't it a bit odd that, whilst one mustn't "leave out the "The"," that's precisely what the logo does?
On Nov.06.2007 at 02:55 PM
Mark’s comment is:
My first reaction to the new logo was:
woah,cool!
it's certainly different.
On Nov.06.2007 at 03:28 PM
Chad K’s comment is:
The one part of the logo for me that stands out, not fitting in, is the 'I' in 'UNION' between the 'N' and 'O'. While the tops and bottoms of the letters shift throughout the logo, the 'I' (and 'O') created a difficulty carrying the technique throughout. The vertical bar is an obvious and probably appropriate solution to maintain simplicity of the puzzle-pieced letterforms. It does, however, seem odd that it is almost centered in the space between the two letters beside it and does not carry the same weight as the other forms.
A little retouch to show:
C-Lo’s comment is:
It has a nice Stained glass look to me. Albeit people here complain about the name "The Brand Union", but hey to each their own. There was "The bank of new york melon" a while ago. I think it works fine, and it will last a while.
If "The" is so stressed about as in the explanation, wouldn't you put at least a tiny mark to represent the word "The"?
On Nov.06.2007 at 04:48 PM
Nick’s comment is:
am I the only person getting tired of the word "brand"?!? compelling logo but the name struggles.
On Nov.06.2007 at 04:52 PM
JonSel’s comment is:
Regarding "the", it was stressed to me that this is NOT a wordmark but a symbol. If you look on the website, the formal name is included above the top navigation. In use on stationery, there is an additional descriptor of the office location below the name. As below:
The Brand Union
New York
or
The Brand Union
London
That's the official story I'm told. As for my take, "the" will be ignored verbally, as it's awkward and people always look for a shortcut. I appreciate not including "the" in the symbol, as it would add clutter to an already complex mark, but it does subvert the cause. It's a bit of a no-win situation for them. I know they discussed it a lot.
milo’s comment is:
I like this, I'm glad to see some confidence in adventurous typography from a major player like this.
Wolff Olins have also dumped their old small caps News Gothic logo. In fact they dumped the idea of a logo all together, replacing it with lettering made "in the world".
On Nov.06.2007 at 05:35 PM
Chris’s comment is:
Kyle, you forgot Brand Muffin.
On Nov.06.2007 at 05:49 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
From the list above it seems like the word "Brand" is being overused. Why not create your own unique name but still have it associated with branding?
Instead of "BRAND" it's "DNARB"?
Kyle Hildebrant’s comment is:
@Chris,
Ha. Well, there is one thing that is certain. Having more "brand" in your name is defiantly going to make you more "regular".
I like the ID, I just can't seem to grasp why a company would go from a not-so-great name, to a worse name.
C'est la vie
On Nov.06.2007 at 07:07 PM
Joe M. ’s comment is:
Well done Brand Union! Global po-mo waves rolling across the sea of your cohorts red didot logos will surely sink the behemoth steamboats of yesteryear. If only you would develop an entire typeface! The conservative two-color styling lends just enough corporate pizazz that your institutional clients won't feel like they've been forced into an early 80s dance party, and hell, who wouldn't want to hear more Blue Monday!?
On Nov.06.2007 at 09:41 PM
Aaron C’s comment is:
Nice. That's putting your money where your mouth is. How can you ask a client to be daring if you yourself can't? It's impressive to see a big ship take such a turn, quite a task. You can see in the websites of the big boys Jon mentioned just how hard. Lippencott, Landor, Futurebrand, and Interbrand all seem to have the same 1996 website. Well done indeed.
On Nov.07.2007 at 05:35 AM
Erik M’s comment is:
I could only imagine the kind of courage it took to try and sell this to "the higher ups". Working in today's branding world more often than not is just like being another foot soldier on the front lines of an utterly bland and over saturated market. I can't help but being left wanting more (in a good way of course).
Now do the other branding powerhouses take note and follow suit? Brand Union has raised the bar, or at the very least questioned what most have forgotten or were too scared to ask.
+1 Brand Union
On Nov.07.2007 at 09:27 AM
Robbiefa’s comment is:
I love when people criticize a name such as "the brand union" for using brand... only to click on their personal website to find the use of the same word...
anyway I really like the new brand for enterprise ig it brings consistency for a company needing it! They speacialise in rebranding clients and brand managment... making sure a brand is unifided so the brand union makes sense!
On Nov.07.2007 at 11:04 AM
BWJ’s comment is:
This is a great logo and a solid review. It's good to see a redesign worth admiring. I also like the new name. It removes the pretentious corporate nature that most branding firms carry. It reminds me of The Designer's Republic and The Decoder Ring Design Concern (both great names that let potential clients know what they do).
As for the name dispute...I guess some people couldn't find anything else to complain about...The word "brand" is used so much more now, because it has become recognized as an important part of business. Why bother trying to reinvent the wheel by coming up with "4-5 new words for brand?" Clients are finally beginning to understand what "brand" means, and people want to change that?
I'm sick of hearing some of you call yourself a designer. It's so "overused" and "regular." Can you please think of 4-5 other words to call yourself from here on out?
I can.
On Nov.07.2007 at 12:32 PM
Gabe’s comment is:
wo wo wo... Have you guys seen the new shirts logo? it is kind of like this.
On Nov.07.2007 at 12:37 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Dnarb?
hahahaha.
On Nov.07.2007 at 01:28 PM
blah’s comment is:
"am I the only person getting tired of the word "brand"?!? compelling logo but the name struggles."
no. i completely detest the word "brand" and think the majority of people who use it actually mean something completely different. it's a buzz word and will eventually go the way of the dotcom -- hopefully. now that everyone thinks they know what it means they throw it around and in fact cause the term to lose any meaning. have you looked at the "branding" section of b&n or borders? it's a disgusting plethora of poorly designed books that have nothing more to do with branding than using the word in the title. no one addresses identity fully with the incorporation of marketing, and most of these "brand" firms use jargon and spew big words as a substitution of actually rationalizing what they have done or what it truly means. ugh, pisses me off so much.
and this identity is from mr. fedex? hmmm... not sure how i feel about that. the askew letters drive me crazy. why is the B so off, and the A, but not the other forms? and i can't see something on top of union without thinking of cooper union. i also wonder if this is a true union?
On Nov.07.2007 at 02:16 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
I, for one, welcome our branding overlords. Now all they have to do is live up to an identity that is bold, daring, exciting and somewhat eccentric. The true test of this brand will be how reflective it is of the company down the road.
Armin, love the term "press-release-speak". Not so fond of the "speak" itself.
On Nov.07.2007 at 05:04 PM
Kit’s comment is:
“Interbrand. Futurebrand. Corebrand. BrandLogic. Brandient. BrandEquity International. Yes, we get it. You guys do branding.”
Yay, you got it right! Joke aside, when pioneering a specialized service in a fresh market (imagine Eastern Europe five years ago) you really need a name like that, trust me.
Cristian -Kit- Paul, Brandient
On Nov.08.2007 at 04:27 PM
Billy’s comment is:
Anonymous’s comment is:
This... this logo is the worst I've ever seen. The name sucks too.
On Nov.08.2007 at 05:21 PM
Rob’s comment is:
It's tough taking risks in the corporate realm and I applaud this risk taking as one that works. While name isn't necessarily perfect, I think with the 'The' in front of it, it adds a bit of authority that may have been lacking with the name Enterprise IG. And the logo simply reinforces the creative side in a dramatic and impressive way.
On Nov.08.2007 at 10:09 PM
Elliot’s comment is:
blah: "the askew letters drive me crazy. why is the B so off, and the A, but not the other forms? "
and the R. For me this makes the whole top-left quadrant uncomfortable and distracting.
On Nov.09.2007 at 04:09 AM
Claudia’s comment is:
At least they didn't waste any money on coming up with the name - am I the only one here old enough to remember that Enterprise were part of the Brand Union just a few short years ago?
On Nov.09.2007 at 09:21 AM
EDWARD SCHWARZMANN’s comment is:
The logo may be very well designed and altered, but I feel that optical illusion puzzles have no place representing any brand name, as many people are turned off by the requirement to solve the puzzle to find out who is doing the advertising.
On Nov.10.2007 at 12:59 PM
J’s comment is:
I just don't get it.
I think you're right that the inclusion of the word "brand" is a mistake. "Brand" has really lost its meaning do to the gross proliferation of its improper use and they really missed the chance to set themselves apart. The color palette leaves a good bit to be desired as well. Simply blasé.
The logo unfortunately appears anything but a "union" and says more about being fractured and separated. Oddly enough, this may be truest depiction of the company, as there was not much coordination between offices, as I remember, several years ago. Perhaps that has changed...
I thought the site, despite the problems I mentioned above, showed promise. Although a little overwhelming with information at times, its structure and content elements put it a leap ahead of most others.
On Nov.15.2007 at 12:04 PM
Chris Yin’s comment is:
The name is Brand "Union" but the logo doesn't look united as all. Enough said.
On Nov.15.2007 at 10:20 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
From what I've been told, Bob Wolf, who was Senior Vice President of Anspach Grossman Portugal for 15 years before it was bought by WPP, merged with Sampson Tyrell, The Walker Group, and Sidjekov Berman Gomez, had named Enterprise IG, but my story stops there. What did the name Enterprise IG mean?
While many have expressed their exhaustion with the word "brand," this word was probably included to express what they make to themselves & their clients (as with other "brand" companies.
While I don't find "brand" to be an exciting word here, I don't think it's meant to be. The exciting word is "Union," which brings a very different sense to the word "brand."
I assume this new identity will attract a different kind of clientele. It feels more edgy and artsy. I big departure from their previous look.
As an identity, it's attractive, and the uses as "pieces" are endless. While an identity like this might be impossible for a client to manage, a firm like Brand Union shouldn't have any problem. My one wish is that the name was more legible within the symbol. Overall, bang up job!
On Nov.19.2007 at 01:30 AM
Robert’s comment is:
I recently worked in the same office building as The Brand Union Hamburg (Germany). When I first saw the new logo one morning on the signboard of the building I couldn't decipher it. Just because I had the wrong distance to the logo and the letter forms wouldn't join optically! I finally saw the words, but I thought, this new brand must be a joke.
Furthermore, many messengers asked people outside the building where they could find the company "Brand Union" while they were standing right in front of the signboard. The signboard now has the icon brand on the left and the full words "The Brand Union Hamburg" on the right and messengers stopped asking. Could there be a worse statement to a brand of a brand design company?
PS: I believe they're so serious about the "The", because it seems they couldn't get the domain brandunion.com.
On Jan.08.2008 at 06:53 PM
Erik M’s comment is:
I certainly hope everyone can appreciate The Brand Union's execution now after seeing Brandimage's facelift.
On Jun.23.2008 at 12:42 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
