NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
In 2001, Ben Chestnut, co-founder of the e-mail marketing service MailChimp, designed their application’s logo in a bit of a rush… and in Macromedia Fireworks. The result is actually quite commendable for having been done in a web image-editing application, but unless this was a weird version of design Fear Factor I would never ever venture to design a logo in Fireworks — as Ben explains in this really great brandtrospecive (branding + introspective), his file was anything but expandable, nor fit to print. Working with HicksDesign, designers of the Firefox logo, MailChimp is about to deploy a new monkey on its application and web site.
I highly encourage visiting (and reading) the link to Ben’s full explanation of the redesign, as it’s rare to get such a complete stream of thoughts about the direction a client is looking to take their design in. In this case, specifically, I think it helps to ground the decision for an illustrated mascot over a more abstract icon, which on the surface could be seen as a weird change. I really liked the old chimp, it had a certain innocence and friendliness to it that is hard to replicate (more than just for print applications) and the new, more realistic chimp is attractive but I’m not sure it captures the same sentiment. As a logo the old one also worked better, it occupied a square, it could be cropped, rotated, placed on a color background, etc. The new chimp has to be shown in full, putting it in different colors will likely be a pain because of the shadow on the feet (unless the logo files are provided in layers so that the shadow can multiply), and reproducing it in print will still be tricky as some of the subtle gradations that look great on screen are hard to reproduce with digital and 4-color-printing.
Nonetheless, given the direction the logo was to be taken in, I very much like the new chimp itself. I love how you can sense he is in a rush even with his stubby legs so close to the ground and the look of determination is endearing. Plus, chimps with funny hats are always winners in my book.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Remy Overkempe’s comment is:
I agree with you that it is not as much of a great logo in practical sense, but overall I truly love the new logo. Sure, the old one was cute, but the new one is even cuter, maybe even as cute as a button! Especially the postbag has been perfectly done.
On Sep.17.2008 at 07:23 AM
Plamen’s comment is:
Probably great entrepreneurial thinking, but still bad branding. It is just a cute chimp, not a logo.
BTW, Hicks's been quite busy drawing monkeys (apes, whatever) lately - check his Silverback
On Sep.17.2008 at 07:48 AM
Jon Hicks’s comment is:
"unless the logo files are provided in layers so that the shadow can multiply"
I did! Honest! :)
I agree with all your points - it's what makes me reticent about Firefox being as 'logo', but I would also say that this is more of a 'character image' than a logo.
On Sep.17.2008 at 08:20 AM
sb’s comment is:
I have always admired Mailchimp for the personality and informal tone it took with its UI + branding. I had noticed this slowly fading lately and a more stodgy look creeping in - at the moment it really just looks like a disparate conversion of the two - click through the nav and watch the mash-up of colour, gradients and effects. Having now read Ben's account i can certainly put reason to why - but i can't say i am happy about it.
The old chimp had mojo. And the tagline - You design. Me deliver. just fit. Perfectly.
The new direction certainly faces the future and thus the masses. Oh well, i still think they rock.
On Sep.17.2008 at 08:31 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> I did! Honest! :)
Ha! Awesome.
On Sep.17.2008 at 09:07 AM
Colin Williams’s comment is:
Jon, when you were a young lad, did you suspect you'd make a living off of illustrating nerdy-looking primates?
On Sep.17.2008 at 09:28 AM
jRod’s comment is:
Jon, I admit, i am a fan of your work... its very unique and easy to point out because you have a style of your own... but Armin is right... there is something about the first one that allows it to be more versatile. Is there a growing trend toward this type of logo? One that gets tougher and tougher to place in the print world? I admit, printer technology is starting to catch up, but it seems to be a slow progress. I personally like this new direction, but most of my clients can't afford the full color print pieces that go with it. Yes, we could have their cards or letterhead run on glorified color copiers, but we all know what that ends up looking like.
What do you think? I'm at a crossroads here...
On Sep.17.2008 at 10:50 AM
oscar’s comment is:
I'm as much of a logo purist as the next guy (where's the single color version?), but seriously - what print applications are you guys talking about besides business papers? This logo/character is going to live online almost exclusively.
But I agree that it's weird - the original logo feels like a logo, and the new one feels like an illustration.
For what it's worth, I think the "flat" Mario is a much better design than 3D Mario.
On Sep.17.2008 at 11:16 AM
BJN’s comment is:
A "mascot" is not a logo, especially with the image's disregard for reproduction limitations. And I don't think this is a good mascot. It's a friendly enough chimp, but he can barely drag his own ass around, let alone a mailbag. If the idea is to suggest that Mailchimp is a slow service, I'll revise my opinion.
On Sep.17.2008 at 12:17 PM
BJN’s comment is:
A "mascot" is not a logo, especially with the image's disregard for reproduction limitations. And I don't think this is a good mascot. It's a friendly enough chimp, but he can barely drag his own ass around, let alone a mailbag. If the idea is to suggest that Mailchimp is a slow service, I'll revise my opinion.
On Sep.17.2008 at 12:20 PM
Nick Irwin’s comment is:
go team chimp!
oh how the web world has soo many more options
On Sep.17.2008 at 12:59 PM
koyo’s comment is:
Yeah... its not a logo. It's an illustration. A very good one.
On Sep.17.2008 at 01:12 PM
Steve’s comment is:
I think he looks steady and dependable. I love the design, it's a reminder that so many logos/identities really are designed on the screen to stay on the screen. It opens up fun possibilities like this.
On Sep.17.2008 at 01:19 PM
RoleModel’s comment is:
Curious George disapproves Mailchimp stealing his thunder.
On Sep.17.2008 at 02:12 PM
Matt’s comment is:
> The new chimp has to be shown in full...
I would tend to disagree with that statement. While I don't know how Hicks would feel about it, I think the head of the new monkey could easily be popped off the body, as a more "usable" alternate.
On Sep.17.2008 at 02:26 PM
DrewDraws2’s comment is:
As much as I love Mr. Hicks work (and I do really love it), I feel like the chimp has lost some of his friendly appeal in the new mascot/logo. He looks like he might be up to something. It's the look I see on my mail carrier's face that tells me he didn't bother to sort my mail that day. Unfortunate.
That said, for internet properties, I don't have a problem moving to a non-traditional illustration in place of a traditional logo. Many of the rules that have been pounded into our heads about printing restrictions and keeping things clean change online, and we should be happy that as designers we now have some new options to explore in branding.
On Sep.17.2008 at 03:08 PM
Fonto’s comment is:
Holy animation Batman! Pixar could be selling animation stills as logos! They could double dip! GENIUS!!
On Sep.17.2008 at 03:37 PM
Loyal Typo’s comment is:
the thing is, in my experiense all the stuff that Fonto say is rite.
if i tuk my favorit curius gorge art and 3d modeled and got it all shined up, could use as logo, post it on here, and have people call it butiful?
On Sep.17.2008 at 03:44 PM
madeo’s comment is:
I do like the new illustration but the old image ROCKS the new one.
I agree with what everyone has said, illustrations are not logos.
On Sep.17.2008 at 03:48 PM
betrue’s comment is:
Actually logos are specifically text oriented and not images. MailChimp's logo is actually the orange sans-serif in the upper left of their website.
I love this site and subscribe to it, but I can no longer abide the terminology abuse amongst design professionals.
On Sep.17.2008 at 05:00 PM
decksnap’s comment is:
The new mascot is great, but nothing beats the tagline. One of my favorites... like ever.
On Sep.17.2008 at 06:43 PM
illusio’s comment is:
While this new logo is insanely cool, the old one still rocks bananas. I'm mostly curious how they're going to use it in smaller formats: favicon, symbol, etc.
On Sep.17.2008 at 10:49 PM
illusio’s comment is:
betrue, just to demonstrate that we do understand our terminology, the MailChimp text on their website is a "wordmark." The chimp serves as separate "symbol." Now I deserve a banana, right?
On Sep.18.2008 at 12:54 AM
Tephlon’s comment is:
Hmm. I have to speak up in favour of Fireworks. If you do it right you can copy the vector layers to illustrator or Photoshop and ready it for print.
I like the simplicity of the original (Or the version that Madeo showed) but the new illustration is very well done.
On Sep.18.2008 at 05:46 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> Actually logos are specifically text oriented and not images. [...] I can no longer abide the terminology abuse amongst design professionals.
@ Betrue: So nike's swoosh, target's bull's eye, and Apple's apple are not logos? I've been so wrong and abusive all this time!
On Sep.18.2008 at 05:59 AM
Simon’s comment is:
I definitely prefer the new logo/illustration, he does look a little mischievous but definitely a chimp on a mission to deliver mail.
On Sep.18.2008 at 06:13 AM
Darrel’s comment is:
It's an illustrated logo mascot icon symbol!
(Cute monkey)
On Sep.18.2008 at 10:05 AM
Daniel Campos’s comment is:
"Donkey Kong".. dont look like?
On Sep.18.2008 at 11:05 AM
Matt’s comment is:
I think that it makes sense for this logo to primarily exist in the electronic visual space. MailChimp is all about sending electronic newsletters. Not print. Their service exists because sending printed information to people is over. Why should a print adaptation of this logo be privileged when this is a company that only lives and breathes in the electronic world?
On Sep.18.2008 at 11:38 AM
Matheus’s comment is:
This is not a brand, it's just an illustration
On Sep.18.2008 at 01:01 PM
Mark’s comment is:
snip: I think that it makes sense for this logo to primarily exist in the electronic visual space.
I think you mean "primately."
On Sep.18.2008 at 03:36 PM
Andrew Harrington’s comment is:
@Betrue
The word 'logo' is no more than an abbreviated form of 'logogram' or 'logotype' that's evolved into its own term, so to speak. A logogram was traditionally a sign or character representing a word or phrase and was used mostly in shorthand writing, while a logotype was a piece of type that printed a word or emblem; a group of letters or a symbol. I realize that the root word of both is the Greek logos, meaning 'word,' but just as other words have evolved from their original definitions to now mean and represent something quite different than originally intended, so have these terms and their offshoot, 'logo.'
On Sep.18.2008 at 04:00 PM
Mongoose’s comment is:
Wow. I'm stymied on how to judge this.
The old chimp seemed, as Armin notes, a lot more logolike: Simple, clean, reduces to print. But the new one has more three-dimensionality and much personality. I like the touches of the 'M' on mailbag and brim, all the gold shines pleasingly.
The new chimp seems perfect for announcements, tutorials, and other website uses. I think it'd be nice to see some sort of print-reduced alternate logo based on circlemonkey as well. The folks who are pegging the new version as a mascot and nor a logo I think almost have it.
I'm going to give it a B, because after all, it is a cute monkey. But a monkey with a job!
On Sep.18.2008 at 07:54 PM
Pollyanna’s comment is:
Even if it will only exist in electronic visual space, how are they going to use that for smaller images like icons?
On Sep.18.2008 at 10:44 PM
Mark’s comment is:
way too complicated for a logo, hope they don't have to advertise in print. Wait they don't the chimp is no where to be seen on the page just a wordmark.
On Sep.19.2008 at 04:21 PM
Mark’s comment is:
wait, it hasn't been launched yet, oh.
On Sep.19.2008 at 04:28 PM
Mark’s comment is:
oh, wait it's the character/mascot not the logo, damn I'm getting confused.
On Sep.19.2008 at 04:38 PM
Paul’s comment is:
If you can no longer have the chimp's arm rip off when you resize the email-composing window to bee too wide, then I believe this is a terrible redesign.
If the chimp-humerus is still visible, then it's fine. ;)
On Sep.19.2008 at 04:48 PM
Nic Eldridge’s comment is:
Can someone explain to me why an illustrated image cannot be a logo? Talk about narrow viewpoints...
Anyway, I've always liked the Firefox & Thunderbird logos, as they make good use of the environment they're used in.
I think this new MailChimp will do the same; it has high appeal, is visually balanced and relates directly to their name and service. Sounds like a logo to me.
On Sep.20.2008 at 03:14 AM
Dylan Mullins’s comment is:
It's strange that they don't even use the old circle-chimp-face-badge on their website right now. Currently their branding is reduced to the words "Mail Chimp" on their site.
On Sep.23.2008 at 02:28 PM
Nathan’s comment is:
"...but unless this was a weird version of design Fear Factor I would never ever venture to design a logo in Fireworks."
Is it worth pointing out that Mr Hicks himself used Fireworks to design the Firefox logo? Thunderbird, too, I think...
On Sep.23.2008 at 10:43 PM
Observer’s comment is:
This is not a logo.
On Oct.02.2008 at 10:00 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
