NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Two of the larger independent branding firms — Laga (formerly known as Lipson Alport Glass & Associates) and Desgrippes Gobé (sometimes known as d/g) — have merged to form Brandimage – Desgrippes Laga. Yes, that’s the full name. The new firm now counts with 300 employees across New York, Chicago, Cincinnati, Paris, Brussels, Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong and Shanghai. Leading the firm are Joël Desgrippes and Laga’s Jim Barrett, and there is no mention of what happened to Marc Gobé who was the more public face of d/g. Read on if you are ready for some press-releasing.
According to Barrett, Brandimage was selected as the name of the new company because it represents what the agency ultimately provides to its clients. “Through our exclusive Brand Vision approach we unite thinking and imagination, logic and emotion, and intent and outcome holistically to create a real brand strategy,” says Barrett. “Then we bring it to life through our Brand Presence process that takes different expressions of the brand across all points of consumer interaction. That is how we build strong brands and deliver rich emotional brand experiences to consumers.”
— Press Release [PDF]
“Brandimage draws its strength in the synthesis of European sensitivity with American innovation and the pioneering spirit of Asia.”
— Desgrippes
I always wondered what the combination of European sensitivity, American innovation, and Asia’s pioneering spirit would look like. And, unfortunately, now I know: Purple Helvetica Extended. Bland, clunky, pedestrian. I’m really, really surprised at how unsophisticated this new identity is; d/g has created some convincing designs (most notably for me, the Travelocity logo, and less notably the Payless logo) in the past and their wordmark was pretty decent and while I can’t picture anything that Laga has done in the past, I don’t remember being down right appalled by the result. I realize a lot of it is subjective opinion, but mine is that Helvetica Extended is a not a good typeface — and even if there is no such thing as a “bad typeface” and that it’s all in the use, well, this one doesn’t succeed at that either. In deep sleep dreaming with puppies and chocolate ice cream I can think of a dozen better typefaces for a wordmark designed in the year 2008: Scala, Section, Apex Sans, Whitney, Titling Gothic, Neutra 2, Soho Gothic, Underground Pro, Bau, Stag Sans, Gotham or, heck, Helvetica Medium.
An execution like this might be expected from a long-drawn process between a branding firm and the mythical client who assumedly has no design taste that waters everything down… but this result from a branding firm branding itself? Yikes. And I haven’t even talked about the star yet: It’s unnecessary, distracting and also poorly executed, there is no rhyme or reason to it. In contrast to Brand Union that used the term “brand” and created something daring, whether you liked it or not, Brandimage is a step backwards in naming and design for two firms that were doing a decent job in representing themselves with previously sophisticated wordmarks — Laga’s old logo was actually quite remarkable.
Reinventing a large branding firm from within should yield, at least, sophisticated results and, at best, defying results — surely not uninspired results.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Nisio’s comment is:
Yikes...
really is the one word that sums this logo up.
On Jun.21.2008 at 02:05 PM
Lester’s comment is:
The succeeded in making themselves look like one of those crappy stock branding companies that spam everyone. Somehow that star makes them appear even more generic than without it.
On Jun.21.2008 at 06:04 PM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
check out the video... a consultant explains "new perspectives" in 3rd grade parlance. Whew.
Surprised Desgrippes mooched the star as asterisk design from his partnership with Gobe. Why not start anew? And I'm not getting the slice of blueberry pie inside circus ball metaphor.
On Jun.21.2008 at 08:14 PM
Matt Klaman’s comment is:
my buddy vignelli (massimo) will be the only man from now on that I respect with his use of helvetica.
On Jun.21.2008 at 08:51 PM
ScottS’s comment is:
I agree with you, Armin, on all points--the typeface, the name and that ridiculous star. None of it makes any sense whatsoever. I'm baffled how a company whose main job is to create brands would choose something so awful to represent their own identity. This is so bad I'd almost say it wasn't even real, but we're well past April 1st...
On Jun.21.2008 at 09:59 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
I hope that into the future, they'll be selling their "vision" and not their design chops. 'Cause, damn.
It's a shame that Branding Branding went dead, because this is exactly the sort of issue that site addressed. Another classic case of the shoemaker who walks barefoot. Or something.
On Jun.21.2008 at 11:30 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
They're giving "Logoworks" a run for their money.
On Jun.22.2008 at 01:37 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
If I don't have anything nice to say ...
On Jun.22.2008 at 08:03 AM
Glenn ’s comment is:
Weak. Looks like a stock photo agency.
On Jun.22.2008 at 12:18 PM
Sean’s comment is:
Exactly Glenn - first thing I thought when I saw it - "not another royalty free photo library!"
On Jun.22.2008 at 11:08 PM
Romeo’s comment is:
Just horrible.
robbie’s comment is:
If you were wondering, the site is equally cornballish and offensive to the eye.
On Jun.23.2008 at 08:47 AM
What?’s comment is:
Well at least on the site the star isn't useless. It can fly.
On Jun.23.2008 at 09:09 AM
gabe’s comment is:
Brain Damage?
On Jun.23.2008 at 09:22 AM
Matt Hunsberger’s comment is:
2001-style all flash site, too! Awesome.
On Jun.23.2008 at 09:44 AM
Daniel Campos’s comment is:
Very good work!
On Jun.23.2008 at 09:46 AM
kristen’s comment is:
Their tagline is "We give life to brands." If that's what "life" looks like... /shudder
On Jun.23.2008 at 09:46 AM
dbrenton’s comment is:
You guys don't like anything!!
The star comes form the d/g logo, the circle around the star comes from the bottom of the G in LAGA. They smashed the black "brand" and purple "image" together to show two companies as one. (at least i can infer these things)
As for why there is a purple triangle on the star....hmmm..got me...why don't you ask Brand Image to explain the purple portion of the star?
I think it looks very clean. A nice merge of two companies. This is ridiculous. You guys hate everything. Ya know, if you are going to complain about every new logo that comes out, then why have a site celebrating new logos? And if you want to talk about how horrible it is, how about offering up your idea of what their logo should have been? An actual design, not just spouting off a bunch of typefaces. I love Futura. Anyone wanna bash futura as a horrible ugly font? Futura would have looked nice, it would have created a repetition of the circle shape. BUT I think helvetica is clean. Easy to read. In this case it looks classy without being overly fancy.
I feel like Armin hates every new logo...and everyone else just falls in line to follow the leader. If he said he liked it, i bet you would all think it was awesome.
Don't get me wrong. I love this site. I love comparing and the old with the new...i'm just waiting for you guys to actually like a new logo. I'm not trying to start a fight. I just don't understand why this logo is so horrible. At least it doesn't look like a turd (a call back to the tasti D•lite design)...haha!
:)
On Jun.23.2008 at 10:32 AM
dk’s comment is:
Well, it looks like I can add another design company I never wish to work for.
Link: Das Good Ads
On Jun.23.2008 at 11:04 AM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
@dbrenton: This logo sucks because it is, at best, lackluster in its detailing and symbolism. For a leading global branding company, it is generic and uninspiring, and shows no distinction or vision. If you can't see that, that's your own problem. I'm not "falling in behind Armin" just because I think it stinks too.
This is a company that charges hundreds of thousands of dollars for branding. This wordmark looks like it took an intern two days to slap together. That is unacceptable.
On Jun.23.2008 at 12:19 PM
Jerry Seinfeld’s comment is:
I wish I were dead.
On Jun.23.2008 at 12:32 PM
Andrew Boardman’s comment is:
I agree that it's kind of yucky, in a yucky kind of way. It's possible that they just put together a quick and dirty sketch of a rebranding to appease all of their partners and vendors - and, at a later date, will actually make something meaningful. This is the crackpipe speaking.
On Jun.23.2008 at 01:25 PM
John McCollum’s comment is:
"Don't get me wrong. I love this site. I love comparing and the old with the new...i'm just waiting for you guys to actually like a new logo. I'm not trying to start a fight. I just don't understand why this logo is so horrible. At least it doesn't look like a turd (a call back to the tasti D•lite design)...haha!"
Dbrenton,
The logo is horrible not just because of what it is, but what it could have been.
As branding experts, these guys have a responsibility -- to themselves and to their brand -- to achieve a certain level of excellence. Yes, I understand that it's wicked hard to brand oneself, but I can't imagine that they would have presented this solution to one of their world-class clients. Nor do I believe that they would have accepted this low level of craft and concept if they had hired another hotshot consultancy to design their brand.
Objectively speaking, this isn't the worst logo I've ever seen. But it is one of the most disappointing.
On Jun.23.2008 at 01:31 PM
dbrenton’s comment is:
On the other end of the spectrum, I don't think it's the greatest logo I have ever seen. I just don't understand why it's so bad.
Here is a question to think about....do you think it's more of the name "Brand Image" than the actual logo itself? Maybe they could have been more creative with the name? I can agree that Brand Image sounds kind of generic.
On Jun.23.2008 at 01:39 PM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
@dbrenton: Um, no. It doesn't help, but the logo/wordmark itself is plenty weak. The combination of a weak name and a weak logo is what makes this so appalling. Would you spend half a million dollars to have this company do your branding? I wouldn't.
@Andrew Boardman: That thought occurred to me as well. That website, with its slow-moving transitions and four typefaces on the splash page just SCREAMS placeholder. Let's hope for their sake that it is.
On Jun.23.2008 at 05:56 PM
Joe Marianek’s comment is:
Dbrenton,
Given this commendable, passionate dissent you have voiced in the face of what for you has been an alarming unanimity, I would like to address your comment unsheepishly so that we may better understand your enlightened appreciation of this mark. Here are my independent thoughts on why it is not awesome.
The star comes form the d/g logo, the circle around the star comes from the bottom of the G in LAGA. They smashed the black "brand" and purple "image" together to show two companies as one. (at least i can infer these things)
Did those elements have equity to current customers or meaning; furthermore, to what end will these legacy element serve the BrandImage brand in the long run or foreign markets? And does it look good?
Black+Purple+Stars+Circles = not awesome.
As for why there is a purple triangle on the star....hmmm..got me...why don't you ask Brand Image to explain the purple portion of the star?
We should not have to ask what this means. Granted, this type of move is a demonstrably flexible metaphor in branding certain types of categories such as health care, or explaining complex communitiesa and partnerships. Regardless, this little triangle and pie inside-joke feels dated, condescending, and tedious. And out of place in this category.
Pie You Can't Taste = not awesome
You guys hate everything. Ya know, if you are going to complain about every new logo that comes out, then why have a site celebrating new logos? And if you want to talk about how horrible it is, how about offering up your idea of what their logo should have been? An actual design, not just spouting off a bunch of typefaces. I love Futura. Anyone wanna bash futura as a horrible ugly font? Futura would have looked nice, it would have created a repetition of the circle shape. BUT, I think Helvetica is clean. Easy to read. In this case it looks classy without being overly fancy.
One of the qualities that make a professional designer, or so I am told, is to engage in critical about our work...not simply just celebrate it. In fact, by virtue of the fact that this work has been discussed at length, maybe someone will think twice when kerning Helvetica extended so tightly next time; in the end the designer of this logo has inadvertantly contributed to the education of the profession. To me, that's one benefit that the dialog in this forum offers. The font choice is a moot point—one wonders how the designer would have set Futura.
Trying To Be Classy = not awesome
I feel like Armin hates every new logo...and everyone else just falls in line to follow the leader. If he said he liked it, i bet you would all think it was awesome. Don't get me wrong. I love this site. I love comparing and the old with the new...i'm just waiting for you guys to actually like a new logo.
If one compiled a chart of "favorable" critiques here, or anywhere, you would see an unfortunate minority of positive reviews. But that's okay, because not everyone in profession is skilled, and can arrogantly say "mission accomplished" every time they make an .eps, .ai or .pdf. A re-brand is an enourmous opportunity not to be blown by a designer who is asleep at the wheel. Armin "the leader" is often right; not because He's the leader, but because He is a talented, articulate, and thougtful practicioner, and He enables the advance of our profession.
Mission Accomplished Attitude = not awesome
I'm not trying to start a fight. I just don't understand why this logo is so horrible.
The net total of the logo is depressing at best, and only as quenching as a small luke-warm Diet Sprite in a Blimpie cup. The new name is impersonal and robotic. It's like naming a barber shop "HairImage." Without the meat of specificity, this communicates very little which is tangible or memorable. What is a Degrippes? What is a Laga, How much does a Brand Image cost? and What hell happened to Mr Gobe? Will being anonymous and "large" sounding help drive business? Perhaps.
In the end, any salvageable meaning is tainted with the forms; a jarring amalgamation, as if someone bred a cat with a bird.
Cat-bird = not awesome
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
That was quite a lenghty and articulate response to go author-less. It's so much less fun to observe engaging conversation between anonymous entities. That said, I imagine a cat-bird to be a freshly-washed car's most fierce nemesis.
On Jun.23.2008 at 10:32 PM
Joe M.’s comment is:
Please excuse the accidental poison pen.
I preemptively hit "Post."
Armin, can you correct that?
Signed,
Joe Marianek
On Jun.23.2008 at 11:05 PM
Johann Peter Werth’s comment is:
Please, mind that intro animation on brand-image.com
On Jun.24.2008 at 08:09 AM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
The logo works better in context.
Kees’s comment is:
Sadly, the identity criticism is way justified. It is a tremendous missed opportunity and a damn shame.
For what it's worth, I've worked over the years with Desgrippes Gobe New York and they are a really good group doing interesting things. I get the impression that the BrandImage system was done out of another office, and not exactly a team effort.
Hope the group doing good work maintains their own high standards, and that their work will speak for itself. Ah, the joy of mergers (and how not to brand a combined entity).
On Jun.25.2008 at 12:32 PM
Davekos’s comment is:
yes the logo works better in context. it looks "branded". don't u think? looks like an airline logo too.
but anyway it is good.
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
