NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Mindshare, the media company formed by the 1997 merger of the media departments of JWT and Ogilvy & Mather, has rebranded as part of a global restructuring at WPP. This re-engineering of the brand involves a complete remake of the identity, save the retention of the color purple. Even the name itself has seen a shift in the reduction of the letter “S.” The redesign was developed in partnership with Moving Brands, who explain that “The symbol has been created to reflect the structure and form of Mindshare’s business. It shows two forms coming together to create a new, strong form reflecting Mindshare’s partnerships with clients, suppliers and other agencies.” You can read a bit more about the rebrand on Mindshare’s web site.
While the typography of the wordmark is nothing to write home about, and the logomark is appealing in its static form, the redesign’s strength is best evidenced when in motion, as can be seen on the Mindshare website and above. In motion, the sharing story is told with more fluency as the color translates from one form to another — a realization that is partially lost when visually frozen. I wonder though if this wouldn’t be a better logo for “Moving Brands” rather than “Mindshare”…
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Joe’s comment is:
So their new logo is two Pac-Men making out?
On Oct.08.2008 at 09:18 AM
Chad K’s comment is:
I like it. Can't imagine reproducing it on printed material. Those gradients would be a pain. Really pops on screen though.
Well done.
On Oct.08.2008 at 09:27 AM
Dale’s comment is:
I like it as well.
I think that the form created by the two smaller ones joining is nice.
I will never be a fan of gradients within logos - I don't care how large the company or how cool or well-known the agency responsible is.
That being said, I would love to have seen the icon or graphic remain vector form, yet increase the feeling of dimension. In a way creating the feeling that the animation gives, but in a static, solid, gradient-free option.
adios
On Oct.08.2008 at 09:37 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
damn, that is one ugly site. for a company that claims to provide exact, expert consultation, their site looks way too empty and blog-like to be taken seriously. the logo? ummm, okay. me no likey how the gradient-blending of the circles makes them look more like cones. since when did minds get symbolized by cones?
On Oct.08.2008 at 09:43 AM
Jason Campbell’s comment is:
I hope Adobe feels some sense of vindication for the Angle gradient's existence now.
On Oct.08.2008 at 09:54 AM
Jeffry Pilcher’s comment is:
I like it.
It beats the crap out of the generic, swash-like, ovular enclosure.
On Oct.08.2008 at 10:15 AM
Josh’s comment is:
I enjoy the mark, at the very least it's nice to see an all-cap treatment with the same approachable feel that so many companies use an lower-cap treatment for.
My only issue is the awkward color transition in the animated version of the logo. There's an unusual transition at the point where the two join that makes them appear as two different gradients, but then the colors for the most part continue on the path between the two. It would be nice if it created the "infinity" path that almost exists except for that slight awkward transition and the random appearance of a darker purple midway through the animation.
On Oct.08.2008 at 10:16 AM
Eli’s comment is:
No complaints with the static logo, aside from the gradient issues in print, but the constant motion of the circles/cones/wheels reminds me of those animated "Mortgage Rates are Falling" spam ads that show up everywhere. Spin the thing once, and I get it. Keep spinning it, and it gets old really, really fast.
On Oct.08.2008 at 10:16 AM
Josh’s comment is:
Also, their favicon is wonderful.
On Oct.08.2008 at 10:18 AM
Michael’s comment is:
"So their new logo is two Pac-Men making out?"
I've seen Pac Man and Mrs. Pac Man kiss after maze #2. I'm seeing these two going WAY past kissing.
On Oct.08.2008 at 10:46 AM
Swifty’s comment is:
Can't...stop...watching...pretty...colors...swirl....
On Oct.08.2008 at 10:49 AM
oscar’s comment is:
Never mind print -- am I the only one seeing the crazy banding in the animated gif?
On Oct.08.2008 at 10:50 AM
Jeff’s comment is:
I love this. But will it work in B&W?
On Oct.08.2008 at 11:14 AM
matt’s comment is:
The new logo is absolutely better than the past one, but that doesn't say much. i get the minds coming together the 'sharing' but is it not a bit of see-say. Can't the logo stand for something more than just the name, be abstract for god's sake.
And i agree with the comment in the post, it looks as if Moving Brands took their own logo and turned it into the Mindshare logo. Not very creative or original for that matter...
On Oct.08.2008 at 11:21 AM
Jonathan’s comment is:
Good comment Jeff, that mark might look like a faded sideways "8" in B&W. Besides that, it is improved, I'll give it that. The type is decent, but looks super bland when the mark next to it is in motion. I wish the frozen print version had the cyan in the center rather than the top errr left-ish. And their site is awful.
Also, does moving brand only do logos with circles? :)
On Oct.08.2008 at 11:44 AM
max’s comment is:
I like the new logo itself. It's a nice improvement from previous. However, I never understood the color scheme with white logos/lettering. When you have white lettering it inevitably has to be on a different colored background. Like above, they are forced to add a background it to see the logo. I'm not sure there is another version of this where the logo is purple on a white background but I think that would serve them well for multiple printing options.
Ditto on the website as well...ikky WordPress theme.
On Oct.08.2008 at 12:06 PM
Jimmy Marks’s comment is:
I don't like it. If something has to be in motion to make any sense, you're doing it wrong. It should give a sense of motion even when static.
I'm old fashioned, but I tend to view logos according to whether or not they can get down to black and white with ease. This wouldn't. This would look like a peanut .
There's plenty of people out there who say that logos can be built for web first and considered for print afterwards. I think you've got to start with a napkin and work your way up. This was done by a guy with illustrator and a lot of spare time.
On Oct.08.2008 at 12:07 PM
Costin Oane’s comment is:
Super. Great idea and great execution.
On Oct.08.2008 at 12:18 PM
Roiby Gonzalez’s comment is:
I don't think this was the best solution... The logo just doesn't translate well into print. I would like to see the Graphic Standards Manual for this mark.
On Oct.08.2008 at 12:29 PM
damon’s comment is:
interesting.
I like it ok. but I think it's going to look like shit in print.
as we all know how the advertising world works, concepts first, execution second.
I also feel like the animation goes dark for too long at one stage.
On Oct.08.2008 at 12:37 PM
colormist’s comment is:
Funk-a-licious.
I could see the logo workin' it in print, but they'd have to use some holograms.
On Oct.08.2008 at 12:59 PM
Nick Irwin’s comment is:
little concerned about a fax application or basically anything in one color...love the idea though...question...does it rotate like that on the business card and other stationery materials...NOW that would be MONEY!
On Oct.08.2008 at 01:25 PM
Christopher Edwards’s comment is:
Why does it take so long for turquoise to appear again on the top? Where does it go once it leaves the bottom?
It's disturbing. Like the logo is a portal to another dimension.
On Oct.08.2008 at 01:27 PM
danny’s comment is:
I would dare say that this logo at least at face value is fairly innovative. production in print problems aside (it just takes an eagle eye on press and some nudging to get that gradient to work) it works extremely effectively in motion and statically. Most noteworthy is the fact that even in motion is is still a static mark overall, meaning that it doesn't go the route of moving letters and bizarre fades or whatever. This is why on the surface this seems like a great solution, even an innovate one, to the problem.
however. as soon as you see the website and dig a little deeper, there is a complete lack of fluidity and cohesion in this "brand." This is even further comprised by the designers themselves. There seems to be a clunkiness, an sense of things unfinished, in a lot of the work they have. Couple that with the less than smooth gradient change and this "brand" really falls apart.
A great logo is the solid base of any good brand, but its how well you expand upon it throughout the various applications that really defines that brand.
this, i'm sad to say 'cause I really like the logo, doesn't accomplish its goal as a brand.
On Oct.08.2008 at 01:29 PM
what?’s comment is:
Ask your doctor about Mindshare.
On Oct.08.2008 at 02:22 PM
Jose roseva’s comment is:
It´s everything a logo shouldn´t be, the old one was just as ugly a the new one, I would never use their services.
On Oct.08.2008 at 02:48 PM
ryko72’s comment is:
umm...no.
On Oct.08.2008 at 03:15 PM
diogo’s comment is:
Oh, comm'on! It's not very difficult to make a print or fax or B&W version of the logo, that discussion distract us from the real problem: the logo is damn ugly!
On Oct.08.2008 at 03:50 PM
BJN’s comment is:
The design is unispired. Better than the original but that's not saying much.
The animation? Clunky and distracting.
On Oct.08.2008 at 04:51 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
Upgrading to this logo from the old one is like upgrading to Vista from XP. Sure there are some improvements (fonts), overall they may find it more benificial to downgrade back to the older version. Just my opinion; don't like the gradient, even when it is animated.
On Oct.08.2008 at 05:28 PM
Matheus’s comment is:
Joe’s comment is:
So their new logo is two Pac-Men making out?
Joe has already said everything.
On Oct.08.2008 at 11:44 PM
sra’s comment is:
Jinkies. They really need some paragraph tags in that linked page.
The type and swirls seem so disconnected, this really isn't doing it for me either.
On Oct.09.2008 at 11:21 AM
rodrok’s comment is:
i like the proposal of animated logos, print yeah its a problem... but it can be figured out..
i like too the race track effect on the animation although is a little too fast for my taste and not really onsync
nooo the 80's are back~!
On Oct.09.2008 at 12:17 PM
Chris’s comment is:
Nice mark. Total improvement.
I know nothing about motion graphics, but could they have taken the line out where they two circles meet. I think it would look much cleaner that way. I'd put money on a client asking to keep the two circles separate somehow.
On Oct.09.2008 at 12:56 PM
EnergonCube’s comment is:
Wow. This looks a LOT like MTK's new logo (well, new as in July 2007).
RayRay’s comment is:
When i was your age we'd walk 10 miles to work in the shnow and we'd never use no fancy smancy gradients in logos.
On Oct.09.2008 at 04:15 PM
Mark’s comment is:
the logo static...not bad..
the moving one......
ohhhhhh, wow this.....is...interesting.....it's...so.....mesmerizing...I ....can't....stop......watching...the things....go round and round and round and round and round and rou...SNAP OUT OF IT!
oh, sorry, well it's certainly effective, reminds me of spinning CDs , anyway I think they accomplished their job, the only problem I have with the name being in all caps, it looks cold and unfriendly, not very approachable, plus it gives me a slight headache looking at the letters.
Oh well.
On Oct.09.2008 at 06:55 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Nick Irwin’s comment is:
little concerned about a fax application or basically anything in one color...love the idea though...question...does it rotate like that on the business card and other stationery materials...NOW that would be MONEY!
they're already trying something similar in print
http://www.aka.tv/articles/article.asp?ArticleID=1802
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/09/now_on_video_esquires_eink_cov.php
I was stunned when I first saw it. :O
On Oct.09.2008 at 07:22 PM
AL’s comment is:
Doh! The problem with (relatively) simple marks is that someone most probably has done it before.
On Oct.10.2008 at 04:50 AM
Serviced offices’s comment is:
Wicked!! Great idea and great execution. THE SWIRL ACTUALLY MAKES IT MORE APPEALING
On Oct.10.2008 at 07:28 AM
Mongoose’s comment is:
Isn't it nice to be able to go from one good logo to another good logo? That's what we've got here.
I think the notion of the shared intertwined circles works well, as does the dropping of the camelcase. I'm going to disagree with Armin in that I think the animation does not looks as good as the static image; it to me seems pretentious, cloying, over-wrought.. and not particuarly smooth of animation, either. In the static logo, it looks like two intersecting circles on different planes; in the animation with the color passing, it looks like a fugly figure-eight.
But, I shan't dwell on the negative. B+ for a reasonable wordmark, nice new (better when static) logo, overall pleasing color palette that maintains the purple.
On Oct.11.2008 at 03:36 PM
TT’s comment is:
I would've liked to see a solution like this. Would also 'move' on print.
On Oct.13.2008 at 05:48 AM
KISD’s comment is:
is it not maybe stolen?
http://groups.kisd.de/phase8/
seems to be the same....what a shame...
Char’s comment is:
"The Purists" in this forum must be going crazy at the sight of gradient in a logo!
They have probably gone blind by now!
How dare Armin to make this post?!
Gradients in a logo breaks rule #167 of the Graphic Design Constitution... signed by Paul Rand, of course.
Follow the rules or you'll face extermination.
On Oct.15.2008 at 01:15 AM
Opack’s comment is:
Nice,
Makes me think of http://poolga.com/wp/101.jpg no ?
Pedro Rocha’s comment is:
Love it!
On Oct.23.2008 at 10:09 AM
Damian Madray’s comment is:
A very unique logomark I think. No the type isn't impressive but I love the motion logo. Great point you made about what's lost when in motion but I think the core message is there which is the coming together of 2 brands, minds, etc.
The comment on 2 pac man making out is hilarious and no matter what you do, sometimes people will see the weirdest thing in a logo. I do see 2 pac men though.
On Nov.03.2008 at 06:19 PM
Simon’s comment is:
I really like and prefer the new, static, version. The animated one doesn't interest me at all.
On Nov.16.2008 at 12:55 AM
Ruben’s comment is:
Is it a rip off? God, is there any originality left at all???
On Nov.16.2008 at 09:24 AM
Kelly Hobkirk’s comment is:
I (almost) like this logo static, however, it's very distracting on their site. It seems like the logo is too close to the type. How would it work in b/w? The type seems much more appropriate that of the old mark.
On Nov.16.2008 at 08:34 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
