ATLANTA, March 25, 2003 — UPS today unveiled a “new look” that includes the first redesign in more than 40 years of the company’s famous “shield” logo.

First of all, go see it. We all knew it was going to happen sooner or later. One day there will be no memory of Rand’s logos (which should make Chantry a happy man.)

Two years in development, the new look was created by FutureBrand (who could use a new look of their own) giving the guys at Landor a small break from huge money-making clients. I’m not going to go into much detail here, it’s all in the media kit (1.8Mb PDF) but there is one thing that got my attention about the logo: “For even greater visual impact, the shield gained a three-dimensional appearance.” To me that reads as “The logo was weak, but with the added dimension (and higher production costs) it looks like a better brand.” Any time you have to add greater “visual impact” to a logo it’s not a great sign of the logo’s strengths.

Anyway, UPS also bought Mail Boxes Etc. and they will now be known as the UPS Store. More work for FutureBrand.

Thanks for all the great years Rand, the little bow-tied package will be missed.

Thanks to Todd for the heads up

Jump to Most Recent Comment

Darrel’s comment is:

Hmm...that home page looks familiar.

I guess I'm underwhelmed by it...a vaguely conceptual blurred photo...a '3Dized' logo, and a meaningless tagline. Haven't we all seen this before?

Though I do give them 2 points for figuring out how to use brown nicely. That's really hard to do.

Purchasing MailBoxes Etc. was an interesting move.

On Mar.25.2003 at 09:21 AM


Jon’s comment is:

Wow. This was one of those that I just assumed would never change.

Now how do I feel about this? Nostalgia doesn't really grow your business, and UPS (like FedEx) is much more than its package delivery service. So I guess I like the idea of rebranding them so they can grow for the future. But, the logo is crap. It is devoid of new ideas, and even ads a very old and overused one - the horizon swoosh. Plus, this 3d thing seems to be Futurebrand's trademark these days. It seems more like a trend than good design.

Ok, the shield. Well, it definitely communicates trust and stability, since the company's 98-year history didn't... I'd have much preferred them to junk everything (except brown) and really stake out some new brand space than to neuter the logo into a generic graphic.

And how about that corporate tagline: "Synchronizing The World Of Commerce" ? Thank goodness no humans will be involved in this enterprise.

Oh goodness...I'm just horrified.

On Mar.25.2003 at 11:57 AM


Dan’s comment is:

As much as Landor bugs me (or makes me jealous?), whenever I pull up next to a FedEx truck I just stare at that secret white arrow in the logo and think, "Nice."

I don't really see myself doing that with the new UPS shield. It's just another streamlined version of an old logo. The swooshy shape pointing off into the future (or however they try to explain it) is such a typical fallback solution these days.

On Mar.25.2003 at 12:06 PM


armin’s comment is:

I was just going through their brand release site and I came across the logo without the greater visual impact, and just as I thought, not very appetizing:

And the logo in black and white? Yuck!

Looks kind of cool in some of its applications.

I saw the logo and I went “wow,” and for a moment there I thought it was kind of cool. Mainly because of the change I guess. It is a stronger logo, looks more dependable and reliable. But it does fall under a lot of design clichés. In 20 years, when the UPS logo becomes an icon we will be able to say with confidence that “we never really liked it.” As long as google has this page cached.

There is something I like about it though. Not sure what it is.

On Mar.25.2003 at 12:22 PM


Damien’s comment is:

The logo also looks a little friendlier - and the highlight really helps in making it pronounced on screen. I wonder if they'll change their notice stickers too ? (when you're not around to pick up your package)

I worked on ups.com when I was at Studio Archetype. Actually coded some of their home pages, among other things. So I will find it sad to see my ex-colleagues' work go away.

From experience, it takes a lot to make such a grand change to UPS. So this must have been quite an experience for futurebrand.

On Mar.25.2003 at 12:49 PM


graham’s comment is:

never understand stuff like this (in a philosophical and emotional sense); apart from the fact that it's shit, it's not different enough from the original to be any real development, and it's no better than the original, which makes it shit (imo) and pointless. which is pretty hard to achieve. sorry if this is a bit unreasoned but i'm sick of this kind of crap. 3d makes it better. yeah right.

On Mar.25.2003 at 12:55 PM


Jon’s comment is:

And the logo in black and white? Yuck!

A lesson I learned in school: if it ain't working in black and white, it ain't working. I still find it very valid.

On Mar.25.2003 at 01:03 PM


Sam’s comment is:

I rather like the shield--the asymmetry within the boundaries of the shape is very nicely balanced. However, I am fouled in my appreciation by the childish and just plain stupid type. Each letter is wrong wrong wrong! The "u" is neutered without a tail (or foot or finial); The "p" is bloated in the way it swells up over the other two, which does nothing to give height to the center element (if that was the aim); and the "s"--which looks like Gill to me but isn't, surely--is so sharp in contrast to the doughy flab of the other two. I drop my shoe in protest! By jickity!

It's an unserious typeface to build such a major brand out of. At least they didn't use Bodega Sans, which ruins every trip to the post office.

However, I think it was right not to reflect or echo Rand's envelope. I'm sure the temptation was there.

On Mar.25.2003 at 01:03 PM


Jon’s comment is:

an unserious typeface

It looks like Dax Condensed to me, with some redrawing of the 's' glyph. I don't dislike the typeface, but I'm not feeling it here.

On Mar.25.2003 at 01:09 PM


armin’s comment is:

I knew the logo reminded me of another one, BP’s old logo:

On Mar.25.2003 at 01:28 PM


brook’s comment is:

it just wasnt a very intelligent solution. others have already said above, but what the hell does it mean?

i think the company viewed themselves as SO diversified that a logo with ANY meaningful representation of ANY aspect of their business wouldn't have told the entire story. but that's crap.

it's not timeless, it's not that memorable...well it does keep brand recognition by staying with the same basic shape i guess.

this example is going to come out of nowhere, but...

one of my professors in school did some identity work for steve jobs & co when they were starting up Next. They liked his ideas for the logo a lot, and were just about to sign off on it. Then they were shown that crappy cube thing (I can't remember who did that for sure). To me that cube doesn't really say anything. But my professor's was so simple and so meaningful. and I can actually depict it below just by typing it.

next:

it just says so much about what they wanted to do.

On Mar.25.2003 at 02:39 PM


Eric’s comment is:

A genuinely pointless update. Add a highlight, modernize the typography (without significantly improving it), preserve some emotion-triggering colors...presto.

It seems to me like they're just trying to pull a Kentucky Fried Chicken here, where they ditch some old baggage by going with an "acronym" brand. Time will tell if it sinks in or not, but it doesn't seem like a successful re-design to me right now.

On Mar.25.2003 at 02:54 PM


Jon’s comment is:

Time will tell if it sinks in or not

This might be heresy to say such a thing, but UPS is so ingrained in our culture and business worlds that this may be a case where a poor corporate logo really won't hurt the company. I still believe strongly, though, that a great new identity could really help them.

On Mar.25.2003 at 03:02 PM


Damien’s comment is:

Time will tell if it sinks in or not

Often rebranding initiatives fail because the organization itself doesn't behave in the way it is trying to reposition itself as.

Its a little off topic - but in the UK, the Royal Mail, the country's postal service went through an insane rebranding, brand architecture and positioning situation.

It wasn't really because of bad logos - but partly because the actual groups of companies involved couldn't all get behind the initiative and present a clear representation of the new organization.

A problem was that it was trying to behave like a private sector organization with a history of being government owned.

I don't think UPS will fall into this trap - but as it is trying to slightly reposition itself and tell a story of its potential future - time will tell whether it lives up to it or not.

On Mar.25.2003 at 03:19 PM


armin’s comment is:

>but it doesn't seem like a successful re-design to me right now.

I would say it is succesful in what they were looking for, to reinvigorate their brand. In that, they did a pretty good job, it's a logo that, whether we like it or not, is up to date. Obviously, as designers, we are very biased because of the longevity and familiarity of Rand's logo. But always ask yourself this: "what would you have done?" then it strikes you that it's not as easy as it seems. How the hell do you preserve so much brand equity, which I think they did really well by simply keeping the brown, while doing something that looks contemporary and that ideally could become timeless.

Like we've discussed already, the brand is much more than the logo and we'll have to see how UPS supports its mark with the rest of their materials. I think that's where the mark will really strive, all shiny in UPS' trucks and in the packaging. In uniforms, in TV, ads.

>and it's no better than the original

I think that is kind of unfair, because in my opinion Rand's logo wasn"t that good, it was just very familiar and everybody, from school to employers, has told you that it is a great logo, but is it really?

I'm not defending the new UPS logo, I'm just trying to see it from all angles.

On Mar.25.2003 at 03:20 PM


herman’s comment is:

it's always interesting how a design/brand firm seems to appear outta nowhere (maybe it was a merger or something that created futurebrand, i don't know) to become the firm of the moment and do away with our design fathers worked so hard to achieve.

a few buzzwords over here, a little "will-do-WHATEVER-you want, butt smooching over there and BINGO, the rand brand is history. BUT we must give futurebrand credit for some really nice brand work, Haagen-Dazs, GlaxoSmithKline (sounds like a law firm, doesn't it?) and British Airways.

And although Terra and MSN are great brands they look like they were created on the same day. The "my grandmother-could-have-done-that" brand goes to "Coca-Cola Olympic 02" where they just joined the coke brand on top of the olympic brand (that took some serious research and development time, i'm sure).

I agree with Graham on UPS: "it's not different enough from the original to be any real development, and it's no better than the original, which makes it...pointless", but it does bring back memories of the early eighties (for some of us) when we learned photoshop and wanted to apply every filter there was when creating a logo,...well, futurebrand has achieved our goal, or at least that's what the new UPS looks like.

On Mar.25.2003 at 03:43 PM


graham’s comment is:

armin: i didn't say that i thought rand's logo was that good either-i was sort of damning with faint praise.

herman: yes-photoshop filters (although the chrome is nice), and i think i sense a little touch of the old airbrush in there as well.

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:05 PM


DavidR’s comment is:

it looks like an acorn.

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:15 PM


JD’s comment is:

Brook, about the NEXT logo, Paul Rand did it!

http://www.dlsdesign.com/paul_rand/paul_rand_logos.html

Who was your professor?

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:19 PM


Eric’s comment is:

>in my opinion Rand's logo wasn"t that good

I quite agree. But my initial impression of the new one is that it's not even as not-that-good as the original.

As you point out, the old one at least had familiarity going for it. The new one doesn't even have that *yet*.

What would *I* do? I'm still trying to answer that question. I haven't come up with a satisfying answer. Even though I don't like how the logo has been changed (*yet*), I do appreciate what a daunting task it must have been to attempt it in the first place.

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:34 PM


Jon’s comment is:

the NEXT logo

It was Rand, and I quite liked it. The Next computer itself was a black box, and the logo mimicked it. Now, as for overall strategy, tying your logo so closely to your main product is not necessarily very long-term. Seeing how Next didn't last very long, that point is moot.

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:38 PM


DavidR’s comment is:

Future Brand...I worked there in a non-designer capacity when the company was called Diefenbach Elkins...thoroughly unpleasant place. They were working on a major rebranding of Woolworth's (heard of it?)

They changed the name to Venator Group...http://www.venatorgroup.com. Heard of it?

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:39 PM


Damien’s comment is:

I don't understand Graham's comment on why the new logo needed to be 'that' different from the first to be any real development.

Its a 'refresh' - not an entirely new look.

The new logo is the way UPS wants to look today. And perhaps in looking at all the elements of UPS's branding, it tried to stick with those that had the most equity in them and do the best it could.

Working on the Window's logo - refreshing the 'windows' had very few options but to go 3D direction like the desktop OS's were.

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:40 PM


felix’s comment is:

it also deserves mention that this new hideously unoriginal UPS logo dilutes

years of equity (i hate that word) built around the color brown.

Q: what can brown (and 3-D yellow visual impact) do for you?

A: not shit

On Mar.25.2003 at 04:59 PM


Jon’s comment is:

>dilutes years of equity

I'm not sure how this new identity dilutes the brown equity. They are keeping the color, although they do have some secondary colors. If those secondary colors begin to overwhelm the brown, then, yes, you do dilute the strength in the core color.

On Mar.25.2003 at 05:12 PM


felix’s comment is:

in my opinion adding 3D white/yellow invades the solid brown while increasing production costs. just a bad, trendy execution.

the mark itself reminds me of Budget (w/ the implied road "swoosh") and some sort of breakfast cereal / chocolate drink treat.

On Mar.25.2003 at 05:29 PM


future felix’s comment is:

"Future Brand...thoroughly unpleasant place. "

- david

yeah, i just went to their site- www.futurebrand.com -just another in a long eternal line of Landor wanna-bees. Only this firm seems to rely soley on 3D spheres (GSK,UPS,Brit Air) swooshes (GSK, Fleet) and the typeface theyve used on the UPS mark. I'm suprised they didnt have a new "brand" buzz term on their opening page. then again they ARE a buzzword.

someone has to shine turds like UPS.

Let it be a big "brand" firm.

On Mar.25.2003 at 05:48 PM


Jon’s comment is:

>just a bad, trendy execution

I hear that!

On Mar.25.2003 at 06:05 PM


armin’s comment is:

>someone has to shine turds like UPS.

There should be a category in all design annuals: "Turd Shining." Next to "Branding." It could evolve into a great book after a few years later, even have its own buzzwords (too tired to come up with any.)

>adding 3D white/yellow invades the solid brown while increasing production costs.

That is one of my main cons towards this logo. Especially for a company that requires so many applications. Controlling the quality of reproduction for that logo is going to be a big pain in the ass.

Luckily, there is a brand standards manual somewhere that will keep everything in par. Right Feluxe?

On Mar.25.2003 at 06:16 PM


JD’s comment is:

Felix, I don't think FutureBrand's portfolio is all THAT bad.

Aren't pretty much ALL the brand agencies Landor wanna-be's?

And isn't pretty much ALL of this stuff "polishing a turd" (from the movie "Christine")?

On Mar.25.2003 at 06:49 PM


graham’s comment is:

the thing about the whole 'refresh' (really?) thing is that i just think it's a waste of time. i can't be more rational than that about it because the whole concept of 'tweaking' logos &c leaves me scratching my head. in the few situations i've experienced this kind of work, no one can provide a logical argument for why they're actually doing what they're doing-it just is to be done and the process propells itself forward until you've got a 'refresh'. so what? maybe someone else can make more sense of it, but every 'refresh' i've ever seen is (a) various degrees of less interesting than the original and (b) weak. half-hearted. a slight shift. indecisive.

these things always tend to be more indicative of a lack of confidence to me when the people doing them think they're making some kind of bold, progressive, maybe even 'edgy', 'refresh'.

On Mar.26.2003 at 01:56 AM


brook’s comment is:

> Brook, about the NEXT logo, Paul Rand did it!

Who was your professor?

haha. funny stuff. Bob Appleton http:www.robertappleton.com. it's weird because they contacted him pretty much out of nowhere, and he never found out who gave them his name or where they found it, etc.

On Mar.26.2003 at 07:34 AM


armin’s comment is:

Did anybody watch the TV ads for UPS last night? The ads itself were ok, they had some weird boxes going around, I really didn't get it. I did dig the logo animation in the end. Nothing new or groundbreaking but some nice eye candy. It has really nice motion.

On Mar.26.2003 at 08:59 AM


Ben’s comment is:

I'm curious to know what made UPS think they needed a rebranding. Research? A new brand manager?

And it's not like any shop is going to turn down a client, but I would think it would be very interesting to see something in a shop's portfolio where they purposely didn't change something because it just made better sense not to... like if UPS came to FB to change their identity and they said "Why the hell would you want to do that? It's perfectly alright, and known around the world. Go back home and spend your money wisely." If an agency told me that I would be shocked and delighted, agreeing that they did the right thing.

On Mar.26.2003 at 09:49 AM


Jon’s comment is:

where they purposely didn't change something

Interestingly enough, I'm involved in a project like this right now. Obviously, I can't mention the client, but it is definitely a situation where the core identity should not be messed with, and the change will come in the surrounding elements.

what made UPS think they needed a rebranding

I was thinking about this as well. I can understand their desire to make their other services more apparent. I'm wondering if they did research that showed them the current mark was inhibiting their businesses growth. I would be surprised to learn that the 'package' element of the old logo was a big hindrance. Their press release states that "ironically, even though the small bow had become one of the most recognized features of the company’s logo, packages with string have not been accepted by UPS for several decades because the string can get caught in high-speed sorting machinery." Now, really. This is something that was really on their minds??

In the end, what disappoints me most is that, despite their stated desire to "to make our logo reflect the company’s evolution," the logo reflects nothing more than a large, stable company. And that, I guess, in poor economic times, is something to be desired.

I can't believe nobody out there has something to say about their tagline: Synchronizing the World of Commerce.

On Mar.26.2003 at 10:09 AM


Don Clark’s comment is:

God bless Paul Rand.

On Mar.26.2003 at 10:45 AM


Ben’s comment is:

Pulling strings: UPS ponders a new look

UPS' lawyers with the New York office of King & Spalding LLP have been busy in the last 90 days trademarking dozens of catch phrases, including "Gold Shield," "Behind the Shield," "The Amazing Color Brown" and "People Love the Truck," among others, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

UPS has pondered logo changes before, but its management committee has vetoed the ideas, a company source said.

The first UPS logo in the 1920s featured a shield behind an eagle holding a package in its talons. The eagle flew off in the 1930s, leaving the shield emblazoned with the letters "UPS" and the slogan "The Delivery System for Stores of Quality."

On Mar.26.2003 at 11:31 AM


plain*clothes’s comment is:

Ben said...

they purposely didn't change something because it just made better sense not to...

If an agency told me that I would be shocked and delighted, agreeing that they did the right thing.

a little diversion from the UPS issue (which is just another garbage FutureBrand execution as others have said). here's a little selection of my own branding experience related to the above comments...

I was hired by a small architectural/planning/redevelopment firm about two years ago to reinvigorate a rather irritating, 1980s-style, AutoCad logo. the company had been around quite some time and was extremely well known and respected in its industry -- so, I asked this very question. when the owner explained, and my investigation revealed, that it was their acronym that was well known and the old logo simply was not that crucial, I went for a complete revamping, focusing on the acronym.

at the final logo selection stage, the owner decided the whole process was more involved and costly than he had expected (fortunately, I had already collected the funds that would carry me to that stage). then, some months later, I was informed that he had another in-house AutoCad operator devise an updated logo. the logo really wasn't that terrible, but it was basically a simplification of the old logo bringing it up to early 90s trendiness. so he got the bad update he wanted for 12 bucks an hour... and everyone goes home happy.

On Mar.26.2003 at 11:40 AM


Damien’s comment is:

no one can provide a logical argument for why they're actually doing what they're doing-it just is to be done and the process propells itself forward until you've got a 'refresh'. so what?

I'm not trying to pick on your comments Graham - but they jump out at me - including the one about, what research said UPS needed to rebrand.

They're doing what they're doing because they want to improve themselves and would also like to look like they are trying to do so as well.

UPS wanted to revamp their web site, 'synchronize' their online tools and reposition the organization to be considered seriously in this effort - by their customers.

So UPS also took the opportunity to change their look to give a better impression of this change.

I hardly think UPS set about suggesting that the company redesigned the logo and then considered redesigning its website, and providing better shipping tools for its customers.

But if they missed the mark, and according to their customers they look silly or in fact worse than they did before. Then that is, you're right, a waste of time and money.

Apple refreshed its logo. Netscape, Microsoft.. and all did so to reposition its business. Not just because they were vain and thought that they could improve on the logo. Its a business decision.

On Mar.26.2003 at 12:36 PM


armin’s comment is:

>Its a business decision.

Especially at that level. With all that money involved it must not be an easy decision. Painting all those trucks...

On Mar.26.2003 at 12:53 PM


Jon’s comment is:

Here's Tony Spaeth's opinion from his IdentityWorks web site.

On Mar.26.2003 at 02:06 PM


graham’s comment is:

damien: talking generally, now, but i think these things have a lot to do with vanity, mainly because i haven't heard an argument that convinces me otherwise. what's underlying some of the things i'm saying is actually that don't think the vanity thing is a problem-just admit it and enjoy it and make something less pinched and tweaky and more alive. there is no real reason on earth that a logo should change, or not change, or be a hundred logos all at once, or not be a logo but a book published once a year (hopefully you get my drift), but what do we get? a refresh. most business decisions are driven by vanity-the desire to be noticed, to be accepted, liked, to be prettier and fresher, and to make more cash because of it. great. celebrate it. get on with it and play with it. the buzzwords and taglines and goonery and guff that surrounds enterprises like these is unbelievable, and i suppose i don't fundamentally believe that people are so gullible that they think 'refreshed' logo=better company.

do what you do and try and do it to the best of your abilities: then your logo will take on the characteristics that are inherent in your company. trying to force that raises too many questions and, as i said before, smacks of a lack of confidence.

to get specific again-i've never had a problem using ups, the website made sense, it functioned, did the job, got me my stuff, always tout suite, and i'm as happy as larry. this 'refresh' makes no difference to that. money well spent?

On Mar.26.2003 at 03:16 PM


armin’s comment is:

More fuel for the fire. Notice the poor reproduction of the logo. It's already started.

On Mar.26.2003 at 03:22 PM


Jeff’s comment is:

Seems like I read that Paul Rand offered to rework the logo himself late in his career at no charge. UPS politely declined.

On Mar.26.2003 at 03:46 PM


Skjei’s comment is:

The most subtle application of a swoosh icon I've seen to date.

On Mar.26.2003 at 04:20 PM


Damien’s comment is:

Graham,

I completely agree with your points. Of course its vanity - thats not necessarily my dispute. I agree there is absolutely no way that a logo, tagline or identity system is going to make up for anything if you (a company) doesn't do what you claim to do. And a company won't continue to make money if it doesn't continue to deliver that service or product successfully, profitably and competitively.

However:

most business decisions are driven by vanity-the desire to be noticed, to be accepted, liked, to be prettier and fresher, and to make more cash because of it.

isn't so.

Business decisions are driven by gaining or competitive advantage. Delivering a product to a customer at a profit. Gaining an advantage by chosing to conduct business differently from its competitors.

Marketing decisions will most likely be made by vanity-the desire to be noticed, to be accepted, liked, to be prettier and fresher, and to make more sales because of it. Which can be part of differentiating a company from another.

There are two sides to a re-branding initiative, one is what the customer experiences, and the other is what the organization does. And in the case of UPS, if this helps get 55,000 employees motivated and behind some new changes within the company - then it is not a complete waste of time, if the perceived change in value to the customer is not understood right away. Motivating change within an organization that large is not an easy thing to make happen.

I'm afraid it is too much of a simplistic view to consider that rebranding (specifically a 'refresh') is a complete waste of time. I agree with you that it may have been so for many companies - but for some it is a useful activity to revitalise an organisation internally - as well as externally.

BP is perhaps a good example of this.

On Mar.26.2003 at 04:24 PM


Ben’s comment is:

That whole anecdote about UPS not even accepting packages with string because of their machinery is just bubkis. That's like saying the USPS needs to redesign their logo, because they probably don't accept bald eagles. They would also probably get caught in the sorters.

I recall seeing several anecdotes about the Paul Rand "gift box"... one relating getting a package to receiving a gift (how often is it that you get something from UPS that you don't want?). The other was something about when he asked his daughter was it was, she said "A present, daddy" and he knew he was done.

And, as the man himself said: "You can't criticize geometry. It's never wrong."

On Mar.26.2003 at 04:42 PM


Scott’s comment is:

I'm not just sad about this redesign. I'm angry.

Little by little, people that call themselves "designers" (but are in fact no-talent idiots who exist only to perpetuate the ill-conceived agendas of visionless corporate drones) are remaking our visual landscape. All traces of humanity--surprise, humor, charm--eventually get replaced by conformity, slickness, and above all, emptiness.

Here's a company with an icon etched in the brains of every person in America. Anyone who had ever seen the UPS logo can draw it. And that was worth more than anyone could say. What they had was an integral piece of American visual culture. Now, they have a meaningless, overproduced logo which will no doubt be redesigned again in less than a decade.

When Paul Rand designed the UPS logo 42 years ago, he showed it to his daughter and asked her what it was. "It's a present, daddy!" was her response. Will anyone (or anyone's daughter) look at the blight on our culture that FutureBrand has brought upon us and say "that's synchronized commerce through an efficient supply chain?" I think not.

As designers we have a responsibility to look past the petty concerns of the moment and act not just in our own interests, or those of the client, but to create work that speaks to people and adds something to the world. This new logo says nothing, does nothing, and removes a little bit of joy from the world. And that's bad for designers, bad for people--and bad for UPS.

Shame on you, FutureBrand.

On Mar.26.2003 at 09:30 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>Will anyone (or anyone's daughter) look at the blight on our culture that FutureBrand has brought upon us and say "that's synchronized commerce through an efficient supply chain?" I think not.

I think I'm just gonna go ahead and erase all the comments and just keep this one. (Of course I'm not, it's just a figure of speech)

Very well put Scott. Thanks.

On Mar.26.2003 at 09:35 PM


graham’s comment is:

i'd have to agree with armin-scotts thing=best bit of writing on design i've read in a while. nice one.

On Mar.27.2003 at 12:14 AM


defrancisco’s comment is:

Thanks Scott for your comment. I was beginning to consider myself an irrational person for feeling this angry about the UPS redesign, but I feel that a part of my cultural/visual heritage has been stolen. A little bit like when that perturbed guy broke the toes of Michelangelo's Moses sculpture.

You said it: “Shame on you, FutureBrand,” but also: Shame on you, UPS.

On Mar.28.2003 at 06:03 PM


Giselle’s comment is:

(A bit of a spam, but not off-topic)

You can get the new UPS logo on a nice lapel pin on eBay in a nice commemorative box set handed out to employees on 3/25/03. Starts @ $1.00

On Mar.30.2003 at 01:37 AM


Craig Schmidt’s comment is:

I remember reading in one of my many Paul Rand books that Paul himself wanted to update the UPS logo. He approached them and even offered to do it for free. Just to tweak it a little. However, they weren't interested and declined. It makes you wonder what the result would have been. No gradients, I'm guessing ....

On Mar.30.2003 at 07:44 PM


Jon’s comment is:

what the result would have been

I don't think it would have been much, actually. According to Steven Heller's book on Rand, he wanted to remove the point from the shield and redraw the bow.

As for me personally, I think I might have reworked the 's', as it always felt a little too rigidly geometric, whereas the 'p' had some line weight fluctuation, but this is rather petty, isn't it?

On another note, there's a lot of grumbling (especially in some prior threads on corporate design) about how we ought to avoid working for companies like this, because they don't 'get' design and they soil the earth with their corporate refuse. I argue that is precisely where designers are needed most. Commerce is simply a major fact and part of everyday life. Why should this area be forsaken, simply because it is primarily profit-driven? Are we, as designers, not interested in profit?

Why doesn't successful design often emerge in large-scale corporate identity? The failure is twofold: It is many designers' failure to grow beyond 'this isn't pretty' that leaves us behind when "visionless corporate drones" search for a new corporate logo. AIGA fails to help on this point, when their shows and annuals continually showcase pictures without words. Second, and more importantly, it's the fault of strategists who are willing to take corporate money and not offer new ideas in return. Landor, Futurebrand, et.al. are simply too afraid to risk losing a fee when tried and true will get you paid every time.

On Mar.30.2003 at 11:02 PM


kyle’s comment is:

Every time I see the new UPS spot, it makes me think of two things; National Geographic & their identity and HPs spots--with the little plus signs flying around everywhere.

On Mar.31.2003 at 12:38 PM


Cara’s comment is:

I find the name Future Brand pretty ironic. Years from now, when the next generation of graphic designers are asked to re-design the identities we have re-designed and created here and now, what will the result be? The way we have taken timeless, conceptual icons (such as the UPS logo), developed by respected designers such as Rand, and bastardized them into mindless and meaningless trademarks, says something about the "designers" of this era. Comments above such as "the new logo is more expressive" and "I'm not saying Rand's logo was so great" pretty much sums up the way many designers of today have been trained to think. These are the days where "corporate branding" reigns king, where logos are designed by a 9am to 5pm committee, where the art director is really an advertising/marketing director, where expressive type means "skewed on a 45 degree angle with gaussian blur," where style is everything (and not even good style!), and where concept has been completely forgotten altogether. I can only hope that the future is more promising than Future Brand.

On Apr.04.2003 at 06:20 AM


Matt’s comment is:

Here's the text of an email that i sent to FutureBrand a few days ago:

+++++++++

Your company's recent redesign

of the UPS logo demonstrates a

truly remarkable lack of sensitivity

and a blatant disregard for the historical

precedent of Mr Rand's original mark,

which by anyone's measure was,

and still is, a landmark of graphic design.

It was both in the history books and on

the street every day, alive and well.

It has been replaced by something that

already has the desperate shiny vapid

fashionableness of a failed dot-com venture,

circa 1999. The company will need a 'new'

identity in a few years time, and I truly hope

that the next company that gets the account

has the sense to replace your exercise in

frivolity with the original UPS logo.

M. E.

+++++++++

It made me feel better.

On Apr.04.2003 at 08:22 PM


armin’s comment is:

Nice.

Your email made me feel better too. I really liked the failed dot-com venture comparison. So true.

There should be a signed petition sent to UPS' CEO saying that designers want the old UPS logo back and/or that they reconsider Rand's proposed rework of the logo (whatever it looked like it must have been better.) I wonder if Greenpeace could be in charge of this?

On Apr.04.2003 at 08:31 PM


John’s comment is:

You people are all ridiculous. I love Scott's comment about looking past the concern's of the client. I also work at a large brand consultancy, so leave the important work to us and go design another museum poster.

By the way, Rand's mark was also an update of a prior mark that had a shield with a package. I've been anticipating that change for years. Can anyone name a logo out there that looked older than Rand's shield?... (crickets chirping)

On Apr.04.2003 at 09:30 PM


armin’s comment is:

>I also work at a large brand consultancy, so leave the important work to us and go design another museum poster.

I don't even know where to start. Who's going to let this guy have it? Darrel? Felix (c'mon this is like shotting designers in a barrel)? PK?

I just have to say this: if you think that what you do (working for mind-numbing greedy-ass corporations) is better, or more significant, than designing a museum poster you are... well... you do belong in a large brand consultancy.

Ridiculous.

On Apr.04.2003 at 09:43 PM


John’s comment is:

Armin, are all corporations "mind-numbing and greed-ass"? Oh, and helping businesses with thousands or tens-of-thousands of employees is pretty significant.

On Apr.04.2003 at 10:00 PM


armin’s comment is:

>are all corporations "mind-numbing and greed-ass"?

All that come to mind, yes.

More significant than a museum poster?

On Apr.04.2003 at 10:05 PM


armin’s comment is:

That last comment was meant to answer this:

>Oh, and helping businesses with thousands or tens-of-thousands of employees is pretty significant.

More significant than a museum poster?

On Apr.04.2003 at 10:06 PM


John’s comment is:

yes

On Apr.04.2003 at 10:22 PM


John’s comment is:

Armin, where do you think museums get their funding from?

On Apr.04.2003 at 10:27 PM


armin’s comment is:

From mind-numbing greedy-ass corporations.

Why do they fund museums? for the sake of culture? Forget that shit, it's because they will somehow manage to make more money. But enough about that. What is really pissy here is that you think that what you design is more relevant than what other, smaller design firms and agencies, are designing. What do you get in return from these corporations? Your paycheck and that's it. How relevant.

I need to get back to my museum poster so we'll chat later.

On Apr.04.2003 at 10:37 PM


Jon’s comment is:

>that designers want the old UPS logo back

Sorry, Armin, but I have to say that comment reflects little more than designer griping and self-absorption. Corporations, unfortunately, only care about design if it serves the strategy correctly.

Our real complaints ought to be that 'good design' might have been simply ignored in the effort to support UPS's updated strategy. We should be very upset with the consulting arm of Futurebrand, who were willing to sell this uninteresting and unengaging piece of design work. So many times we lose the battle for great design before the client is even shown the work because our own internal people don't get the value of it.

Now for the designers, I am saddened that they could not visually realize something less banal and commonplace than a horizon to support the brand strategy of "synchronized commerce."

On Apr.04.2003 at 10:46 PM


armin’s comment is:

I was kidding Jon. I didn't make a big effort in being more sarcastic. After all, it is friday.

On Apr.04.2003 at 11:04 PM


Jon’s comment is:

Oh...uh...sorry. It did seem out of character, and things are getting a little testy in here! Your greenpeace comment should have tipped me off. ;-)

On Apr.04.2003 at 11:09 PM


Damien’s comment is:

I think we're assuming that Future Brand submitted only one logo concept and that UPS was a model client and said that they'd take anything that FB thought was best.

If UPS wanted to change - then that's not a crime. If they chose to ditch the Rand logo, thats a shame to us, but again not a crime. If Future Brand was unable to produce something for UPS better than what it did then that is a shame - but we don't exactly know why or if UPS figures that the new identity is an accurate expression of their new position.

I'm distressed that its out there, and replaced something that was very good. But I also know the difficulty in working with huge corporations as a large corporate consultancy.

If you're going to belittle museum poster designers and stand up for large brand consultancies then please make sure that they are worth sticking up for and show us why.

On Apr.04.2003 at 11:10 PM


Jon’s comment is:

If you're going to belittle museum poster designers and stand up for large brand consultancies then please make sure that they are worth sticking up for and show us why.

I don't think we should belittle either, frankly. Each share a very important place in our society. One fosters commerce; the other culture. You really can't have one without the other.

On Apr.04.2003 at 11:13 PM


Damien’s comment is:

absolutely Jon - I was just asking for more information. I didn't think t was fair to simply dump on one or the other.

Also - when did Future Brand actually redesign their web site?

On Apr.04.2003 at 11:22 PM


Scott’s comment is:

You people are all ridiculous. I love Scott's comment about looking past the concern's of the client. I also work at a large brand consultancy, so leave the important work to us and go design another museum poster.

I assume you're being sarcastic when you say you loved my comment. My point was not that designers should ignore their clients--of course it's our responsibility to help our clients. But part of that is recognizing what is meaningful to the people to whom the clients are trying to communicate.

Of course UPS has to redefine and clarify its mission to survive. And I actually think much of the strategic work they and their consultants have done is sound. It's the creative execution I have issues with. The new logo is clearly a response to a perceived need for a new look, and it definitely looks more like "now" than like 1962.

But UPS is bigger than that. They have the power to define what "now" looks like by being a leader, not a follower. Rand himself said that good companies make their logos good. His example was the Mercedes logo--it's meaningless unless you know what Mercedes is all about. And his own logo for Enron didn't help them out of their mess.

You can't reinvent yourself simply by draining all of the equity from your identity, as UPS has done. If I change my name, does it change who I am? Should GE dump their Art Nouveau seal because it looks "old?" What about Coke's Spencerian script? Or William Golden's CBS eye? All of these look old to someone.

What I said was that designers have a responsibility to "look past the petty concerns of the moment," not of the client. UPS was a respected company with a long history and a powerful visual identity. Now they look much more like any number of fly-by-night companies from the 90s. Is that serving their needs?

I have no problem with large brand consultancies--some good work comes out of places like Wolff Olins (Orange) and Landor (BP). What I do I have a problem with is designers selling quick fixes like this new logo to clients like magical solutions to all of their problems. In the end, not only are the real problems then not addressed, but the solutions often make things worse.

On Apr.05.2003 at 02:30 AM


PBG’s comment is:

UPS started their rebranding effort more than a few years back (just before the big UPS strike). They hired Pentagram to do initial studies and dropped a sizable chunk of change in the process. This has been a long time coming. That something finally emerged is a miracle. This rebranding has lurched along at glacial speeds.

The trouble, as stated by an earlier post, is that the design is left to 9-5 committees and then after they've hashed the life out of what's been presented to them, it falls prey to the personal whims of the CEO and his cadre of consultants (read wife, children, and 2nd cousin twice removed, etc).

We are but hired hands doing the bidding for our masters, whether they be small businesses, museums or corporate titans. We simply make them look respectable and feel fabulous about themselves in their vain quests to be masters of all they survey.

On Apr.09.2003 at 05:17 PM


Ginny Tevere’s comment is:

Personally, I think that UPS is having a "brand identity crisis". Their recent advertising campaign about "Trusting Brown" didn't drive you to or capitalize on their name or the identity of their company. Maybe it was a transitional campaign to try to seamlessly move into the logo change. In other words, they were trying to steer their audience away from the old logo by using Brown as their subject matter and now they'll bring you back to their brand. I'm just speculating. Trying to add some meaning to (in my opinion) an unsuccessful campaign. Although, since I did remember it and it did make me think "Who are they talking about? Who is Brown?", maybe it was successful afterall. But it makes me wonder if their audience, as a whole, worked as hard as I did to figure out what they were talking about?

Regarding the new logo design...it's updated. That's about all I can say in a positive light. I'm not a fan of the 3-D logo. I have seen it work, but for the most part, I have seen it fail. The Rand version of the UPS logo is something I never thought would change. It didn't need to. It was a classic that still had branding power and merit.

On Apr.14.2003 at 10:26 AM


Jamie Sheehan’s comment is:

I'm not a huge fan of Rand, but the old UPS logo was one of his best and most certainly LIGHT YEARS better than the new and UNimproved version. IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!

On Apr.14.2003 at 10:55 AM


Joseph Michael essex’s comment is:

Scott Stowel’s conclusion was accurate but his argument was flawed.

Scott suggests, with both eloquence and passion, that the redesign of the new UPS trademark is an example of “visionless corporate drones” “remaking our visual landscape” by removing “All traces of humanity--surprise, humor, charm. ” While this may be accurate it is not the greatest loss.

Since “humanity--surprise, humor, charm” are qualities and values that connect human beings with one another and they are no longer part of the trademark, UPS is the greatest loser. UPS has traded an established connection with its customers for an anonymous impersonal device that could just as easily be any other three letters.

Companies regularly make the mistake of thinking about audiences and customers rather than about human beings. When they directed or listened to their design office and discarded the previous trademark, UPS implied that they are no longer that company. That may well be the case but the new trademark only serves to say what they not, rather than what they are.

“Humanity--surprise, humor, charm” are elements that were designed into the previous UPS image because they added to its performance as a trademark. Designers run the risk of being dismissed as artists if what we do does not serve the client’s customer. Charm for charm’s sake is just as unsatisfactory as trying to be all things to all people.

Embellishments, no matter how human, without the container of critical thinking, is the difference between a bomb and a rocket. We must not confuse or replace one with the other.

Joseph Michael Essex

Essex Two / Chicago

On Apr.14.2003 at 12:34 PM


mr. blah blah’s comment is:

yes, no, yes, yes, no, no, yes, and yes. wow! amazing amount of bull....stop beating the horse!

this is the opinion of a no-talent, uneducated commercial artist looking for a good design conversation.

no need to comment, PLEAAAASE.

On Apr.14.2003 at 09:42 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

stop beating the horse

I think our collective point has been made on this new identity, I want to move on to another angle.

I'm still of the mindset that large corporations need good design. Here's what I want to know:

What kind of steps do we take, when hired by clients like UPS, to ensure better results?

Do you simply walk away from a client like this?

Is it even worth the challenge?

Is the amount and scope of work so heavy that it is just best to leave it to the big brand consultancies, despite what may result?

I'm especially interested in answers from those of you who are running a design business, since it's your wallet that is affected most by accepting or turning down such fees (not that the rest don't have valid opinions).

On Apr.14.2003 at 11:28 PM


Ben Finch-LETTER TO UPS PR’s comment is:

LETTER TO UPS

This was a letter Iw orte to the PR epople at UPS. I got a response and I will post that too. It's rather defensive and crappy! I'm so discouraged by this change of logo! Please read the letter....

START OF MESSAGE

I am a designer in Chicago, IL, the principal of The Grasp Initiative. We are a small Print/Web design firm that specializes in identity and branding work. I follow the trends of identity througout the country for major corporations such as yourselves and I am seriously concerned about the revision of your identity logotype!

I saw it for the first time a few weeks ago and thought, " Oh this must be some new thing they are trying, maybe it will pass in a few months" OR " Hey, that's different I hope they don't keep this for real". And then a few more weeks went by and I started seeing trucks with new decals and and pick up boxes where the old logo was still trying to show through as if it were fighting this new, modern tragedy. And then today, for the first time in weeks, I visited the UPS website and realized that my worries had turned into nightmares; they had officially done away with one of the most eloquent and meaningful logos that anyone has ever done. This can't be happening, but it is!

Most people probably don't even know that when they look at the classic gift box/shield logo that the history behind it is in itself mesmorizing. Like many other designers Paul Rand designed the final logotype along with hundreds if not thousands other versions before UPS accepted one of them. (At the time their competition was steep between FedEx and other global carriers). Many probably don't even remember that the box with the ribbon was added many years after the original logo design or that UPS wanted to strike a personal cord in the hearts of the American public so strongly, that they used the gift box over the shield to relay their message; we care for your packages and we treat them like family!

So lets get to "The Gradient Shield" as I will call it.

AHHHHH the The Gradient Shield, yes, it's a symbol of stability, of secure packages in these troubled times in the world. It's a symbol of how strong UPS is

as a company and how that moral/ethical thought will carry over into the handling of packages and satisfaction of customers. What better way to say we care than to use protection as the psychological ploy. The only HUGE problem is that The Gradient Shield has lost all of that!

The best logos are subtle ones. Logos that say something about the company and WHAT IT DOES! Paul Rand's package was an eloquent and simple gesture to relate the tradtional wrapped package with the that of the shield. It was the best of both worlds. You have an outlined shield representing stability but it's not too overbearing and you have ths wonderful reminder of holiday, family and the simplicity of giving. The package on top of the shield is so important to the integrity of the logo but even more importantly to the intergity of UPS!

The two elements together probably make up one of the best logos ever created. And the reason why they work is because they cover both important aspects OF WAHT THE COMPANY DOES. Protection of packages, and the warm fuzzy feeling of holidays and family. It is growing more and more impossible these days to find companies that understand that their logo must consist of graphical elements that educate the public and the consumer about their service.

The classic UPS logo combined both meanings well; however, the new Gradient Shield fails to capture the same meaning thus failing in it's overall purpose.

(Even companies like Mobil and designers like Ivan Chermayeff who did the redesign of the Mobil logo don't always understand the importance that the logo says something about the company.)

This upcoming quote is from Maud Lavin's -Clean New World-Published by MIT 2001: "A while ago in Minneapolis, I was on a panel with Ivan Cermayeff, a principal in the design firm of Chermayeff/ Geismar. a star in the field, Chermayeff looked the part of the handsomely aging artist: tall, rangy, with longish hair and expensively understated clothes. Chermayeff was well known for, among other things, having redesigned Mobil's corporate graphics. His waves of clean gasoline sloshing inside the orange O were then seen by millions of people. But as we started to talk in the panel about how that image and it's related identity program did and didn't relate to what Mobil actually does as a corporation, Chermayeff grew uneasy. He didn't really know or didn't want to talk about what Mobil did. His task was to concentrate on the details of the look. Here was someone who had tremendous power to communicate visually and no power whatsoever to influence content."

I feel that UPS has fallen into the same kind of trap with the new logo.

The shield has now been downgraded to this slick, photoshoped gradient, yellow-brown mush! The UPS logo has taken on a more Storage Facility look versus an eloquent package company look. This new logo even has a hard time carrying the original meaning of classic outlined shield because it is SO OVERDONE! Photoshop and bubbly letters ARE NOT THE ANSWER!

This new logo says nothing about family, giving, holidays, or any of that. I would think that in these new times we live in this would be one of the most important things to say! And as far as security goes, I think it totally fails in that ballpark too.

It is drawn in a way to be modern and bubbly, to look like everyone else. It is not a shield of stability but one that crumbles under all of its photoshop layers!

And as I sit here writing this, I really want to hear that some guy, like the CEO who has no design sense, wanted to change it and everyone was against it. I really want to hear that someone said, hey wait a minute, why are we changing this again?

So to the point!

I know as a designer your company is always after a fresh, modern look (everyone is!) but man did you guys blow this one. Not only did you hack an incredibly intelligent identity but you lost, in essence, all of the shields original meaning not to mention the meaning of the totally absent gift box.

It is a shame that a company like UPS feels so engaged to change something that doesn't need to be changed. If it isn't broke DON'T fix it, as they say. This could not apply more in this case! The decision to use this graphic to represent your company has seriously made me question the integrity and ability of the company.

A logotype says a lot about the company but even more importantly about the people inside of it. This logo does not say stability, or strength, or anything that it needs to say to be anywhere close as elegant and meaningful as Paul Rand's identity. It is a poorly drawn and frankly a horrible layered photoshop job, that looks a lot like many other logos, and I guess I just thought that at the end of the day, UPS wasn't like a lot of other companies.

I guess I was wrong!

Sincerely,

Ben Finch

Principal, The Grasp Initiative

END OF MESSAGE

ALSO CHECK OUT :

http://www.tgidesign.com/messageboard.html.

We started our own disuccsion (not nowing there was another) that has died down but there are GOOD comments to read. Please check it out!~

I will post the letter from the PR person next in response to my letter...

On Apr.15.2003 at 09:15 AM


Ben Finch-LETTER FROM UPS PR’s comment is:

START OF MESSAGE

Mr. Finch:

Thanks for your first note, something I passed on to the head of our Brand Group who happens to be on vacation.

It is Spring Break in Atlanta.

By virtue of contacting our agency representative for our NASCAR program and the posted news release on the change of our race car, I'm confused about your point of the second note. Nothing has changed on our press

releases, other than removing the agency contact as a secondary contact for the UPS.com postings as we do with all press releases beyond their issuance

date.

So Edelman won't have any comment or feedback about our brand strategy, the decision to change our logo and our communications activity both internally and externally about the new direction for the brand. They didn't have

anything to do with the decision to make our logo be contemporary and refreshed to bring it up to speed with the expanded capabilities that UPS has been developing that both enhance small package delivery and extend

beyond the goods flow to include the funds and information flows of global

commerce.

You have every right to voice an opinion about your dislike of our design change. Yes, I know very well who Paul Rand is, his reputation and why we went to him in the first place in 1960 to develop a new look for what was then a small package delivery company that was expanding geographically. I have no doubt that were he alive today, he would have been consulted about the changing UPS strategy and our desire to look at the entire enterprise, our representation to customers, employees, shareowners and the public at large.

I might suggest you visit our pressroom sitelet

www.pressroom.ups.com/brand to learn more about the strategic underpinnings of our design change, just one component of a brand strategy that we have been articulating for some time. Nothing has been kept secret, other than we chose March 25th to unveil the new brand mark and identity system to employees and customers.

By the way, we worked with a FutureBrand team, primarily based in New York, on the brand strategy, identity system, logo and other organizational changes. Everything went through thorough research and evaluation. We were mindful of change and maintained the legacy of the shield with the updated look. You see, there were two other logo designs for this company which is nearly 96 years old. And, together with the Paul Rand design, all three featured a shield.

Also, to note that we have been communicating with marketing and design academics and professionals across the country in the past 10 days since our unveiling. Few, if any, have shared your opinion. Everyone acknowledged

and respected the power of the Paul Rand icon design but agreed that the brand strategy for the company necessitated a change.

Susan Rosenberg

Manager, UPS Public Relations

Ph: 404.828.6130

Fx: 404.828.6593

srosenberg@ups.com

END OF MESSAGE

Two very important points by Ben:

1. Why in the hell would you intrust a revised logo project like UPS to a company name Futurebrand anyway? YUK! And as someone said up above (I'm sorry I forgot your name), they do need their own

re-vamp!

2.I got the contact info of this person off of the UPS site Press Releae page. It was underneath the original press relaes for this sotry. I though it was weird that they gave out personal emails, but I was elated becisue I actually could email someone real!.

Well, I should note that after myself and several others emailed this contact (with our concerns and disgust), the emails and name of the contacts were removed form the site page. I responded to Susan and asked why they were taken down and she had no coment, so either we really annoyed them or they were getting a lot of negative feedback, eventhough in her letter she states the people that they have shown the logo to like it. (Of course they frickin like it. No one of actual importance is actually going to criticize them.GRRRRR

Anyways, I thought this would add some more light on this important topic. Thanks for the room to post Armin!

On Apr.15.2003 at 09:32 AM


Ben Finch-SORRY FOR TYPOS!!!!!!’s comment is:

SORRY ABOUT TYPOS!!!! I WAS RUSHING! BUSY AT WORK YOU KNOW!

Ben

On Apr.15.2003 at 09:33 AM


TOM’s comment is:

I've been reading this thread from the beginning and waiting to comment til I could fully express my thoughts.

At first like so many of us, I was saddened to see it go. How dare anyone think they could improve on a Rand?

However this isn't art we are talking about, it's business. A mail service business that is not a mail service business anymore. There was a real need to change. The smallest part of the UPS business is package delivery. Why would you leave that monicker of limited perception on a worldwide fleet of logos? Sometimes a logo has to be broad enough to allow room for growth of a company, not hinder it. They probably should have changed it 10 years ago.

As for the solution, I think it carries the equity of the shield and the color palette. Does it pay respect to Rand's pretty little package? No and it shouldn't. This is not Paul Rand's company.

Have I been involved in corporate design projects that hinder and water down productive design? You bet. But sometimes the best and hardest design decision for a CEO or Brand Manager to make is to change.

It seems most designers don't want to like this solution. I wonder what we would have thought of it had Rand still been alive to come up with this solution himself. I think he would have taken the opportunity just like Futurebrand and anyone one of us would have to redesign a narrow focused logo into one based on the new parameters.

On Apr.15.2003 at 10:17 AM


Ben Finch-In response to Jonesl's Point’s comment is:

My girlfriend and I have a small freelance firm..The Grasp Initiative, in Chicago, IL (although the name is changing soon!) In a situation like UPS, not like we could ever land a client that huge, I would first make sure all the adequate research has been done before even deciding to change the identity. secondly, I would explain how I honestly felt to UPS, IE the letter above! And then I would proceed from there.

I think it would be foolish to just disregard their needs for a change; however, it is my opinion that the designer not only has the responsibility of creating design but also the responsibility of not creating design. This seems to be something that we have forgotten. RESTRAINT. And choosing our battles well is key in the success of a business and especially a small business! Designers SHOULD NOT just hop on the boat and say "yeah we agree, this needs a changin" only to aquire the kind of cultural capital that a rebranding like UPS brings .

The cultural capital/recognition should come through other avenues, an does come naturally whan design firm makes the right decision on a project.

I mean just think about how many places this "futurebrand" company has ended up! They are being mentioned all over the world but is this in itself more important than the design and ethical/moral decisions surrounding the design?

You have four main parts and four goals as I see it. I will break them down like this:

1. You have the client, sometimes, a hugh corp like UPS, sometimes your mom and pop busimess that put many of us through college!

2.You have the actual design that is either being created or re-designed, such as the case in UPS.

3. You have the general public who is actually going to be seeing the logo from an objective standpoint, not consdiering Rand and others who place such high value on design.

4. You have the designer, him/herself who designs or redesigns the logo

Goals are as follows:

1. , The clients goal is to be the best and have the slickest logo or whatever it is you are designing. They want to, or at least they should want to express their company and functions of their company through their identity. And also, when you get down to the bare bones, nitty gritty, they just wan to be "the shit" so to speak!

2. Ahh yes, the design. The most important part but always overlooked, eventhough it is constantly being looked at! The designs goal is obvious, to display the message that the client wants,as discussed in number one; however the success of number one depends on number 2!

3. The general publics view point is that of ,"oh yeah they changed it" Or "yeah it's OK". Or is it this simple? Doesn't design strike everyday, ordinary people in a way that many of us do not understand. I have always believed it is the subconscious that is effected most by design. People are affected and don't even realize it becasue of the complicated psychology behind the visualization of graphic art and design. And as before without number 2 being successful, number three fails as well. If the public does not get it than all the steps before this one, have failed too!

4. And finally the Designer! The designer searches for the ultimate answer in this sea of knowledge that we have instilled in our overly small brains. I think sometimes our designs are so off and unnsuccessful it is like we are searching for answers in other solar systems where people eat glass and trees grow in the sky.

Anyways, the designer is after all of the steps previous to this one. They want to please the client, they want to create successful design, thus completing the third one which is pleasing the public. But the hidden agenda we all have, (and definitely do not want to talk about) is that of cultural capital, previously mentioned. We do want everything else to be safe and sound but there is also this overwhemling urge to be known. We not only want to do the best work, but the best work for the best companies, because "who's gonna see the greatest logo ever, if it is for Sammy Jams shoe shop in Peoria Illinios?" ( I do like Peoria by the way!!!)

But what we must ask ourself is if this desire for cultural capital is so great, than why are we designers in the first place? We are anonymous in many cases, when it comes right down to the artwork. We don't always get to put our name on everything!

And finally to get to answering Jonsell's point. What I am trying to illustrate with all of these steps, is that simple question of taking work, or not taking it cannot be answered untill you examine the way you feel about each of the steps listed above...(and of course anymore you feel are relevant)

I think once you do this, you will find your answer.The bottom line is that if you think a potential client is making ethical/moral decisions that do not line up with your firms idealogy than you MUST NOT commit to them. PERIOD!

Being poor is worth so much more than being unethical or immoral with your design and client choices!

I hope this comment is somewhat on track!

Ben

And once again, Please excuse any typos!!!

On Apr.15.2003 at 10:22 AM


I mean JONSEL! Sorry for the mispelling!!