So have you seen the new VH1 logo?

I'll admit it -- I watch more VH1 than MTV. Don't know when it happened, but it did. So I've been watching the VH1 series "I love the '70s" and noticed a new funkadelic logo that VH1 was using. I thought that it was just a temporary thing, but it's now on everything. Apparently, the old logo has been banished to VH1 Classic in favor of this new mark.

Compare the old and new logos here.

Hmmm...it's slightly retro. It's more technicolor. It's got a little of the blocky 3-D MTV thing happening. Not sure about the backwards "1" though. And why the change?

Did the old logo take its fame for granted, fall into a life of drugs and abuse, only to find redemption when it lost everything? (Cue the reflective music...)

What do you think?

Jump to Most Recent Comment

Justin’s comment is:

It is my opinion that they could have done more with the old logo to make it fresh again -- maybe something with color, maybe something with a theme, who knows. It's been my experience that trends go in cycles and I believe that they unmasked the new one just when their first one was about to be cool again. On a personal note, I've always like their first one.

On Sep.02.2003 at 07:22 AM


brook’s comment is:

i don't really like the new logo, but i like the usage in all of their new on-air promos. i think it's basically what MTV has always done... crappy logo, creative executions.

On Sep.02.2003 at 07:49 AM


Kiran Max Weber’s comment is:

I liked the old one better. More iconic. The change was most likely due to Viacom's rebranding and increased attention to the station due to lost market share to MTV, which they also own. 3D and Illustraty, I don't know. Kinda .com and is that a flame or a leaf coming off the V? The cut h, hmmm... Is the square supposed to make me think "TV?" I'll stick with the old one. Sometimes I wonder where these new logos/marks come from. Feels like no thought, or less thought, goes into them.

On Sep.02.2003 at 07:52 AM


Tan’s comment is:

I'm pretty sure the old logo was designed by Adams/Morioka in LA. Not sure who did the new one. I liked the old one, but the circle was nothing that iconic.

Viacom also owns TNN, which was rebranded to Spike TV.

It does seem trendy, but it's not necessarily the norm for Viacom -- look at the MTV logo's longevity.

On Sep.02.2003 at 08:10 AM


Armin’s comment is:

Gut reaction: this is one of the most poorly developed and executed logos I have seen in a long time. Looks like an intern in a mexican design firm did it. And that's no compliment.

On Sep.02.2003 at 08:28 AM


Rebecca C.’s comment is:

Ugh. Marketing. Meh.

On Sep.02.2003 at 08:58 AM


Brent’s comment is:

I don't like it - wasn't necessary. I think maybe that they were thinking those of us brought up on MTV in the eighties now watching VH1 are having some kind of identity crisis and needed a new logo? Fully cementing us/them there and paving the way for the newly branded generation of MTV brats. If so, what a terrible way to go about it.

On Sep.02.2003 at 09:42 AM


Todd Dominey’s comment is:

The question is, how are they going to squeeze that 3D block into a favicon? If it can't reduce that far, it isn't worth a damn.

On Sep.02.2003 at 09:46 AM


Davin’s comment is:

If I didn't already know what it was I would say that it reads as, "VHr" and I have no idea what that little flame is doing there. It's not a logo for a custom car detailing shop or a Zippo lighter retailer that I know of...

On Sep.02.2003 at 09:47 AM


Sarah B’s comment is:

I noticed it while flipping through the channels last night. I stopped at "I love the 70s" and the only thing that kept my attention was the logo ( I liked "I love the 80s" much better)...and eww, I kept staring at it. There is that "leafy" detail above the v, which I did not even notice until I went to VH1.com. Not sure that it was neccessary...again, if it aint broke, dont fix it, ...even if you are bored.

And also, on a side note - I guess there will be a "I love the 80's - Strikes Back" in October or sometime in the fall... too funny!

On Sep.02.2003 at 09:59 AM


Armin’s comment is:

>VH1 Classic (which btw is set w/ Cooper Black -- a fave w/ some of us around here)

I think that "classic" is actually Underware's Sauna.

The more I look at the logo, the more disgusted I am with it. Let's start with the fact that VH1 did not need a redesign. The clean, sober look of the one in the circle fit the channel's programming and demographics perfectly. This just looks like a really poor attempt at looking hip.

If they had at least created a great logo... then we could possibly discuss that. Whoever did this logo is now on my blacklist. Not sure if anybody cares, but they are.

Terrible, terrible, horrible, despisable logo.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:03 AM


David Cushman’s comment is:

Rumor is the new logo was done by WeWorkForThem, the agency SpeakUp seems to love to hate. Discuss.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:08 AM


Mongrel’s comment is:

Meh. Looks like a fruit drink logo. And a bad one at that.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:11 AM


Katie’s comment is:

I was hoping that someone would bring this up soon...

I'd just noted the new logo, not because it was wonderful, but because I'd been repeatedly subjected to "I Love the 70's" by my boyfriend's television viewing choices.

I looked around a bit but was unable to find the parties responsible...

As Brook said, while the logo itself leaves something to be desired, the promo pieces where the logo is featured are captivating. And I second the notion of the logo reading, "VHr".

In summary, I don't hate it. But I think that the change was uneccessary. And Todd, you're kidding about the favicon thing, right?

(Ohhhhh....that's what Spike TV is!)

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:41 AM


jonsel’s comment is:

I would love to know the strategy behind this. Visually there was nothing wrong with the old mark. (And yes, I think the "classic" is in Sauna. Purty.) The new mark looks more like a specific show on MTV than a station identity, but of course that's subjective. Hmm...gonna go do some research on this.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:41 AM


jonsel’s comment is:

What's a "favicon" ? (yeah, I'm in my thirties...)

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:42 AM


Armin’s comment is:

> the promo pieces where the logo is featured are captivating.

I will have to look at that tonight to form a full opinion.

>Rumor is the new logo was done by WeWorkForThem, the agency SpeakUp seems to love to hate. Discuss.

No comment. Although that would allow me to rest my case.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:44 AM


Darrel’s comment is:

The favicon is the icon next the URL on a web site. Silly name. Semi-useful widget.

Remember that the new VH1 audience is the old MTV audience so it's somewhat natural to start borrowing the MTV-esque-fluff-for-the-sake-of-fluff style.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:49 AM


Khoi Vinh’s comment is:

We all know that sometimes logo redesigns are watered down and conspicuously lacking in semantic quality because too many narrow-thinking stakeholders -- we often call them 'suits' -- have had their say. I think this new VH1 logo is the result of too many broad-thinking stakeholders -- we might call them 'designers' -- having had their say... it's a collision of at least 4 or 5 different concepts and it makes absolutely no sense.

On Sep.02.2003 at 11:10 AM


Armin’s comment is:

>Remember that the new VH1 audience is the old MTV audience so it's somewhat natural to start borrowing the MTV-esque-fluff-for-the-sake-of-fluff style.

I think there is not enough marketing mumbo jumbo in the world to justify the ugliness and terrible execution of the logo.

At least MTV's fluff is usually perfectly designed and well thought out. Even if it's just for fluff's sake.

On Sep.02.2003 at 11:12 AM


Armin’s comment is:

Even VH1 viewers are appalled.

On Sep.02.2003 at 11:30 AM


Tan’s comment is:

Well I'm glad everyone seems to be in agreement -- the new logo is weak.

The ads though, are beautiful. Very Sergeant Pepper's/Peter Max homage looking. And the one I saw used one of my favorite songs by the Flaming Lips.

I can't seem to find any info on it yet. I'll see if Adams/Morioka will comment on the rebrand -- I know they were responsible for the last logo, as well as the TNN rebranding, before it became Spike TV.

I can't say if it looks like their work or not. I don't think it is, but I'd reserve judgement on rumors of FB's involvement till we know it's a fact.

So don't light up the lynching torches yet.

On Sep.02.2003 at 11:32 AM


amanda’s comment is:

I don't like it, poorly executed. It reads horribly!

On Sep.02.2003 at 11:36 AM


Kiran Max Weber’s comment is:

Still no info on who did it?

On Sep.02.2003 at 11:36 AM


jonsel’s comment is:

Still no info on who did it?

I've found complaints about it on the HOW Design forum and some site called radio-info.com as well as VH-1's boards. But the VH-1 site has NO contact information for anyone in marketing or promotions. Same with the Viacom site.

On Sep.02.2003 at 11:59 AM


debbie millman’s comment is:

I believe that Nancy Mazzei designed it, she works in the in-house design group at VH-1. But I am awaiting final confirmation, will give you an update as soon as I get the info.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:11 PM


David Cushman’s comment is:

One of the animations was done by this guy, who also sells stuff through YouWorkForThem. The plot thickens.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:12 PM


rebecca’s comment is:

Hate it.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:13 PM


Tan’s comment is:

> I think that "classic" is actually Underware's Sauna.

damn. you're right dude. you know Armin -- you must be one of those people that are really smart, but just don't test well. Too much pressure. Only way I can explain the 8.5 on the quiz.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:20 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>you must be one of those people that are really smart, but just don't test well.

I somehow actually flunked my way through high-school and college. Thank God I don't need to answer tests anymore as a graphic designer, I would be earning like $13,000 a year.

Oh, and must be? I am much smart.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:25 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>Rumor is the new logo was done by WeWorkForThem

Not true. Just fact-checked. The new rumor has it that Debbie could be on the right track — it might have been done in-house.

Man, what a bunch of geeks we are.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:29 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

what a bunch of geeks we are.

But we're concerned geeks.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:33 PM


Tan’s comment is:

Funny -- when David C mentioned that it might have been done for WeWorkForThem -- I thought he was using a euphamism for FutureBrand, so I went Googling for it.

Turns out FutureBrand does do a bunch of stuff for Viacom also -- mainly for Showtime. They also farm out work to Elevator Design, who in turn, did a bunch of stuff for VH1. Interesting...the mole hunt continues...

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:37 PM


Sam’s comment is:

I don't think it's Sauna either. The Sauna 'a' is different, and the 'i' has the extra bend at the top, not the bottom. I had a moment of thinking it was Souvenir, but it's not. My guess is some similar Seymour Chwast-Herb Lubalin-era design, but I can't find it.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:44 PM


Sean Adams’s comment is:

I'm reticent to say anything about the new logo because I don't know the strategy behind it. The old logo did its job simply and clearly. It had equity. It wasn't the most clever mark on the planet, I'll leave those to the corner coffee shop (it's a dog and a cup). It was built to reinforce the channel's mission of Music First, and be protected from party hats and other logo violations.

Fred Seibert at MTV once told me, "In television, if it plays the way it's supposed to for 15 minutes, you've done your job."

It's T.V.

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:45 PM


Tan’s comment is:

Ladies and gents, the always charismatic Sean Adams of Adams/Morioka. Thanks for posting Sean.

Don't know what ya got till it's gone I suppose. My deepest condolences.

Alright, now my impatience is slowly turning wicked. Who did this???!!!

On Sep.02.2003 at 12:55 PM


debbie millman’s comment is:

final confirmation: it was done in-house by the VH1 design group. Quote by source, who shall remain anonymous: "they should be shot."

On Sep.02.2003 at 01:27 PM


Tom’s comment is:

I think it's one of the freshest, non-conformist, non-expected mainstream logos I've seen in a long time.

I had nothing against the old one, but VH1 has obviously changed their strategy. This one has character and an agitation about it that has certainly struck a chord with all of you. For a network that covers people who will do anything for attention, this redesign certainly has worked today!

It's almost as good as the new UPS logo!

On Sep.02.2003 at 01:47 PM


Tan’s comment is:

Tom -- you're just saying that to make trouble, aren't you? Drop a bomb and see the melée.

It doesn't abhor me as much as the UPS debacle, but they weren't raping a Rand mark this time either.

I just think it's a missed opportunity. But like Sean said, I want to reserve final judgement until I know more about the brand strategy behind it.

In-house. Hmmp. Typical.

Thanks for the detective work Debbie.

On Sep.02.2003 at 02:01 PM


Armin’s comment is:

> I want to reserve final judgement until I know more about the brand strategy behind it.

PLEASE! Why are we trying to be so politically correct here? Even if the "brand strategy" supports this logo it fails entirely in a visual level. I'm no design critic but I know shit when I see it. And that logo is shit. Apologies if I have offended the creator, but the logo is an aberration of anything that is decent in design. There is not even a hint of taste on the logo, my opinion is purely subjective I know but this logo marks a sad low in graphic design — regardless of the brand strategy.

I would make a t-shirt with the UPS logo and a slogan that says "fuck Rand" before wearing anything associated with this new VH1 logo.

Maybe I should ease up a little.

Nope.

PS. Tom, don't make go to all the way to Georgia and kick your ass.

On Sep.02.2003 at 02:10 PM


Brent’s comment is:

In-house. Hmmp. Typical.

Target?

Is all in-house bad then?

On Sep.02.2003 at 02:43 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

Debbie, thanks for sussing that out. Any chance we could get some strategy too? Even off the record? ;-)

Still haven't seen anything on-air yet, but definitely not liking the logo. Maybe it will be like the MTV logo eventually; the 3-d box will be the constant element and the VH1 type will constantly evolve and change. At this point, it feels like style and not strategy.

I agree that "Music First" is absolutely not reflective of VH1 any longer. Obviously, videos just don't do it for a station any longer. VH1 is much more like an E!-type network now, with a more pop-cultural view than strictly artists and music. I mean, were half the "Movies That Rock" even about musical subject matter? And "Grease 2" doesn't count because it most definitely doesn't rock.

On Sep.02.2003 at 02:47 PM


stacey’s comment is:

"In-house. Hmmp. Typical."

Don't be such a hater, Tan.

I say better to be in-house and employed than an elitist snob on the street. Mama's got mouths to feed.

On Sep.02.2003 at 02:47 PM


Tom’s comment is:

you're just saying that to make trouble, aren't you?

Maybe... who doesn't love a good logo debate?

But really my comments were accurate. Do I "like" it? Would I have created it? No. But, it does have something about it. I think what draws me to it, is that it breaks a lot of rules. I hate the colors so much that I love the choice of them.

Dare I say, what's the use of graphic design if it all looks like it belongs in CA? Could be the no sleep because of unreal deadlines talking, but hey I threw it out there.

Tom, don't make go to all the way to Georgia and kick your ass.

C'mon!

On Sep.02.2003 at 02:52 PM


Tom’s comment is:

Oh yeah, I forgot.

In-house. Hmmp. Typical.

Design Snob. Hmmp. Typical.

On Sep.02.2003 at 02:56 PM


Brent’s comment is:

what's the use of graphic design if it all looks like it belongs in CA?

The title "Communication Arts" might have something to do with it. Pretty yet ineffective work only hurts our industry. The idea that something is eye-catching but serves no real purpose only puts power in the hands of those who would see us out of a job-making hobbyist designers as good as those with real design education.

On Sep.02.2003 at 03:03 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>what's the use of graphic design if it all looks like it belongs in CA?

I'm not saying that good design needs to look like CA awardee stuff. I'm saying... you know what? You are right, five years from now all the kids are going to be doing these ridiculous logos that make absolutely no sense because that was what they got exposed to in their formative years.

Hopefully they will be watching MTV.

> I think what draws me to it, is that it breaks a lot of rules.

What rules? Of design? This is so far removed from what effective graphic design is that it's not even acknowledging the existence of rules.

Sheesh, I thought I said I was gonna ease up a bit.

On Sep.02.2003 at 03:05 PM


Bradley’s comment is:

Well, this is interesting.

I always, always, always remember what Rand said about logos, and how the reputation of the company represented in the mark determines the "quality" of that mark. Just as cultural norms and activities can determine the meaning of colors or symbols in other contries (white = death, etc.) so too perhaps can institutions and their logos.

Personally, I don't think the IBM logo is the greatest example of Rand's design abilities...the letters always looked blocky and kind of awkward to me, they get progressively wider/heavier, and there's a weird rectangle formed between the I and the M that for me, slows it down. I don't think I'm crazy for saying this, I've heard others make similar comments.

On the other hand, IBM is a good company and put a lot of value on strong design, and has typically acted in an admirable fashion. They're also huge and have been consistently huge. So we tend to regard the logo as good, and would correctly think them crazy if they ever re-designed it.

Another interesting thing is that because of the visibility of that mark and the strength of the company behind it, we've associated horizontal lines with computers and technology for years.

And so it goes with the VH-1 logo. The old one was good, relevant, and meaningful...the new one is unexpected. I'm with Armin on this one, the whole thing looks like shite; that backwards 1 looks like a cancerous tumor on the h, and the leaf doesn't fit into the vocabulary at all! What the hell is going on here? Additionally, that cube they put it on makes me feel like I'm peaking around a corner on my left-hand side.

Now this logo is just beginning to piss me off.

But...but...I get a sense for why they did it. And I think it might work out for them because, well...it's unexpected. Any layman could tell you that the design isn't good, but at the same time, it looks designed, it looks like somebody thought about it. It definitely sets a different tone for the network. Dare I say it, this mark might be...successful.

On Sep.02.2003 at 03:11 PM


Tan’s comment is:

> "In-house. Hmmp. Typical." Don't be such a hater, Tan.

hey there kids. Don't be so defensive. I didn't say in-house design always amounted to excrement. You only took it that way -- so whose baggage is that? Mine or yours? Hmph.

And Brent, I agree -- some in-house work kicks ass like Target and Starbucks. Thus, the word "typical" which denotes more often than not, instead of the word "always" which denotes all shit, all the time.

But in this case, is it not true that the in-house work is shit?

> Design Snob. Hmmp. Typical.

...and..l-o-v-i-n-g every minute of it.

So let me get this straight Tom. You hate the logo, yet because it was so bad and it broke a number of rules of good taste in design -- you actually like it. Man, that makes no sense.

On Sep.02.2003 at 03:46 PM


Tom’s comment is:

what's the use of graphic design if it all looks like it belongs in CA?

The title "Communication Arts" might have something to do with it. Pretty yet ineffective work only hurts our industry. The idea that something is eye-catching but serves no real purpose only puts power in the hands of those who would see us out of a job-making hobbyist designers as good as those with real design education.

Ah, objective discourse. I totally agree. As Tan was quick to catch, I only threw out the subjective argument because until we can verify our value - what's the point.

On Sep.02.2003 at 03:53 PM


Tan’s comment is:

> PLEASE! Why are we trying to be so politically correct here?

and Armin -- I'm the last person to be anything-correct. But the last time I was quick to slam something -- I ended up eating crow. Thanks to Sam -- the lost "th" in Sher's Henry the 5th poster still haunts me at night.

On Sep.02.2003 at 03:55 PM


Brent’s comment is:

Tan, yes I agree and point well taken. That's why I questioned your comment rather than inferring. Ah, semantics.

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:01 PM


Tom’s comment is:

I only threw out the subjective argument because until we can verify our value - what's the point.

Plus it's more fun to get Armin going.

Drop a bomb and see the melée.

Moo-Ah-Hah!!

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:05 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>still haunts me at night.

Wuss.

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:05 PM


Tan’s comment is:

> Wuss.

..ahem.. what was the low score on the quiz again?

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:10 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>..ahem.. what was the low score on the quiz again?

You said so yourself, I test poorly, but I'm smart.

>Plus it's more fun to get Armin going.

Wuss.

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:22 PM


M Kingsley’s comment is:

a bit of clarification about who designed the previous VH1 logo:

We were involved in the VH1 logo re-design back in the early 90's. As I remember it, the chosen logo was a numeral one with rounded corners ala Neville Brody's Blur font, the letters V and H placed in the center of the one, and "Music First" set underneath -- also set in Blur).

We were one of many firms, large and small, that were involved in this early game of "Design Survivor". Others included were Doublespace, Bureau and a very talented in-house designer named James Spindler. Memory fades over this amount of time, but it was either Doublespace or Mr. Spindler who drew the initial logo.

A few months later -- possibly a year -- the president of VH1, John Sykes (the man behind MTV's Little Pink House Giveaway contest) requested that a circle be drawn around the One.

This was years before Adams/Morioka even had VH1 as a client. From their website, it looks like they TWEAKED various logos for MTV networks including Nick @ Nite, Nickelodeon and VH1.

I suspect they are the ones who sharpened the corners of the One and replaced the font for the language that reads "Music First".

Forgive my frankness, but I would credit branding efforts and logo tweak to Adams/Morioka -- not from-the-womb Design and Authorship.

Now on to the new logo -- frankly, it is stupid and a waste of all the money that VH1 is going to spend printing up all new stationary, T-shirts, ect.

My partner has reminded me that it also looks somewhat like the old logo for defunct channel The Box -- anybody remember that?

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:27 PM


Armin’s comment is:

The plot thickens. Thanks Mark.

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:42 PM


marian’s comment is:

Well, I don't watch a lot of TV so I'd never seen this, or their old logo. When I followed the link it took me quite a while to figure out where the logo was. And I still wasn't sure until I came back here and started reading. OK, so it was that poorly executed graphic in the box.

(Which makes me wonder, when is a logo not a logo? Can anything be a logo? Can a map be a logo? Can a panoramic photo be a logo? Can a straight line be a logo? Can you say, "that's not a logo, it's some squished letters on the side of a multicoloured gradated box?")

And, BTW, definitely not Sauna.

On Sep.02.2003 at 04:43 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>And, BTW, definitely not Sauna.

Damn! No, not Sauna.

There goes the "Armin is smart but doesn't test well" theory.

On Sep.02.2003 at 05:09 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

defunct channel The Box -- anybody remember that?

Thank you. I knew I had seen some similar design(s) before and just couldn't place it. It doesn't feel unique for them and it feels targeted towards the still-watching-MTV crowd, not the slightly older typical VH1 viewer (which may be changing...).

not from-the-womb Design and Authorship

Good clarification, Mark. This is not an uncommon occurence in design firm marketing efforts, especially in the land of big-branding (Landor, FutureBrand, Interbland).

Can anything be a logo?

I'd say yes, but it really depends on circumstances and the nature of the client's business. A photograph halftone is fine for a local shop that doesn't need to worry about far-flung locations reproducing the logo in 20,000 different situations. Now, a good logo? That's a different (and completely subjective) story.

On Sep.02.2003 at 05:15 PM


Tan’s comment is:

Mark -- thank you for joining the discussion and for the clarification. I don't think Sean meant to claim birth to the logo, but it's more that it was in their possession last. Their ownership stemmed from their augmentation to fit the brand strategy during their 15 minutes. Obviously, things have changed.

But let's not be so quick to crucify and condemn.

If only the designer of the new logo would Speak Up and put things in his or her perspective...hmmm...I wonder.....

On Sep.02.2003 at 05:36 PM


damien’s comment is:

Uhh - I like it.

When I first spotted it - I thought it had something to do with the 'I love the 70s' show that was on, but it seemed to stick around.

I don't think its a 'Rand' logo - in being simple, iconic or particularly clear.

but if it were presented to me as a first sketch I would have definitely suggested pursuing more time on it to fix it.

I do think it's final execution is flawed - but I like the concept fundamentally. And I don't think VH1 has to have a whole lot of strategy behind its branding. Especially if its not going through an overhaul like Spike TV. But I do wonder - why the box?

As Todd said - its not particularly 'innernet' friendly, but the inhouse team might have more up their sleeves than we currently know about.

Anyway stone me to death - but I don't think its as bad as some of you are making out...

On Sep.02.2003 at 06:19 PM


Tan’s comment is:

I agree with you Damien. It's not that horrid -- it feels half-baked, like there's more to the story, like it's almost there. It's ambiguous, but in a pedestrian, uninteresting way. It feels unrefined -- I can't explain it more than that. But I'll stop short of saying that I hate it.

But with a brand like VH1 -- "almost there" is perhaps as harsh of a criticism as something more colorful.

Like I said, a missed opportunity for something greater.

On Sep.02.2003 at 06:27 PM


Armin’s comment is:

Ok. I got help from the Typophile people. The typeface for VH1's Classic logo is Oz, by Patrick Giasson. A modern version of Cooper Black.

On Sep.02.2003 at 06:34 PM


Tan’s comment is:

By the way, Spike TV sucks too. It's supposed to be a macho channel for men, but their logo looks all soft and tender like the shopping catalog Spiegel. Hell, Spiegel is even a little rougher.

Now, that's shit.

On Sep.02.2003 at 06:38 PM


damien’s comment is:

Now, that's shit.

damn right - now that whole rebrand and repositioning seems to be a considerable exercise in wasted effort and rank ignorance.

On Sep.02.2003 at 06:44 PM


amanda’s comment is:

you know, the person who did this logo could have had a really tough time working with the exec/decision makers. We have all had it happen, something perty gone sour because of client changes and client changes and client changes. Being inhouse is especially challenging because you have your client over your shoulder everyday. Paying your salary. Being bully like. I know from experience.

Just a thought. So it does not come off so personal.

On Sep.02.2003 at 07:28 PM


Tan’s comment is:

I hear you Amanda. Doing in-house work can be some of the toughest assignments. I know from experience too.

I don't think any of us are making judgement on the designer here -- especially because we don't know who it is. But we are making judgement on the logo, which unfortunately must bear the full burden of examination and criticism.

It's not personal -- but it's also not an excuse to blame the client, regardless of whether it's in-house or not.

And my guess is that the designer in charge of the project is most likely someone of seniority and experience. He or she is likely able to defend the work and separate the comments made from a personal affront. It's about being professional about it.

Debbie Millman is a wonderful example of this professional attitude.

On Sep.02.2003 at 07:37 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

yes, it was me Nancy Mazzei and yes I work for the in house for vh1. I designed the "new logo' just wanted to let you all know.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:07 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

debbie, thanks for the call

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:11 PM


Bradley’s comment is:

Nancy--

Can you talk about what the process was like? I already commented on it from a design point of view--and I was pretty critical. And I stand by that, I'm not the biggest fan of the design, but I can also see how it IS successful. The form of it doesn't do it for me, but it'll be interesting to see what the general reaction & response is.

I'm just curious as to how everything went down, what the deal was, etc. How do YOU feel about the final product?

Thanks for visiting the site, by the way. Nobody here means anything personal.

On Sep.02.2003 at 10:54 PM


Tan’s comment is:

Yes, a sincere welcome Nancy. Debbie was hoping you'd join in. It must be like walking in on a conversation at a party and finding out it was all about you. Surprise! It's a crit!

Wow, it's past 11pm in NY. It's late -- but I do hope you'll find some time tomorrow and give us just a little more inside perspective on the logo's creation.

Believe me, this crowd is not as tough as it sounds. A bit rash and over-opinionated maybe, but not tough. Anything you can add to the discussion would be most appreciated.

On Sep.03.2003 at 12:55 AM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

ok everyone, it's not like I'll be crying in the corner over every comment, everyone gets it in the end. It's early or late right now... I'll give some thought to my first round of "explanation" and post something wed. just dont "crit" me on my spelling, everything else is open warfare.

cheers.

nm

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:21 AM


Tan’s comment is:

Very cool. Fire 'er up Nancy.

On Sep.03.2003 at 07:34 AM


Armin’s comment is:

>A bit rash and over-opinionated maybe, but not tough.

Right...

I will just second that this is not personal. I have said my peace and have little to add or to substract to/from my previous comments.

I did see the logo on TV this morning and all I can say is that it is big. One cool thing about the logo is that it has that pink/orange-dunkin dounts thang goin'. I also saw one of the promos and was far from impressed, the logo at the end could very well be MTV's and no one could tell the difference.

>Dare I say it, this mark might be...successful.

Anything playing 365/24/7 is bound to be "succesful" in some way or another. Even UPS' logo (Hi David!).

On Sep.03.2003 at 08:29 AM


jonsel’s comment is:

I'm liking this trend of us critiquing a design, then getting the designer to step up and provide some insight a la Paula Scher and David W. (sort of...the real designer of UPS has ashamedly hidden his/her face in her FB cubicle).

I'm really looking forward to your rolling back of the curtain for us, Nancy.

On Sep.03.2003 at 09:29 AM


Todd W.’s comment is:

Ugly, ugly, ugly. And, since taste is subjective, it doesn't match at all with the target VH1 audience, adult contemporary. Which is probably VH1's biggest problem, it doesn't know what it wants to be anymore. It wants the MTV audience, but doesn't want to alienate its core audience. The brand is confused and this new logo is just a symptom.

On Sep.03.2003 at 09:42 AM


amanda’s comment is:

I just wanted it to be clear that it was not personal. Now that Nancy will be involved in the crit & discussion I feel much more comfortable.

Hardy/harsh crits are super, but it is only fair that both sides of the story are brought to the table so we can understand the situation & rationalizations before making a judgement. Yah yah yah, bad design is bad design, but still. I don't like the idea of speak up being a community that appears to be just a bunch of snooty designers bashing other design work for no other reason then to bash it. It is healthy & super to have strong opinions, but I think it is good to temper that with a bit of kindness, especially when we don't know shit all about her situation. We are all on the same team here folks.

On Sep.03.2003 at 11:05 AM


Tan’s comment is:

I agree. I love SU, but because of the impersonal nature of online posting, there can be a mob mentality sometimes. Lord of the Flies kind of syndrome (Kill Piggie!). Always better to debate, rather than bully.

Harsh honesty. Fairness. Kindness. Bashingness. Snootiness. Hey, it's all good in a crit -- and much better than no conversation at all.

On Sep.03.2003 at 11:33 AM


amanda’s comment is:

i certainly agree Tan.

On Sep.03.2003 at 12:19 PM


Brent’s comment is:

>and much better than no conversation at all.

exactly.

The idea that we have a community of talented, well-recognized designers within easy reach is invaluable. It would be foolish to tromp on that with ridicule and pretention. I love that I can come here to learn from all and participate in something like this. I'd rather have someone challenge my work and be able to defend my choices rather than get half-hearted praise or nothing at all.

On Sep.03.2003 at 12:22 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

First, this logo did not suffer from and marketing executives so you wont hear me hiding behind that old routine, if you guys hate it’s all me!

I don’t want to over- think my answers or put some big ‘theory” meter on why I did what I did.

Some comments here in themselves are as shallow as your making this logo seem.

Here goes:

yeah. VH1 is changing yes we are re-thinking who we are and people here thought the old logo wasn’t us anymore, we are no longer “music first” which to me always sounded like a kindergarten after school program. We did the usual, get a few design studios to pitch logo’s but under the agreement that anyone in- house could submit logos too. I really wanted to do something imperfect and by that I don’t mean “bad”. The another half of the logo, what goes in it? something? nothing? the “leaf” element a tip to nature? maybe, there are so many “graphic worlds’ I feel like no one goes outside for inspiration anymore. vhr? it’s a 1 work for it —we’re all snotty consumers who know everything how could it be an “r”?! That’s right it’s an attitude and you either like or you don’t just like any product you buy or don’t buy —I wanted that irreverence to BE something other than a hollow word in a creative brief...unfinished, weird, off, abstract. If the channel is about “pop culture” we’re in the biggest pretty/ugly, yes/no, i like it don’t like it area there is... I felt the logo should/could be PART of that not just a symbol for it. This kind of answer can open me up to all of you comments being a bit “true’ but, this wasn’t created with no thought in mind as your all suggesting. cool. nm

On Sep.03.2003 at 01:11 PM


Kiran Max Weber’s comment is:

this wasn’t created with no thought in mind as your all suggesting.

The logo is way cooler now that you described it like a designer that gives a damn. Very honest. Congrats and thanks for sharing.

On Sep.03.2003 at 01:24 PM


Tan’s comment is:

First off. Thanks.

Secondly. I have to say, regardless of what the logo looks like, or what I agree/disagree with -- I'm glad to hear that the process was not ruled by analytical focus group findings or brand words like "synchronized". It sounds like your design decisions, right or wrong to others, was more visceral than pragmatic. And for that, I say "cool". More of us should work this way.

But design-wise, it's still not my flavor. Yes, there's lots left open for interpretation in the logo -- but there's a fine line between abstraction and vacuous-ness, intention vs. execution.

On Sep.03.2003 at 01:32 PM


Milan’s comment is:

So.

Basically, this is an 'unfinished logo'.

There's interesting aspects to the theory behind this logo -- now that nancy explained -- but isn't there SO much more grey matter to be explored regarding that mindset?

On Sep.03.2003 at 01:39 PM


debbie millman’s comment is:

>It sounds like your design decisions, right or wrong to others, was more visceral than pragmatic. And for that, I say "cool". More of us should work this way.

Tan, I am all for emotive design, but I believe that there needs to be a balance between the visceral and the pragmatic. A balance between the magic of the process and the logic of the intended or hoped for results. Otherwise it just feels too subjective to me. Afterall, who should the design be for?

On Sep.03.2003 at 01:40 PM


Tan’s comment is:

Sure Debbie, I believe in both. It is after all, a commercial business -- the end result has to be answerable to pragmatic goals. But the process of designing a logo/brand is too often driven by concrete dictums where there's nothing that's really concrete. And at the end of it all, you get judged by a bunch of opinionated people who are going by their gut reaction.

There's also a sense of risk that's involved with saying "screw what the focus group says." I believe that more often than not, risk taken out of design passion pays off.

Maybe I'm a cynic about this -- but maybe if design was more visceral and unexpected, there would be more genuineness in marketing and less skepticism from consumers.

On Sep.03.2003 at 01:55 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

This explanation is fine and good if we were describing a brochure or a promo or similar one-off design. But we're describing a brand identity for a very large cable network. Is this satisfactory? Is the visceral the only dimension upon which this should be judged? According to Nancy, the point was to have something that could be interpreted differently by different people and that they could judge, as in any pop cultural item, whether they like it or not. The implications of a viewer-defined logo are, to me, that VH1 is whatever the viewer wants it to be. Is that right? That strikes me as somewhat of a cop-out, that the execs don't know where to position the channel any more now than they did 5 years ago.

On Sep.03.2003 at 02:13 PM


Armin’s comment is:

I think it's my time to chime in, since I have been the most vocal about the wrongness of the logo. First of all, I don't think anybody's been insulting towards nancy nor the logo. A critique is a critique, whether good or bad it's based on our opinions and expressed through common language like "shit, sucks, stupid, synchronized." The fact that we are over-opinionated, outspoken and harsh and we do it with our gut instinct should not diminish the value of our assertions. They are what they are — for good and/or bad.

Now to the logo insight. As all here, I appreciate the explanation and the openness of Nancy — I know it must be hard to walk into a place with hungry wolves. I applaud the "gut instinct" and "visceral decisions" and that's totally cool, or whatever. But graphic design — effective graphic design — is, and needs to be, more pragmatic than that. The fact that the logo requires such a lengthy explanation, and a convoluted one at that, it means that it's far from effective. No logo should require more than a sentencee to explain, hell, it shouldn't even require an explanation. I enjoyed the "you have to work for it" attitude, that's kind of cool and I'm glad somebody is willing to act on it instead of just talking about it — yet in the final execution it seems a bit irresponsible. Communicating "hipness" doesn't sound easy, and I'll be the first one to admit to that I would be scared shitless of tackling such a hefty project as this one right here. But I'll also say that this was a great opportunity to show what design can really do and how graphic designers can change people's perceptions of a stagnant brand for the good — instead of just adding confusement by having to "work for it."

I wish I could be more supportive, maybe a tad more positive about this but my visceral reaction is that this logo fails on many levels.

On Sep.03.2003 at 02:19 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

If you want to know more about the mindset please ask. My initial email was meant as a wide statement please feel free to get more specific. Let’s clean up the grey area. As for it being or feeling unfinished I totally disagree. It sounds like there is some logo handbook I didn’t get for class. It seems most people’s “philosophy” is the same here... which is fine but it may not be my “flavor” as you say.

On Sep.03.2003 at 02:29 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

Nancy, thanks for submitting to this stuff. You're a good sport.

Could we get some more background on what VH1 is after as an image? We know they want to move beyond Music First. Good move. So where to? What was your brief, beyond, "we need a new identity" ? Maybe this can help us understand the final outcome a bit more. In the end, some of us are going to hate the logo and some may love it, but it's vastly helpful to learn what the process was and understand the decisions that were made before design began.

On Sep.03.2003 at 02:33 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

Armin,

Okay now this makes sense, look I find it REALLY hard to take criticism from anyone who would be “scared shitless’ to even attempt a project like this —your shouting from the sidelines!! Go buy your “fuck rand’ t-shirt.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:11 PM


Tan’s comment is:

whoa here....let's not pull out the tshirts yet.

take a breath....hey, anyone seen a good movie lately?

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:23 PM


damien’s comment is:

Armin - dude. A lot of people asked for Nancy to Speak Up, so her explanation of the logo was warranted and not there to justify her work.

We're tackling a logo without seeing it in the context of how it is to 'live'. logos are meant to be marks of aspiration and positioning within a system of services, branding and products.

As VH1 evolves the logo will carry it.

I think we're really missing the point to trash a mark all on its own - flicking through logo books and going "Mmmm - thats a good one" is bullshit - and today, especially today we have to look at brands as an entire system not just the logo.

All apart from UPS' though (I'm kidding).

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:26 PM


Armin’s comment is:

> look I find it REALLY hard to take criticism from anyone who would be “scared shitless’ to even attempt a project like this

The fact that I would be scared about it would never ever diminish my abilities as a graphic designer — neither my willingnes to tackle the project. Everyday, every time I leave a comment here on Speak Up I'm scared, affraid, panicked that people will think I'm an idiot, or that I have no clue what I'm talking, but that has never, not once, stopped me from speaking my mind — that should give you an idea of what "being scared" means to me.

And on the contrary, being scared would only fuel me to do the best possible solution that not only surpasses my expectations but that of the veiwers. Admitting to be scared is better than not admitting when a logo didn't reach its full potential.

You can take or leave the criticism, it really makes no difference to me. If you choose to ignore it that's your loss — or your win.

The "fuck Rand" t-shirt is in production, will wear it then.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:27 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>Armin - dude. A lot of people asked for Nancy to Speak Up, so her explanation of the logo was warranted and not there to justify her work.

If I have to be the "bad guy" on this thread that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'm just voicing my opinion as always.

>especially today we have to look at brands as an entire system not just the logo.

I thought we were talking about the logo.

I'm gonna go get an apple.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:31 PM


surts’s comment is:

I think there's some elements to the logo that make it very memorable. In my mind, memorability is good. Would I run online to buy a T shirt with the logo on it - probably not. But from the perspective of the average vh1 viewer that isn't a designer, I would guess that the logo will resonate in their minds. Depending on how it's implemented through the different mediums, time will tell if its successful.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:36 PM


damien’s comment is:

I thought we were talking about the logo.

Execution-wise, yeah - but it seemed to get dangerously close to someone having to explain the thinking behind it in order for it to 'work'.

I don't disagree with critique on the crafting of it and so on - but the reasons why she did it, or why it is needed is irrelevant.

I do agree with all your points, and always prefer it when you're the bad guy on a given topic I just think we should look to distinguish when we're criticising a logo, person or the organization.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:38 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

Jonsel,

The channel as a whole needed to be re-freshed, I’d been here about a year until the new logo idea came up. we have been really thinking about what the channel needed to be, there a many really dedicated people here some came over from mtv and some like me are new and from the outside.

We know we want to reflect pop culture and that means constant “change” also pop culture has a certain phenomenon to it that can’t be predicted. This was another consideration for the logo if you notice it on-air it “changes”..the type can change —for example if we are promoting the 70’s the typography can reflect a 70’s style font this made sense to us because the logo than changes to whatever it “lands” on this makes it hard for the logo to be dated and allows it to grow as we do. The colors change too we call it “the chameleon logo”. We knew that the new direction of the channel was going to have to be based around a change philosophy because of the climate in television right now. and we knew we didn’t want to have another tag line we wanted to be able to attach lines to ourselves according to campaigns sometimes a “tag line” cant be all of those things at once..this idea opens up great possibilities for current copylines that reflect the here and now. So designing a system that could go in many different directions was definitely a mandate when embarking on this project.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:46 PM


Armin’s comment is:

> it seemed to get dangerously close to someone having to explain the thinking behind it in order for it to 'work'.

If the logo 'worked' we wouldn't need an explanation.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:48 PM


Darrel’s comment is:

anyone seen a good movie lately?

No. And I'm rather pissed about that fact.

On Sep.03.2003 at 03:48 PM


damien’s comment is:

If the logo 'worked' we wouldn't need an explanation.

and how does a logo not work?

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:00 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

because the logo than changes to whatever it “lands” on

Now this I'm intrigued by, and I wish I was seeing more of it on the station. I haven't seen any of the typography changes yet, and that second box is just crying for some visual attention. I just stare at it and not at the VH1 side. I assume this is because the graphic overhaul of on-air graphics hasn't been completed yet.

I'm really fighting myself over the dichotomy of the logo vs. the identity, because I don't really like the logo as I've seen it, yet I definitely like the notion of an ever-changing identity system to reflect its time or contextual situation. Conceptually, that just fits what VH1, as a pop cultural repository and broadcaster, is.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:01 PM


Armin’s comment is:

>and how does a logo not work?

Just one reason off the top of my mind: if you can't tell what it means it doesn't work. Just like Altria's. UPS' succeeds in this area, you know what it means and what it stands for.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:09 PM


Tan’s comment is:

> because the logo than changes to whatever it “lands” on

But let's not forget that the first logo to adopt this "change" theory was....drum roll....Viacom's own MTV.

Remember? Big blocky M in bricks, grass, concrete, meat? There's irony here.

I would argue that the adaptive nature of a logo is something all identities should have, not just VH1. But then it gets back to the idea of "identity" itself.

But I can understand the distinction and the reasoning. Again, not convinced w/ the execution, which is the point of this entire discussion.

And Damien, I have to back Armin a little here. A logo "works" if it's a dynamic, conceptually effective metaphor and representation of what it stands for. Either it works well, or it doesn't.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:13 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

jonsel,

I saw some places where it was rapidly changing however, we haven’t fully blown it out yet we couldn’t do everything at once but this was the system that was "approved" it definitely will allow for endless executions we are all very excited about it. It will also give any places that we hire out to an opportunity to add to the channel in a way that’s hard when the logo is just the logo. over time it will prove to be an interesting identity.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:17 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

if you can't tell what it means it doesn't work

Often, logo meanings lie more in emotional attributes - bright, active, trusty - than in pure concrete terms - a rock, a horse, etc. A logo is partly what you make of it, so what looks bad by itself may indeed be part of a greater whole that explains and gives it the necessary meaning. I have no idea what IBM's logo means (don't tell me CRT lines, because there's no relevance in that to today's market), but it definitely works, and that is in no small part to its consistent and clear use over 40+ years as part of a greater identity system.

To judge a mark out of the gate is the hardest thing to do, simply because you have no context for it and no sense of what kind of legs it can build. Hate the craft or hate the color, if you will. Meanings come through time and use and through any existing equities carried through - e.g. "VH1".

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:19 PM


nancy mazzei’s comment is:

tan,

did anyone say vh1 was the only channel that has this option?

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:20 PM


Tan’s comment is:

No, Nancy. I wasn't contesting any claim to exclusivity/originality.

I just wanted to point out what i thought was ironic -- after all, both channels are siblings.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:23 PM


Patrick’s comment is:

>But let's not forget that the first logo to adopt this "change" theory was....drum roll....Viacom's own MTV.

Let's not forget one of my favorites, Nickelodeon's identity, another Viacom property. They constantly change the outer orange shape, keeping the k/o type the same. It's a great balance of consistency and always having a fresh logo.

I've always been intriguied by the idea of a morphing identity (and not just flexible, as all IDs should be). Maybe a company like VH1 could get an entirely new logo every year to match whatever trends are going on in pop culture? Or every month? Or for every commercial? Can anyone think of anyone who has taken this approach, other than a cable station? It seems that it would take a strong brand with established equity to really pull it off.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:26 PM


debbie millman’s comment is:

>if you can't tell what it means it doesn't work

I agree. Here is a test I like to put logos through to see how effective they are. Take the letterforms out, or away. If the logo has been around for a long time, can you still identify the mark? Do you know who the company is? What it does?

If it is a new logo, for a new company or a reinvigoration of an old logo, how does it represent the company? Does it reflect the values of the company? Is it a single-minded representation of what the company stands for?

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:29 PM


damien’s comment is:

I don't wish to simply repeat Jonsel's comment - but I think its great if you can extract meaning out of a logo but all to often its not possible or simply hasn't been done. I've never been fully aware of the meaning behind NBC's logo or ABC's. And to many Apple's logo isn't really that obvious.

As you said Armin, 'one reason' implying there were more, I think that as Jonsel summed it up - meaning is often built through time and experience.

Whether it works 'well' or not is different - and in this case the VH1 mark might not but its not totally because it doesn't have a self-explanatory meaning attached to it.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:38 PM


Tom’s comment is:

Can anyone think of anyone who has taken this approach, other than a cable station?

Burton and K2 snowboards took this approach very successfully during the 90's, not sure if they still are.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:39 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

the meaning behind NBC's logo

The peacock was meant to symbolize the network's use of color on television. Obviously it doesn't have that relevance today. When Chermayeff&Geismar refreshed it in the 80s (?), they ascribed each color feather to a separate division - news, entertainment, etc. That sounds simplistic when you think of the nature of television and media companies today, but I guess it was logical to do then.

On Sep.03.2003 at 04:43 PM


jonsel’s comment is:

Burton and K2 snowboards

Many counterculture brands get away with this really well. Art Chantry did seve