Speak Up is run with Six Apart’s 
We all knew it was coming. It was just a matter of when and how — more specifically: how bad. A lengthy history on what led us to this point can be read in, the now three-times-linked, Michael B.'s The Final Days of AT&T. So let's skip right ahead to the result and the reasons behind it:
Although not credited in any press release, word on the street is that Interbrand was responsible for creating the new identity. If new information arises we will update this point.
Frankly, there is a lot to be written about this redesign, but I would rather make this post as simple and objective as possible so that the best is left for the comments.
A few bits from the official press release:
— "The revitalized mark symbolizes these attributes — innovation, integrity, quality, reliability and unsurpassed customer care"
— The new logo reinvigorates the AT&T globe — one of the most recognized corporate symbols in the world. The new globe is three-dimensional, representing the expanding breadth and depth of services that the new AT&T family of companies provides to customers, as well as its global presence.
— Transparency was added to the globe to represent clarity and vision.
— Lowercase type is now used for the "AT&T" characters because it projects a more welcoming and accessible image.
You can access more information on AT&T's — sorry, at&t's — Brand Center, including an evolutionary chart of the logo [PDF], ads and a variety of logo formats for your inspection.
Many thanks to — who else? — DesignMaven for the early notification of this launch.
During this discussion, please feel free (obligated?) to expand on any "I like it/I don't like it" comments you might have on the logo — we can only get so far with those comments.
[Title of this post is the second in what is now a series of Bye-byes to important identities of our time. Hopefully we'll see little of these — Ed.]
Jump to Most Recent Comment
JT III’s comment is:
Carefully-craftedness is out, blobbyness is in.
On Nov.21.2005 at 09:46 AM
Gary Fogelson’s comment is:
That's the worst possible thing that could ever happen to that logo.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:02 AM
Daniel Green’s comment is:
I find it interesting that the new mark tries to retain equity of the Saul Bass globe by using modulated lines to define light and dark.
However, in the new design, the modulated lines suggest a foreground shadow, instead of a foreground highlight. Is AT&T showing us their backside?
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:07 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Rare Guest Appearance:
I'm Going to Allow the Original Illustrator of the Identity Jerry The King Kuyper to Comment. I've been up all night waiting for the Launch. Sent out all my Communications.
I'll SLEEP ON IT!!!!!!!!
JonSel and Felix I expect you to Comment.
I'm Going Back To Bed.
DM
P.S. Arm I absolutely LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:13 AM
Michael Holdren’s comment is:
I'm repulsed by it, and yet strangely at the same time attracted to it. Much like an obese woman in a bikini.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:20 AM
Coudal’s comment is:
Yikes. A 3-D ball. That's 'clarity and vision' all right.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:20 AM
Nathan Philpot’s comment is:
I like the logotype, but the globe, it reminds me of what happend to the UPS logo. If I had to say something good about it . . . it's cool.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:22 AM
Theo’s comment is:
The first thing it reminds me of is a gumball, or a jawbreaker.
It also, randomly enough, made me think of a frozen zebra.
This is one of those cases where a clean break would probably have been preferable to trying to modify an existing logo.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:30 AM
Rob Weychert’s comment is:
This battlestation is fully operational.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:31 AM
Armin’s comment is:
One-liners are good and funny, but c'mon, a little more? I will add my comments as soon as I get a moment.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:33 AM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Seems to me to be a half hearted attempt to retain the integrity of the original yet still appear "fresh." Make it 3d! Wow. treading new ground there.
uggh. double uggh.
I'm interested to see what this would look like as a one color version.
Seems like interbrand (or whoever did this) completely dropped the ball on this. They had the opportunity to really come up with something spectacular, somethinig truly symbolic of the nature of the new entity and they SBC'd it up. shame.
And whats with the pregnant a in the wordmark?
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:38 AM
Rob Weychert’s comment is:
I think was repulses me most about this new logo is the tonal overstatement of the sphere. The original's flat color implied dimension but didn't feel the need to oversell it. It was a bold, distinctive mark. This is an illustration of a marble from a community college Adobe Illustrator class.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:38 AM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Rob-
Funny you mentioned the marble thing. I am doing work for the American Toy Marble museum and one of my comps looked exactly like that.
The mark is horribly rendered, the thins and thicks used to simulate the flat lines in the original just look odd in a sculpted mark like this.
I think the thinking was we make it look close enough to the original and just 3d it we wont have to spend as much to relaunch the identity since there is still a smidge of the original apparent.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:47 AM
Scott Stowell’s comment is:
Wow.
This is a very odd solution (notable for its lack of vision or quality in almost every respect) that reminds me of how real-estate developers often name their projects after what they destroyed to build them.
So a peaceful meadow is replaced by "Peaceful Meadow Industrial Park," etc. The intent is to celebrate history. The result is just enough to cause a painful wince of recognition, but nothing more.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:50 AM
Doug Bartow’s comment is:
Seems like interbrand (or whoever did this) completely dropped the ball on this
It's unfair to blame the creative team's lack of vision for this solution w/o knowing MUCH more about the job and the details behind the path to the final mark. Sometimes designers don't has as much influence over the final selected direction as we would like. ie: It's rare that a large public corporation has the courage to accept the new BP logo as their new mark...
Also, I'm a firm believer that if you can't come up with a one-liner about any corporate mark, then it's probably not a very strong solution. Why? Because the semantics/semiotics used in the most successful marks is loosely based in the (changing) cultural fabric in which we all live. If the mark evokes nothing from you, then it's destined for anonymity. So, sorry Armin, but I say bring on the one-liners. They are more entertaining (and much easier to read) than some of the recent bickering posted hereabouts.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:53 AM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:
I think its pretty fresh. I like it.
The b/w application falls short of the colored, 3D version but all in all it retains it's integrity. Yes, the armchair design barkers here on Speak Up will assail it but whats new and original about that? Be sure of one thing: this is not akin to Hitlerization of UPS. Look for the new ad campaign to reveal itself on the 24th.
btw- Armin, though not mentioned in any official AT&T press release, the design firm was named in this morning's edition of the The New York Times
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:57 AM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Doug-
I say that whoever did this failed because as a mark it holds absolutely nothing. I would place more blame on the marketing people and managment of the new entity but ultimately the marks designers take the credit or the criticism.
You are correct though that many of the things that we do get watered down to a point where it isnt ours anymore but that doesnt remove us from culpability in the matter. It is part of our job to convince clients that a particular direction is better than another and if we cant sell it then thats our fault.
And speaking of cultural fabric represented in the marks of our times then this most certainly was done in 2001 when the modeled 3d approach was de rigeur.
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:03 AM
Chris Johanesen’s comment is:
Formally, the new logo is a mess. The modulated lines in the original created an illusion of a highlight and three-dimentionality. What purpose are they serving on the 3d-shaded logo? They only look like weirdly misshapen lines. And the lines that show through from that back aren't in the right perspective, making the sphere look flat-bottomed.
I'm not completely against 3d logos, and perhaps the idea of 3d-ifying the original Bass logo could have been executed well, but it hasn't been here. It just looks too complicated, and gets quite muddled at smaller sizes.
It looks like a mummy's head to me.
And I agree that the "a" looks weirdly deformed.
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:08 AM
Jason Santa Maria’s comment is:
The globe bugs me for the same reasons Rob mentions above, but something else that just makes me wince is that haphazard typography. Rather than seeming open and approachable, they seem juvenile and trendy. The type looks like it will feel dated in just a few years. That ampersand just doesn't sit well in there, masquerading as a normal letter. The whole thing just feel very shortsighted (which is only further supported by the generalized adjectives from the press release).
Do we really need to proclaim something "Hitlerized"? Awful as it may be, no one was killed in the process of changing the UPS logo :D
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:09 AM
Joseph’s comment is:
Okay, I'm not even going to touch on the mark because I can't even begin to try to wrap my mind around that one. As a complete logo it's completely not cohesive. The logotype looks like it crawled over from the reminents of the afflak brand and lost weight along the way. I think I've seen this type so many times over it's making me sick. Oi vey!
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:13 AM
itzovela’s comment is:
The credit is posted in Interbrand's website. I keep on thinking of how many iterations the mark must have gone through, only to be left with this, that I guess is slightly disappointing. But I heard comments (non-designers) about how fresh and active it is, and that it feels more welcoming ("it looks rather squishy"...!!).
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:13 AM
Chris Johanesen’s comment is:
From the NYTimes piece:
"The new globe has an airy feel, and it will be able to spin slowly when posted on Web sites."
Yeah, that's a major selling point for a logo!
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:16 AM
JT III’s comment is:
Armin-
Sorry about the one liner, pal. Here's a more in depth examination:
I tend to agree with many of the posters that the lines surrounding the globe feel slightly awkward as though the transition between thick & thin isn't entirely resolved. It also feels as though the see-through blue area and the white lines don't have enough contrast so both are fighting for hiearchy. Over all, this logo feels like a good start rather than a carefully polished finish.
Felix-
A strong supporting visual system / campaign may improve the logo's presence a bit so I still hold out hope.
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:21 AM
ps’s comment is:
i think sticking with the globe was not a bad move. it shows us that they recognized the tremendous equity they built in their "old" mark. so that leaves them with updating the existing mark. unfortunately, that falls short: while i like the reduction of strokes, they are trying to do too much with them and it turn the strokes seem arbitrary and the globe turns flat. not even the shadow helps. i would not be surprised to see minor tweaks to happen on this mark fairly soon as they move forward. as far as the type is concerned. i like the all lowercase, but think the "&" has too much weight and the "a" is falling off.
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:27 AM
Martin Bentley Krebs’s comment is:
Hmmm . . . where have I seen this globe before? Oh yeah, on my grandmother's Christmas tree forty years ago . . .
Was this project given to a first-week intern at 4:00 on a Friday? I didn't think anyone actually used Kai's Power Tools anymore . . .
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:35 AM
JT III’s comment is:
I would also like to add that the 2D version of the logo which is found in the upper left corner of the evolution fact sheet isn't all that bad. Contrast is better and it links to the type.
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:35 AM
Mr. Mojo’s comment is:
Not a good choice. I'm against them retaining the AT&T name, and essentially, the logo.
When Bell Atlantic and GTE merged, they created a brand new name and logo with Verizon, so that what they do as a company going forward is Verizon's new history.
Despite its recognition worldwide, AT&T evokes images to some of the old way of doing business. Just because a name is recognizable doesn't mean that fact should drive the decision?
For example, people recognize the Chicago Cubs and their logo worldwide, but the Cubs haven't won a title in years and are thought of as perennial losers. So I don't think AT&T should have stuck with their recognizable name and logo just for recognition's sake, when their recent history was been a struggling one?
Just my two cents.
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:40 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> Look for the new ad campaign to reveal itself on the 24th.
A few, I guess, of the ads are here, I meant to post this in the entry.
> A strong supporting visual system / campaign may improve the logo's presence a bit so I still hold out hope.
From the look of it, the campaign does nothing for the logo. All ads, except "Ad 1" are the logo on a gray background with some sans serif type that is neither here nor there as it relates to the at&t logotype. "Ad 1" [PDF], however has some more transparency effects which, again, do absolutely nothing to reinforce or invigorate the logo. It's funny that only the logo's "front" is transparent; I mean, if the logo were really transparent wouldn't you be able to see the photo behind it? Of course not, because that would be a weird treatment for the logo. But if the premise is transparency, stick with it and make it work.
There is something unfortunately captivating about the forms created by the logo, which deforms the original globe logos to a fault. It feels really odd and looks as if it were a water balloon version of the logo.
Unlike the work that that Interbrand did — and the strategic decision it reflects — for Sprint (scroll down) I am very surprised that there is no hint of SBC anywhere. Not that SBC had any sort of strong recognition and I guess I just answered myself but, other than blue, I think there might have been something of SBC that could have been carried over.
The typography is another unfortunate. It is not very rhythmic and the "a" is strangely-shaped.
JT also mentioned the flat logo in the PDF, here it is:
Feels awfully awkward without the transparency, doesn't it?
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:50 AM
JT III’s comment is:
Armin-
Oh my. It does look rather awkward in 2D black & white, doesn't it? Am I crazy or does it somehow look slightly better in smaller 2D white & blue? Crazy is a perfectly acceptly answer although I think when it's smaller, the wobblyness of the lines isn't as apparent.
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:00 PM
Valon’s comment is:
I'm not going to even try and explain how bad this logo makes me feel, but I'm going to point out the technical part of it; more specifically the Illustrator (?!) rendition of the logo, especially in this part...(see the highlighted part below):
I'm not sure how the designer did this logo, but is it me or those lines are not matching with the lines in the back...especially the bottom part behind (transparency). They didn't really need to be literal with transparency to suggest the actual Transparency.
The lines brake so abruptly that they suggest no natural flow [of the lines] of any kind. I am a freak with details and that's why it bothers me.
Also, the typography (?!)
All I see is t&t and then letter a on the left. I think I see t&t because in some wierd way sounds like TNT (?!). The ampersand should have been a smaller type-size with the same weight to suggest and separate at from t.
Meaning of the logo(?!)...I'm going to let others say some more...ugh.
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:02 PM
.sara’s comment is:
I don't even want to pretend to imagine what it must be like trying to "freshen up" a brand like AT&T. As an observer, consumer, etc., though, I'm not wowed by it. Not really.
The desire to revive the strength of the old brand is easy to understand, but overall this update feels weaker. Having succumbed to the peer pressure of 3D logos (UPS) and transparency and these lowercase letters the strength they were looking to recapture seems to have bounced away.
An item of note; from an article @ USA Today:
---
The overhaul is aimed at freshening up the brand, Whitacre says. He says the pint-sized letters, reminiscent of alphabet soup, were a tough sell internally.
"We agonized over the letters," says Whitacre, who made the final call on the name and the logo.
He says marketing people finally convinced him that the new look was more evocative of the Internet generation: "They tell me it's more trendy and modern."
---
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:14 PM
Andrew Twigg’s comment is:
I'm not opposed to a logo being refreshed, even if it was created by one Saul Bass. One of the things I like about design (whether it be architecture, product design, graphic design, etc) is that it marks a time in history when certain things were happening, certain things were possible, and certain things were driving culture. A new mark, in this case, is a new marker.
However, this does seem messy to me. And I don't mean "casual" or "accessible" or "friendly".... meaning it doesn't seem like something designed to make ATT feel less like a telecom juggernaut. It just seems sloppy. Valon, I don't necessarily agree with the way you critique the area you've identified, but I agree with you that it's not working. It seems cheap and plastic, more in the vein of the Cingular mark than the old AT&T mark.
I think my major beef with the mark is that there's this shifting foreground/background thing happening. I'm also not into the type, like many of you. I don't think the mark is interesting or engaging (especially when you compare the color version to the black and white line art version). It just seems like it's incomplete.
*sigh*
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:16 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
I haven't Gone to Bed and probably will not.
How the Hell can I with so much going on.
I will comment tonight.
Felix:
The Trade off of Modifying the Globe Sphere and keeping it's integrity is only exacerbated by the Death of Cingular's Avatar Man. Which I know you loved!!!!!!
I'm Pleased with the Trade Off. I hated the Cingular Avatar Man. No Disrepect to VSA Partners. I only liked the Avatar Man because Arm made a statement about how Very Bad or Ugly Logos were enhanced by Animation. He was absolutely Correct. Arm made me sit up and take notice of the Avatar Man. Via Animation he was something to Behold. As an Identity it left little to be Desired.
Cingular is Dead. No More Freaking Orange Stores.
Lick your Chops or Mourn the Death of the Cingular Avatar Here.
http://www.sbc.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=21906
DM
P.S. Felix thanks for the link to N.Y. Times.
My sources are Bullet Proof!!!!!
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:19 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Apparently Ed, you didnt agonize enough.
I also think that this mark falls under the category of trying to do something too quick without doing the due diligence and making sure its right rather than right now.
That "marketing people" are making the call on such a important company mark just gives me shivers.
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:23 PM
Katie’s comment is:
It looks like an orange peel when you're actually able to get it off in one coil (an inane but satisfying feat); the spaces between the bands are too large, which undermines the unity, the bands themselves are inconsistent; its lost its superiority through the loss of Bass' detail that created a simultaneous solid fusion--now its fallen into the cauldron of all other marks coming out these days.
bummer.
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:26 PM
Andrew Twigg’s comment is:
That "marketing people" are making the call on such a important company mark just gives me shivers.
There are good marketing people working out there. I've met many and had the privilege of working with some too!
Even if "bad" marketing people are involved, fault lies at least partly with the designers.
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:40 PM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:
I'll admit it. I kind of like the globe. I like the interior, but the white outside with gradation bothers me. It does feel squishy and refreshing for a corporate identity, but im not sure squishy is ever a good attribute for a corporation.
the type treatment annoys to me, but I cant say what it is that gets me. it feels unfinished. like its trying to be humanist and geometric at the same time and instead its neither. It looks like a mix of Avenir and Frutiger.
The whole thing is rather technically flawed—from the odd curves in the globe to the odd choice of type. I hope its fixed in what im sure will be many updates in the next couple years.
The whole thing kind of feels like it was designed by a dutch firm (particularly Studio Dumbar style from a few years ago), where they are trying to be cute and fun and less corporate. I wish them luck in pulling that off when it comes to consumers.
On Nov.21.2005 at 12:44 PM
Nate Voss’s comment is:
Glad to see at least one comment on Avatar vs. Identity Mark. I have to reserve judgment until I get a change to see it in motion. In print I'd stick with black and white or one color and step away.
The thing is, this is very "new school" as an identity. I can only assume it will be more avatar than mark, meant to be seen in motion on TV and the web. But to encapsulate a previous comment, shouldn't a new school identity mark function equally as well as an avatar and as a mark? And if it succeeds at one yet fails at another, I think that means its not as good as it could be.
On Nov.21.2005 at 01:00 PM
doug’s comment is:
Ouch. Looks like some big corporate execs got snookered by some slick "brand marketers". I've seen it a hundred times. You leave the window open and let the brand fairy in, next thing you know your daughter's knocked up and the cash is missing from your dresser.
To be a fly on the wall at the presentation. The orb is cool and 3-d, but it is ambiguously rendered. Why bother with the lines at all since they were originally used to infer 3-dimentionality. With the 3-d rendering, they're extraneous.
The type is the least bad part of the mark, but it still shows laziness and clumsiness. By shrinking the ampersand and not considering its impact on the other letters, it becomes overly busy in relation, when, in fact, it's the least important character. Maybe a simplifying of shape or a lighter weight would afford the appropriate mitigating influence.
Overall, another disappointment from the overwrought branding factories.
On Nov.21.2005 at 01:23 PM
Theo’s comment is:
Another problem I'm having is that the "at&t", in lower case, reads more like a bit of code accidentally displayed. but perhaps that's deliberate.
On Nov.21.2005 at 01:43 PM
tom’s comment is:
i think that this a very interesting topic......as designers, we tend to rise against "renovations" of our hero's (Saul Bass or Paul Rand) original design almost immediately.
some are very deserving of the scrutinity...the UPS logo is a perfect example.
But, don't we react to nearly everything that is new? look at new cars. when the new VW Jetta came out, it was vasly different that the previous model. true VW fans scoffed at its "trying to be something it ain't" stylings. now that the car has been out over a year, look how many you see on the road. they are everywhere. the criticizm seems to packed it bags for another journey.
the original shock has worn off and it has integrated itself into everyday culture. no one notices anymore.
now, will this happen to the at&t logo? probably.
do we have to like it? not really.
__
and now....the rest of the story...
my take ont he logo is very much like everyone else's. the new globe illustration is a bit clunky. if they were designing it to be in motion then they were off to a bad start. the type is careless almost like an after thought.
however, over all it is not the worst thing i have ever seen. i think there are other revamped logos that are worse (quark). let's just hope that this one is the worst that it gets for a while.
---just my $.02
On Nov.21.2005 at 01:52 PM
Miriam’s comment is:
The "a" looks like it has had too much to drink, and knows it, and is trying to stand straight and not act drunk... but everyone can still tell.
Horribly toyish. Ah! Now I know why the globe looks familiar - the bouncing ball bombs from that old Avengers episode. Yeah, I know it's a stretch.
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:02 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
“The revitalized mark symbolizes these attributes — innovation, integrity, quality, reliability and unsurpassed customer care”
The euphemistic, buzzword-laden hype is absolutely disgusting, and, as far as I can tell, has almost no relevance to the actual mark. It's like making a logo of a spitting cobra fellating a vacuum cleaner, and calling it a "hallmark of synergistic cooperation and a testament to the pursuit of unparalleled personal service."
Ugh.
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:34 PM
carlos’s comment is:
I think the overall wobbliness and squishy feel, while not something I like much, was done with the purpose of appearing more friendly (like the lower case typography).
It's saying "hey, look, we're not this big stiff all powerful corporate monster. We're your new cute, squishy soft, fluffy friendly phone company" it also says "we're young, and trendy and know how to use the internet"
I think the sloppiness, was in part done on purpose.
However, most people are and have been familiar with at&t over the years. It's not like they're going to change their perceptions just because the new logo is wobbly. People aren't THAT dumb. It's like an old man wearing baggy pants and his baseball cap side ways. They're not fooling anyone. But that's not Interbrand's fault. We all know how many times, a client is stubborn as all hell and even though you offer a better solution, they always have the last word.
The logo doesn't bother me all that much in some ways. However, making something "trendy" instead of doing a solid update seems like the easy way out. The biggest problem I see, is that this logo is going to be very dated, and will look old in a couple years, and then it will need another facelift.
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:34 PM
Michelle’s comment is:
There doesn't seem to be a relationship between the type and the image. The globe appears to be akwardly spinning leftwards while the type moves rightwards-creating an odd juxtaposition.
They almost feel like two seperate logos side by side. The type is also difficult to read suggesting atat rather than at&t. using lowercase type isn't the only way to convey "friendliness" -There are plenty of beautiful typefaces that look friendly in uppercase-and in this case it seems to say we're less credible.
another one bites the dust.
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:38 PM
stuck in type class’s comment is:
...the a is now rather far from Avenir and closing in on Trebuchet; its lower bowl is rather like a sumo wrestler's, the lower return stroke on the bowl back into the stem is too strong
...the counters in & are far more angular than elsewhere, the curves tighter and more circular and in no way related to the a or t; compare the almost radiused (think rounded corners on picture boxes) ending curves on the bottom of the t's with the near circular loop at the top of the ampersand, the horizontal bar of the t's overdominate, need I go on?
The whole thing is really a rough digital sketch, all the forms need redrawing for balance and color...Did anyone look at the negative spaces in this thing? Where was a discerning eye or even the brief to get someone to make it look as good as possible?!
...and next time, before similar ignorance gets passed off as finished work, will a type designer will get called?!
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:47 PM
ChrisL’s comment is:
Ahhh, the smell of marketing dribble "3d means..." Lower case means..."etc.
Graphic Design and symbol design is now officially reduced to PhotoShop cute tricks. Design is dead. Long live Marketing.
Chris
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:50 PM
David E.’s comment is:
Several people have said it already, but the old logo was ALREADY 3-dimensional. That's what the lines were for. They were an abstraction of 3-dimensionality. Now the lines have become a weird pattern that wraps around a sphere. They have no visual meaning any longer. Not only that, but to take those lines and actually wrap them around a sphere creates a really awkward, inelegant design.
As far as the "transparency" effect, ITS BACKWARDS. On the front, the blue stripes are at their narrowest point on the right side of the icon. Then they supposedly continue on the back, starting at their WIDEST point.
This is much worse than than the UPS redesign, which was merely bland. This is one of the worst logos I've ever seen in my life. I can't imagine how trained designers could have ever come up with it, no matter how much input the client had.
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:51 PM
Gary Fogelson’s comment is:
On the bright side, it's still better than the Verizon logo.
Or is it?
On Nov.21.2005 at 02:59 PM
vibranium’s comment is:
I do not hate it. Still soaking it in.
I agree with Scott, when it comes to development, but not this logo.
I agree with Felix in temrs of the bandwagon hopping.
(I wrote the last two sentences, oh, and this one, to avoid a 'one liner')
On Nov.21.2005 at 03:04 PM
David E.’s comment is:
Gary, No. It isn't.
On Nov.21.2005 at 03:11 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
"and I shall call him squishy, and he will be mine" (Finding Nemo.)
Toys are squishy, Koala Bears are squishy, my gut is getting squishy, marks for large "corporate monsters" are not supposed to be squishy.
I've always thought that the animations of the AT&T globe were quite impressive in their more recent commercials, and the old mark lead to a wide variety of things that could be accomplished in that medium. This particular mark locks itself into "spinning" (one direction no less!) as about the only thing that it can do motion wise. So it really does fail in that respect as well.
On Nov.21.2005 at 03:19 PM
Michael Surtees’s comment is:
I'm surprised they kept the "&", why not just go att?
Over at Engadget there's some interesting perspectives on the roll out, mostly from non designers. Here's one post that I thought was interesting: As an employee of a call center that was AT&T Wireless before the merger with Cingular, I have to ask if anyone has a baseball bat handy.
After the twentieth call from John Q. Public about why he's being billed by AT&T Wireless again, I'm probably going to bash my own brains in.
On Nov.21.2005 at 03:27 PM
Zoelle’s comment is:
As far as spinning spiral logos go, I think that this one is well executed:
It feels more like red dot and at&t merged to me. I don't hate the new at&t logo, but I can't stop thinking that it looks as though it has suffered heat damage on the left side.
On Nov.21.2005 at 03:42 PM
Craig Kroeger’s comment is:
Lowest common denominator. But we all should be used to this by now.
To sum it up - "They tell me it's more trendy and modern."
Way to lead, Ed Whitacre. I tell you it's trite and meaningless.
Thank you all for sharing my pain.
On Nov.21.2005 at 03:44 PM
pk’s comment is:
odes anyone actually know why so many companies are trying to look harmless and fluffy? i mean, obviously, yes, it makes sense to be cute because it's disarming.
but is there some document that hit a multiple marketing folks' desks simultaneously that says "cute is good" in such a convincing way that they all bought it simultaneously?
i'm asking this because the cutefication began fairly recently, and it seems fairly consistent in tone: cingular, GE, kinko's, that sort of thing.
my suspicion is that the reasoning may lead back to altria. that mark, while beautiful, was unbelievably transparent in its motives for hiding behind beauty. did the much-publicized backlash lead someone to this sort of thing?
On Nov.21.2005 at 04:02 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
fatknuckle’s
Your off the Heezee for Shezee!!!!!
pk
did the much-publicized backlash lead someone to this sort of thing?
You know it did. And Design Observer was THE FOCUS GROUP.
r agrayspace
Don't Chicken out know. You're comments are WELCOMED NOW, MORE THAN EVER!!!!!!!!
DM
P.S. pk Get SU in on this!!!!!
On Nov.21.2005 at 04:17 PM
ToddG’s comment is:
does anyone actually know why so many companies are trying to look harmless and fluffy?
My guess -- to weaken/soften the impression of technology as harsh, cold and complicated. See Apple. Especially as the phones and services are getting vastly more complicated and diverse. They've also seen Apple be able to charge much more based on design and marketing. Motorola is picking up this tack as well.
And I think they're very strongly targeting 25-and-under markets, who likely have near-zero recall or familiarity with the Bass version of the logo and none of the freakout exhibited here by us design geeks. On that note the type and overall feel in this new version reminds me of the 3Com logotype/mark that was redone a few(?) years ago (which also intro'd a 3-dimensional mark).
On Nov.21.2005 at 04:20 PM
JM’s comment is:
I do not dislike all dimensional or 3D-ish logos. The original AT&T icon was dimensional in its own way, globe/sphere rendered via bands of varying width. This new icon mixes "metaphors" or rendering styles, keeping the bands and adding a new style, shading and transparency, to render the sphere. Now the bands appear to be a pattern on the sphere, rather than an abstract way of representing the sphere. Yuck.
On Nov.21.2005 at 04:25 PM
Andre SC’s comment is:
Actually I seem to remember a spherical toilet air freshener that looked almost exactly like this.
On Nov.21.2005 at 04:27 PM
Craig C.’s comment is:
This globe could only exist in R'lyeh. It's creepy and unnatural. As Chris Johanesen said above, the perspective is all wonky... the rings curving across the front of the sphere don't match the curvature of the back (as visible through the jelly center). The front side is viewed from just slightly above the equator, but the back is viewed from near the north pole. That's simply not possible if it were truly spherical, so either we're looking at a misshapen mass or a non-Euclidean nightmare.
Then the thin/thick lines that so nicely suggested dimension in the old flat version now don't jive with the lighting effects on the surface of the new 3D version, as if there are two light sources that don't combine at all. Again, not possible in the real universe.
Because we're all familiar with 3D objects in the real world, we have a sort of natural sense of how objects should be shaped, and when something violates that logic we'll tend to have a negative gut reaction. It's disturbing and weird even if you can't quite put your finger on it.
On Nov.21.2005 at 04:44 PM
mandy’s comment is:
Why is it that these corporate rebrandings inspire so much attention here? Is this the blog equivalent of slowing down on the highway so you can get a good look at the wreckage from a collision?
On Nov.21.2005 at 04:54 PM
Stefan’s comment is:
I think the mark is a formal disaster. Of course, I'm upset by the fact they bastardized a (argueably) classic logo by a classic designer. But that's not really the point - the general public doesn't care if it's Bass or Rand or Interbrand who makes the mark.
What really bothers me about this new mark is the language that is being used to sell it. All of the sentences in Armin's post that include the words "represent" "symbolize" etc - They are all empty, meaningless BS - that do a huge disservice to the profession of design.
"Transparency was added to the globe to represent clarity and vision." - This is snake-oil salesmanship at its worst, and it will only re-inforce the perception that designers are charlatans and hucksters who make things that are pretty but devoid of meaning or purpose.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:04 PM
Sam Sherwood’s comment is:
It should be noted that Cingular isn't going anywhere, contrary to the hullabaloo. A new version of at&t wireless is just sprouting.
Note the lack of uppercase... the name almost disappears on its own.
I seem to recall someone spending a lot of time perfecting the ampersand in the past mark. Is my mind playing tricks on me? Maybe that was M&Ms. Eh, I must be all shook up by the logo terrorism of today.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:07 PM
Mr.Frankie L’s comment is:
Viewing this new logo, I think I can see
what they were trying to do, but simply put,
the execution fell short..
The type isn't that bad, isn't it more to
do with how it is placed within context of
the logo?
Interestingly enough, is it really true that
non-designers find the logo engaging?
Being the devil's advocate, if the target
audience likes it, should us designers huff
and puff so much? -- our world is as mysterious
as Alantis to most.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:14 PM
Rob’s comment is:
I really have waited all day to say a word. Because I knew my first reaction would be laced with that "maybe I could have done a better job and certainly would have enjoyed the big paycheck" kind of feeling. So, to critique it fairly, or unfairly, I wanted to give it some amount of time and consideration.
I think the logo has possibilities that were left unexplored. Or at worst, were just denied. I agree with Tony Spaeth's statement that the colors are a weakness and not a strength. Had the logo used a less "lighter is more" approach it might have garnered the visual strength it was reaching for and missed. Stare at it long enough and it almost becomes infantile, as in the top of a baby's rattle. The swirl, the colors just don't seem to bring across the feeling of strength, commitment, etc.
The Bass 'Death Star' was criticized by the AT&T's Sr. VP for HR & Communications, in today's NY TImes article, as being 'to 80's.' The question I submit, is how long will this stylized version last before it becomes too "early 2000's?'
I'm really still torn about the typography and the tag line. I usually enjoy the use of lower case but here, it just doesn't seem to work with the logo. And again, quoting the AT&T executive, "open and approachable' are not words I normally associate with a sans serif type face. But then again, that's just me.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:20 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
TODD G.
does anyone actually know why so many companies are trying to look harmless and fluffy?
THINK WAL*MART and all the Corporate Unfriendliness and Anti-Union stuff that has recently come out...
WAL*MART is the Target now. No pun intended.
Next, will it will be TARGET...???
DM
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:24 PM
aubrey island’s comment is:
I think it would have been better to just lowercase the at&t, make it that nice blue, and just leave it at that - get rid of the globe; if you wanted to change it. But, if it 'aint broke, don't fix it, that's what I say. The flat image looks horrible, the globe itself is strangly appealing, but goes nowhere with the lowercase typeface. Good idea, but bad for a logo.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:28 PM
Valon’s comment is:
...I don't necessarily agree with the way you critique the area you've identified, but I agree with you that it's not working. It seems cheap and plastic, more in the vein of the Cingular mark than the old AT&T mark.
Commenting on this:
I'm not sure how the designer did this logo, but is it me or those lines are not matching with the lines in the back...especially the bottom part behind (transparency). - Valon.
Andrew, your way of describing it as cheap and plastic it's more or less what I wanted to say - I guess I tried to be too technical in my explanation.
I still have a problem with those lines though...It seems to me more of a comp than a finished piece. Not sure how to express myself here, but don't they seem disproportionate to the negative space (white or blue) (?!)
I'm sure "they" tried to achieve some sort of balance in illustrating the logo, however the thin white lines with the 'see-through' background of the logo...; they totally kill the purpose.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:35 PM
Julik’s comment is:
I see no "identity" here. I see that some poor guy was sitting behind his Mac surrounded by 78 managers of all the corporate Dilbertian hells you can think of, whispering into his ear how the Great Corporate Vision has to be embodied in one little comp the poor guy was forced to do. All of these "...3-D means..." and other "...xyz means..." tell one thing - politics prevailed, therefore it looks awful. As in "designed by the bosses" awful.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:46 PM
Josh’s comment is:
Well im off to make the first installment of "Why Would You Want To Be A Graphic Designer". Those marketing people that sold hotdogs outside the bar during college have all the angles covered.
Im done.
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:56 PM
vibranium’s comment is:
Armin, the white is opaque, the blue is translucent, and thats consistant all around. Transparent and solid. Metaphysical!
I'm sorry, other than sympathy for old versus new...the detractors seem grasping for something wrong to find. And at that it's all very subjective, which is fine for venting, but not app for debate.
The type is awful, but mostly in it's lack of 'nesting' with the mark. In that sense it seems like 2 diff. logos. $.02
On Nov.21.2005 at 05:59 PM
g’s comment is:
Is it me or it does look like it's going backwards?
I mean, looking at the black & white version, the left part looks stronger.
On Nov.21.2005 at 06:05 PM
Tom B’s comment is:
Hang on, I've seen that before.
James Reeves’s comment is:
Initially, I hated this thing. But this is always my knee-jerk reaction when icons are updated, so I tried hard to find something to like about it. No luck. The typography is thoughtless. At first glance I thought my computer was missing the correct font & some kind of default setting took over. As for the ball, it seems like an exercise in rendering rather than delivering a memorable mark.
This is going to be inflicted on all of us. How does one protest a bad logo? Have any major logos been quickly retracted due to public outcry (or, more realistically, graphic designer outcry)?
On Nov.21.2005 at 06:56 PM
chris dixon’s comment is:
Pretty sad, really. It does reek of marketers/management hovering over the poor Mac monkey, emailing lo-res gifs of some “cool logo that I saw when I was surfing the net last night”, spouting maningless buzzwords like “innovative” and “benevolent”.
Do we sometimes feel powerless, as designers, to stand up to our clients and demand that they let us do what they are paying us to do stay out of the creative process? Oh, wait. My boss would fire me if I said that to a client. Now if I were running my own studio...
On Nov.21.2005 at 06:59 PM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:
Chris,
If your boss is still Luke Hayman (New York Magazine's briliant Creative Director) I doubt you're feeling like the stifled carmudgeon you may make yourself out to be. Now, if you were on my side of the tracks you'd be asking the people in accts payable why it took 3 months to get paid $300 for a spot illustration....
or a person decides to call Riccardo Vecchio and ask for a painting for $200. I hope that this art director doesnt hover like a mac monkey and reference buzzwords. That'd be deplorable!
On Nov.21.2005 at 07:15 PM
chris dixon’s comment is:
Funny. Reading the press release on the website. The CEO keeps referring to AT&T, even when describing how AT&T is now represented in lower case. How do they expect their customers to fall for the friendly lower-case-ism when the CEO won’t tow is own line. Doublespeak.
On Nov.21.2005 at 07:21 PM
ruben’s comment is:
This is definately a gamble in brand management. I can't say whether it will suceeed or fail. But I think most of us agree that the current design exceedingly awkward.
The overarching goal of the brand repositioning is ambitious. There's nothing wrong here. But it's putting unnecessary strain on the logo in its static form.
As much as identities can be used to champion and inspire change in a organization's culture and its overall appeal. This desire needs to be leveraged with its pre-exisiting brand equity. A logo identity is who we are not what we want to be.
As it is here, the rebranding wants for the logo to jump that gap. If this repositioning falls flat, then the identity representing the company falls flat with it. This won't look pretty.
ATT and SBC: their respective identities seem to represent a good amount of corporate formalism that early 2000 brands are trying to veer away from. Everybody wants to be "Apple" friendly. There may or may not be good reasons for that. The new identity tries to bank in the familiarity of the old identity (rigid, formal) and the newly desired brand values that lie at diametrically opposed ends of the same spectrum (informalism, friendliness). This gap is huge. Thus the awkwardness.
My point. the New ATT can try to be friendlier but they don't need to put such a great burden on it's logo identity at this point in time. We all have seen "friendly" brands that don't require "fun" logos to be friendly. HP's as a brand is a case in point.
They could have simplified and "modernized" the logo identity placing it somewhere between the rigid formalism of its past and the complete loosness of its current design, while trying to make itself more friendly throgh other mediums. TV advert campaigns... motion graphics... etc.
A logo redesign 3-4 years from now can always be scheduled to try to bring the logo design to where they truely want it, without it having to be so awkward and gangly.
On Nov.21.2005 at 07:29 PM
feelicks sockwl jr’s comment is:
note to future self- New York Mag check just came in mail for Fuchs... must be new acct staff(?)... shouldnt harsh art dept. for shitty ethics there...
But for Ricky ? ...you may have some splainin' to do. Guys a genius talent and one helluva futboller.
back to ATT / Interbrand ...now these guys pay well... and on time!
On Nov.21.2005 at 07:34 PM
Sal’s comment is:
Oh god. Looks like a minty special edition cremesaver. This is an extreme insult to Bass's original idea. It seems as if they amalgamated as much of the metaphors for a globe as they could to call it a logo. Worst of all they used Bass's idea of thick and thins within the 3d form. It's sorta like... masking a photograph of a peacock inside the shape of the nbc logo! Bad idea.
On Nov.21.2005 at 10:25 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Bill:
Excellent Observation on RED DOT.
I'd never seen the Identity, It is Animated.
An Observation below, not my Official Comment.
The New AT&T is not an Anomaly. That's the difference between the New InterBrand Revitalized Identity and the Original Bass Yager Identity. The Original of 1984 set a Precedent and Identity Standard Raising the Bar which Exceeded Expectation. There was nothing else that existed at the time to compete with it. Yet, The Original Bass Yager Identity Spawned a Generation of Offspring and Imitators until this day. Giving Birth to such Identities as Sprint, New World Pictures, Los Angeles Olympic Games of 1984, Diet Pepsi, United Artist to name just a few.
With USA Today being a Distant Cousin.
Although, lesser known in the Identity World
RED DOT is apparently an Anomaly because it existed before InterBrand's AT&T.
What comes closest is Joe Finocchiaro's Globe for Pepsico.
DM
On Nov.21.2005 at 11:03 PM
Unnikrishna Menon Damodaran’s comment is:
It reminds me the WTO logo.
A peeling blue orange!
On Nov.22.2005 at 01:19 AM
Tim Chambers’s comment is:
Very... trendy. We'll miss you, Saul.
On Nov.22.2005 at 01:30 AM
Siggi Orri Thorhannesson’s comment is:
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it!
Adding transparency to "represent clarity and vision" is not a good solution. A good design can represent so much if it's designed right, like the original logo did.
This globe is just plain weird! and it seems the ampersand is optically thinner then the type...
On Nov.22.2005 at 04:38 AM
Michael Holdren’s comment is:
(in case this hasn't been addressed already...)
So the transparency is supposed to represent the new at&t's "clarity and vision." The transparency is roughly about (guesstimating here) down to about 20% I think... so I'd assume they mean that to equate into their clarity and vision being only 80% effective instead of 100% effective?
Given their perspective on what they deem to be a good logo, the 80% is very generous.
I also want to echo other comments regarding the lines, there seems to be a disconnect in the rythm and balance.
They've quit literally bastardized the logo. There's a reason that word has a negative connotation.
On Nov.22.2005 at 05:06 AM
Jason Tselentis’s comment is:
Yeah, they've bastardized the logo, and also ignored certain application issues. How does this thing look when faxed or rendered in a cell phone's limited color space? I know where in the 21st Century, but really, will this thing hold up across all media?
On Nov.22.2005 at 07:09 AM
Robert Wetzlmayr’s comment is:
Obviously, inspiration came from the dish decoration during a stay in Austria: A sighting of prior art.
On Nov.22.2005 at 08:00 AM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:
Dateline: November 3005
at&t has recently redesigned their transparent 3D logo into a brand new 4D implant logo.
see attached.
CEO O. Boingo has asserted, in official press releases today, that the revitalized ultra-unfriendly logo symbolizes a new recognition by corporations that they need not try anymore to impress customers with such antique symbolism as quality, innovation and unsurpassed customer care. "Customers are dogs." Boingo says, "and they need to know their place."
A new control system now places this logo/mark/avatar/dingbat onto the forehead of every at&t customer permitted to use telecommunication implants.
The buzz is that this new change in perspective of corporate dimensional density heralds the beginning of futurecontrol systems on planet earth. Cultural/genetic programming is the way to go.
The new tag line- "you wanna talk? - has laid down the gaunlet for other worldcontrol corporations to follow suit.
(many thanks to the saline-solutioned brainpod of Design Maven preserved in the Great Hall of Corporate Design in New Washington D.C.)
end of transmission from the future
On Nov.22.2005 at 08:01 AM
Armin’s comment is:
There are a couple of overall mis/preconceptions that I would like to clarify and, perhaps, debunk.
1. Photoshop Logo: It is very important that we all understand that this is not a Photoshop filtered logo. You can not produce a logo like this with any filter. A very conscious decision was made to build and design a transparent and dimensional logo in Illustrator, a vector program, so that the logo is scalable in any media. This is not the reflection of a trend of software-capability-trumping-original-thinking. The idea was to make it look like this and Interbrand employed the tools to design the logo — and if you care to download the EPS version of the logo, you will see that they went to great lengths to achieve this effect. The tools did not drive the process.
2. MacMonkey overpowered by Marketing people: Intebrand's AT&T team probably consisted of at least a dozen people — from junior designers mounting boards, to creative directors drafting ideas, to project and account managers providing communication with the client — with another dozen (or couple dozen) people on AT&T's end. This is not the case where a poor designer with an associates degree got manhandled and mistreated into doing this logo by a bunch of tasteless marketers. The process of creating a logo like this goes beyond that. It involves decisions at the highest levels and Interbrand surely drew the big guns in every single presentation to make sure that their work was considered appropriately. At this level, it is shortsighted to put blame on "marketing people". If you want to blame someone, you blame the CEO, you blame the Brand Manager, you blame the creative director at Interbrand, the senior designers, but, please, not the "marketing people".
3. Pesky is Funny when he sends memos from the future: No contest. He is funny.
On Nov.22.2005 at 08:59 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
My Official Response After I got some much needed Sleep.
Quoted from The Bible of Saul Bass.
"My Mission is not to make Corporations seem better than they are. They are what they are. But I do believe that there are many Corporations and Corporate Leaders with Profound Concerns and an understanding of how the Public sees them...Still, my first Duty is to give my Client, something that works. My Great Delight is when I Design something that does what it is supposed to do. I have a Passion for Function".
"If I do my Job well, the Identity Program will also Clean up the Image of the Company, Position it as being Contemporary and keep it from Ever Looking Dated".
"Each Identity Program begins with the Formulation of a Set of Objectives. We Study the Company, Visit the Offices, Interview and Meet with its People and come to a very Clear Definition of what is to be Achieved, before any Designing is Done. Intent has to be Articulated before you begin any Identity Program, or you just get sucked into a Process where everything you do is Self-Justifying".
"Once the objectives have been agreed upon, we Mentally Engrave them on Stone and Nail them to the Wall. From that Point everything we Design is Constantly Measured against them".
"A Redesigning of a Major Corporate Identity System may take Bass Yager several years to include Full Implementation. Along the line Hundreds maybe Thousands of Designs are worked up, considered, scrapped or redone until a few Surviving Ideas are winnowed out".
"The Surviving Designs are again Measured Against the Original Corporate Objectives. It's not a Simple Process It's not a Mysterious Process. But it is a Process. The Question is always Does it Satisfy Corporate Objectives one, two, three, et cetera? If so, it's a Good Design. 'I like it' or 'I don't like it' are Irrelevant Attitudes. Designing Trademark or Corporate Identity System cannot be Simplified Down to Personal Taste. There are a lot of Ugly Trademarks around that do a Hell of A Good Job".
Direct Quote from an Interveiw by Saul Bass.
Other than Gunnar Swanson and Steven D. Heller whom both write on Speak Up. Gunnar being an Author and Steve being the Foremost Historian of Visual Communication of our time. I think its safe to asses I knew Saul Bass better than anyone else that Regularly Contribute to this site. And I'll go on Record to say I probably own more work of Saul Bass than anyone in Cyber Space.
If Saul Bass were confronted with the Problem of Redesigning the AT&T Identity. Without a Doubt in my Mind he would've changed it. As only he could've Done. And the Redesign would've been Better than the Original of 1984.
Only Saul Bass or Paul Rand could pulled this off.
Along with a few choice Historically Significant Identity Designers. All approaching 70 years of age or already in their 70s.
My Public Outcry on Design Observer was for Ed Whitacre along with his Design Council to maintain semblance of the Original Identity.
Being an Identity Designer for over 25 years I went through every Process Imaginable to Redesign the AT&T Globe Sphere except one. I never Envisioned a Three Dimensional Globe, InterBrand and it's team of Designer(s) did.
The outcome of the AT&T Identity Solidified what my Mother instilled in me from a Child. "When you are asleep other(s) are up Working".
What that means is regardless of how Adept you think you are at doing something somebody else come up with a Grand Idea.
What I Envisioned as a Redesign for AT&T was a slight modification to the type and a nip and tuck to the symbol.
The Original AT&T Globe Sphere was Designed to Create the Illusion of 3 Dimension on a two dimensional surface.
If need to create a more 3 Dimensional Globe, this could' ve been accomplished with reversing the printing process. With the Highlight becoming the Dominant Feature. Further 3 Dimension could be accomplished with Rendering Highlights on the Striations.
What separates the two Identities the Original and Revitalized is the Typography. I've been informed the Type Treatment of the Original was Designed by Saul Bass and given Special Attention. Bass' AT&T Logytype wheathered many Storms. Notwithstanding being able to stand alone as a Logotype without the Symbol. InterBrand's at&t logotype is does not have the Visual Strength of Bass's Original which Presents a Major, Major Problem. Perhaps Friendlier and not as Monolithic as it's Predecessor. at&t reak Inferiority, within an Environment of Superior Brands of the Same Statue.
Originally, CEO Ed Whitacre wanted to get rid of any semblance of the Original AT&T Globe. Reason, he didn't believe the younger Generation X &Y had any Connection with the Identity or Brand. Which he believed Marketing Analysis would prove. I'm not Privy to what Research InterBrand's Qualitative, Quantitative, or Focus Group Research Testing Proved.
Its difficult for me nit to believe the Public Outcry to maintain some semblance of the Original Identity didn't help.
What Ed Whitacre was absolutely Correct in was his assessment that he was Marketing AT&T to a new Generation of Buying Public, Young Adults, Teenagers and Children. Primarily his Target Audience.
As an Aside, I no longer own a Cell Phone. They're simply a Tracking Device.
Young Adults and Children Love them. There are more Children in my Upper Middle Class Community with Cell Phones than Professionals and Adults.
With many of the Negative Comments Levied at this Revitalization. I'll ask you to Go Back and Read my Opening Comments taken from and Interview with my DesignFather Saul Bass. If you don't understand, go Back and Read it again, again, again, again, again, again, again and again until you understand the Corporate Identity Process.
A Designer(s) Personal Taste has no Bearing on the Success of an Identity Project. A Logo is the Tip of the Iceberg of an Identity Project. A Logo alone is a Useless Device which cannot Function or Perform on it's own.
It is Marketing and Communication that Ultimately Drive an Identity. It is the Synergistic Fusion of Design, Marketing and Communication that make an Identity Design Project Successful. If I may Paraphrase my Mentor and DesignFather Super Lou Danziger, "Designer(s) don't make Identities and Trademarks Successful, Corporations do. An Identity or Trademark will Succeed or Fail on the Practice and Performance of the Corporation not the Identity. Because there is no way to Measure the Success of an Identity Program alone".
This time Ed Whitacre did get is Right. The First Step was Hiring a Preeminent First Tier Identity Consultancy, InterBrand. Unlike his prevous attempt at Identity Revitalization by abolishing Southern Bell a Saul Bass Identity. And Hiring a Public Relations Firm Fleishman Hillard to Design SBC's Hideous Identity which was a Travesty.
The new AT&T Identity is being Marketed to a new Generation of Buying Public my Children. And the Imagery need to be Applicable to Diverse Media. Cell Phones and the Internet. The Original AT&T Identity would've accomplished the same.
With Mergers and Acquisitions the CEO need to put his Personal Stamp on the Corporations Vision and Signal Change. Which is what Ed Whitacre has accomplished.
He created a new Identity and Maintained the AT&T Globe Sphere with Striations.
Because some Bass Yager's elements were retained I'm thankful. As an Identity Designer I can emphatically inform you the New Identity will be dated in a very short period because of it's Trendiness and was not Designed for Long Ranged Goals on Mind.
? 'Do I like the Identity'. "No Comment".
I'll assume the Revitalized Identity adresses the current
CEO Goals and Aspirations, albeit the typograhy.
What the New Identity Accomplishes is another Set of Values Attributed to Successful Identity and Trademark Design.
1. Memorability
2. Usability
3. Livability
4. Propriety
5. Unique
6. Visual Impact
7. Imaginative
The above written attributes for Successful Identity and Trademark Design were surmised by Saul Bass and Paul Rand.
Again, doesn't matter whether or not you like an Identity or Trademark. The Trademark has to be Justified by Corporate Objectives. InterBrand has met five (5) of seven (7) the above Objectives which Constitute Success Trademark and Identity Design. Like it or Not!!!!!!!!
The problem I see is Livability which is a Longivity Issue. The other is Usability, Reproduction Capability across all media. Over time I believe the Flat Two Dimensional Design will out live the Three Dimensional Design. Time is our BEST MEASURING STICK.
DM
P.S. For those Genius Designer(s) that think InterBrand should've went in another Direction other than Retaining the Globe Sphere.
I'd like to hear your Suggestions!!!!!!!!
On Nov.22.2005 at 09:00 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Follow Up:
Pesky:
I just read your comments; I'm Dying Laughing.
Not Licking My Chops. I take no Credit.
Design Observer was akin to CUSTER'S LAST STAND!!!
DM
P.S. Michael, ATT was also on my list of Possibilities. It most definitely Survived, Trust that's some Consolation.
On Nov.22.2005 at 09:27 AM
Joseph’s comment is:
1. Memorability
No. It's a globe. I've seen a globe. The only reason this will be remembered is because it's not a well-executed design.
2. Usability
Definitely not. Everyone has stated this.
3. Livability
This will look like an early 2000's logo in 2010. It falls into a dated look immediately. The cutting edge is the first thing that gets dull.
4. Propriety
It's in appropriate. There is no function to the wavy lines that have been brought over from the last. The lines were drawn that way originally to give the feeling of 3D without the use of a gradient. The type has no relationship to the mark. It's just there. It's very wonky.
5. Unique
It's a globe. I've seen globes, everywhere. I've seen the type everywhere too. It's not unique, it doesn't stand out. It's just another attempt.
6. Visual Impact
Maybe, because of a change, but only because it's a change. If you put this in the brandscape it wil be lost in the menagerie of gradient ridden logos that have sprung up as of late.
7. Imaginative
Yes. But so is throwing feces at a white board and calling it art.
I don't think Bass, Rand and Glaser are the end-all designers. There are a lot of great designers out there. Like Bass said "I like it or I don't like it" are statements of irrelevancy. However, this new mark does not meet a standard. It's poorly rendered, poorly concepted and . . . just poor.
I think everyone on this site is capable of better; much better.
On Nov.22.2005 at 09:30 AM
Joseph’s comment is:
DM - If you're willing to supply me with the budget Interbrand had, I would love to show some suggestions. ::wink wink:: :)
On Nov.22.2005 at 09:35 AM
agrayspace’s comment is:
Umm well. Everything has really been said.
I guess I feel silly for defending the possibility that this redesign could have turned out okay. Still I think condemning it prior to its arrival was childish and rife with pointless hero worship. Moving on.
This hardly even feels like identity design as we know it. Its so amateur and trite its amazing that it survived any formal design critique.
Maybe thats because the definition of Brand and Identity is changing before our very eyes. In actuality a brand lives in 4 dimensions. It comes alive as it lives and breathes in real life. I don't believe you can evaluate a "Brand" by looking at a logo on a screen or piece of paper. Cingular being a great example. It was a great & differentiated brand, but it wasn't much of a logo.
This is a terrible logo. But it will probably appeal to most people and through its endless repetition and through creative implementation by top notch advertising people. It will serve the corporation's goals just fine. Thats if they don't run the company in the ground through shoddy technology and shitty customer service. We are all just awaiting the next merger.
One thing is for certain. This will not be around very long.
On Nov.22.2005 at 10:01 AM
BlueStreak’s comment is:
I guess this thing will grow on us all. If the new company survives long enough. I still remember Carly Fiorina launching the mother of all marketing campaigns for Hewlett Packard. It was a similar CEO ego trip. But I bet Whitacre will get a better severance package. He is a guy after all. What these CEO always forget is that customers interact with service and employees, not logos. Will Whitacre and crew put the same branding effort and resources into the branding components that really matter? That part isn't quite as sexy and fun. We'll see soon enough.
(I was proofing this while agrayspace was posting. Yeah, what he said too.)
As to the design itself, does anyone else think the perspective on the new globe is distorted and awkward? It seems to me that the back of the globe is on a different perspective plane than the front. And more importantly why are we viewing a perspective globe from a raised vantage point, yet we view flat, black type straight on? There is no cohesion between the mark and the type. They are two elements that have nothing in common with one another. Why couldn't the type have been developed in the same dimensional treatment and viewed from the same point of view?
On Nov.22.2005 at 10:16 AM
lindon leader’s comment is:
The new at&t symbol strikes me as an attempt by a first semester design student to draw Saul's mark from memory. The designers' have simply obliterated Saul's finely modulated line work. As for the type, while lowercase usually connotes informality, approachable, nimbleness, etc., in this case it looks downright trivial.
On Nov.22.2005 at 10:26 AM