Established in 1935 as Kum Kleen Products (!), later renamed Avery Adhesives in 1937 until 1990 (with a few variations) when it merged with Dennison Manufacturing, Avery Dennison is a global producer of labeling and packaging materials and solutions with operations in more than 50 countries and 26,000 employees worldwide. In 1982, it launched an office and consumer products division, simply Avery, bringing some of its innovations to the marketplace and is what most of us recognize as Avery and its famed Saul Bass clip logo. On July 2013, Toronto-based CCL Industries purchased the office and consumer product division from Avery Dennison and in order to establish distance from its original ownership, CCL introduced a new logo for the consumer Avery brand, designed by New York, NY-based Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv.
Avery came to Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv [&hellip] for a new visual identity that would more clearly distinguish it from Avery Dennison; be modern and forward-looking; and yet also retain the brand’s recognition in the marketplace. In an additional challenge, the new logo had to work within Avery’s existing package design, which was to remain unchanged. The firm’s solution — a tilted red square positioned behind a redrawn Avery wordmark — recalls Avery’s tilted square while placing the emphasis squarely on the name.
Provided press release
To clarify: The Saul Bass clip logo still exists and is still part of Avery Dennison. Yet despite that clarification, the inevitable name/logo confusion is a problem, none of which is C& G & H’s fault; it’s just one of those unfortunate situations where legacy names have different meanings in the business-to-business side and the business-to-consumer site.
With that in mind, C&G&H have done a great job in maintaining a little bit of the visual equity of the old logo — the tilted Saul Bass clip (which was titled by Avery Dennison to signal the difference between its B2B and B2C logos) — by using a simple red, tilted square behind a new extended wordmark. It’s not a POW!-kind of logo, it just gets the job done with enough character of its own. I particularly like the diagonal “Y” approach that creates a nicer ending that matches the opening “A”. We also usually complain about the placement of ™ and ® marks; this one is unobtrusive.
In application, there really isn’t anything to see as C& G & H did not do much. The logo had to fit in the existing packaging templates and just be able to be dropped in. So there is some dissonance between the new, clean logo and the existing, weird mixture of typefaces and colors. Overall, it’s a change that makes sense and has been carried out efficiently and elegantly.
And, now, hopefully as the first of many to come, we welcome Tony Spaeth’s comments in: