Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
Recent Rebrandings 13: All FutureBrand
Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ARCHIVE ID 2732 FILED UNDER Branding and Identity
PUBLISHED ON Jun.29.2006 BY David Weinberger
akatsuki’s comment is:

IRC: this seems the best of the redesigns on the page. Bolder, stronger and yellow, nobody ever got fired for using yellow!

Yerba: While the old logo definitely had to go, the new piece seems like a watermark you use on your stationary, but not a new logo. The cursive cut-off is difficult to read and "ybca" only communicates to those who already know about the center.

Mastercard: the worst of the offenders here. The clear and strong imagery of mastercard is blurred just like the image. The addition of another circle completely destroys the simple, quickly identifiable logo and makes for consumer disassociation from the brandname and doesn't have a clear message. The old logo invokes worlds interconnect, the handing over of money from one to another, and basically connections. The new one invokes nothing. At least the UPS redesign kept the recognizability.

On Jun.29.2006 at 01:29 AM
Oscar Bjarnason’s comment is:

Looks like someone was playing with some Photoshopfilters on that Mastercard logo.
No improvement at all. Makes that otherwise simple clean logo more complexed.

On Jun.29.2006 at 05:51 AM
marc’s comment is:

MasterCard: Is it just me or does the new logo look somewhat like you are viewing a see-through glass from above with two coasters under it?

YBCA: Totally agree with Akatsuki's comments above--plus the acronym is pretty darn close to YMCA, which does not make me think of the arts so much.

IRC: A nice improvement--the new logo is certainly bolder... I started deciphering the black shape as an arrow, but the longer I look at it, the more it kind of loses cohesion (maybe due to the width of all three "legs" being equal).

On Jun.29.2006 at 09:18 AM
agrayspace’s comment is:

IRC: I am fighting to see the arrow as an R. I kindo do and I kinda don't. If they really own this mark as a brand it will really do a lot for them. Its a workhorse kinda mark and certainly possesses a lot of opportunity for expansion. Yellow and Black is the new Red and White.

YBCA: I see what they are trying to do. I think this relies really heavily on execution by a skilled designer. If used carelessly it will really feel clunky and amatuer. So its exportability to any creative agency is in question and that really goes against why companies design strong brand marks in the first place. And the similarity to YMCA is a concern. They are going to have to put the full name somewhere in proximity and they probably know that.

Mastercard: Are you fucking kidding me? WTFNSWFBBQ?!!?!?!??!

On Jun.29.2006 at 09:47 AM
felixxx’s comment is:

bold & boring

bulbous & boring

offensive (yet, not suprising)


On Jun.29.2006 at 10:07 AM
Nolen’s comment is:

That Mastercard one is a joke. The impact and immediacy of the original logo is completely lost. The new shape muddles the connection of the interlocking shapes. When I'm dealing with money I don't want any gray area and shadows. And it being off-center just looks like a mistake.

Also, whenever I see a gradient worked into a logo the first things that pop into my head are: Photoshop! Student work!

On Jun.29.2006 at 11:05 AM
Tom ’s comment is:

I like the original better. The whole arrow/R thing is uncomfortable.

it is just too bubbly for me. ease back on the stroke weight.

what the hell is that? is it pulled from part of an animation? certainly someone didn't think that was an improvement. did they?

On Jun.29.2006 at 11:26 AM
mike’s comment is:

my favorite re-rebranding...


On Jun.29.2006 at 11:34 AM
Pat Broderick’s comment is:

IRC: The arrow is certainly bold, the type not so much. I wonder whether that tiny type is going to disappear at smaller sizes, leaving you with a traffic sign -- RESCUE, next left?

YBCA: The lettering is a bit blobby and inelegant, especially the YB ligature that doesn't quite link up. I think if it were set in something more like Bello I might be sold with the off-the-page treatment.

Mastercard: Weird. I have no idea what they're going for here, but if they removed the transparent circles and left the interlocking dots they'd have something.

As for Quark I think that's been covered, but I hadn't seen the non-beveled version of the 2006 logo before. It actually doesn't look bad in solid green and white.

On Jun.29.2006 at 12:19 PM
Ryan Peterson’s comment is:

Sure, I don't understand the whole blurry circle thing... but what I really don't understand is why the blurry circle isn't centered. Is that explained anywhere? I just want to grab that weird orb and bump it to the left.

Then delete it of course.

On Jun.29.2006 at 12:22 PM
pnk’s comment is:

I was all prepared to defend the IRC logo, because my first impressions were very positive. Then I watched the video, ostensibly created to promote the new look...There is significant dissonance created between the caring, human face of the messaging found there and the macho, urgent look of the new mark. The old mark seems much more in keeping with the spirit of the organization.

I also really like the letterforms of the ybca logo, but why insist on the harsh cropping? Yeah, ok, "more than meets the eye", whatever, but it just seems lazy to me.

Is there anything good to say about the MC logo? I sure can't think of anything.

On Jun.29.2006 at 12:29 PM
David E.’s comment is:

I like IRC logo. It's very Designers Republic. Does International Rescue still have the space ships with the big numerals on them? Thunderbird 4 was always my favorite. :P

YBCA looks fine when its actually bleeding off the edge of a page, and really weird when it's not.

As for Mastercard: what a freaking mess. Aside from all the horrible photoshop gradient nonsense, WHY is the center circle off center? The whole thing is symetrical EXCEPT for what's in the middle? How can design firms allow work like this to be shown to the client in the first place? Why do they employ designers who do crap like this? I don't get it.

Mike, sorry to say this, but whoever designed that "quark vs. indesign" website has no business offering an opinion on anything related to graphic design.

On Jun.29.2006 at 12:31 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:

I'd suggest that Mastercard scrap that blurry mess and start over again. Or, have a contest!

Now that logos are all doing the 3D thing, the next evolution goes 4D, can't wait to see that!

On Jun.29.2006 at 12:59 PM
Pat Broderick’s comment is:

The transparency effect on the MC logo doesn't seem too well thought through -- when used on a dark background, that background doesn't show through the "lens."

On Jun.29.2006 at 01:08 PM
jen.suz.hoy’s comment is:

Oh, MasterCard. You also fell victim to what I call the "Bubbly Sheep Phenomenon" - everyone trying to look "now" by incorporating senseless gradients and embossing.

Just yesterday I shared my feelings on this exact thing.

On Jun.29.2006 at 01:22 PM
Sheepstealer’s comment is:

I feel like I talking about the type.

IRC: It’s an “R?” I guess it is. The type is well handled. Bold and readable from a distance. It’s good to have the word “Rescue” as the top of the type hierarchy. It’s unfortunate that they spaced out “committee.” Spaced type speaks in a different voice than non-spaced type. A good logo shouldn’t switch voices mid-stream. The yellow and black and sans-serif approach feels “urgent,” which is a little too harsh for a group that seems to be “immediatly responsive.” (but it would look great on a HazMat suit.) : |

YBCA: I do feel like this one works. There's a very mature, but subtle detail. If the logo were truly done in script style, the upstroke on the Y would run right into the B. But they left that out, which lets the letters separate well. My vote, it's not too blobby, it's agressive. Nice work = ]

MasterCard: I can only comment on the type. It’s very pleasingly free of shadows, bevels, transparency, lens flares, shades, hilights, misalignments.

On Jun.29.2006 at 01:25 PM
Armin’s comment is:

I hate to say this – and I hate that it's the only comment I will make right now as I don't have plenty of time to put some susbtance behind my claim – but I think these examples, specifically YBCA and Mastercard prove that Futurebrand is one of (if not the) worst branding firms when it comes to the actual craft and execution, as well as visual ideation of design. And they do work for such mainstream clients. It's a shame really. There is no strategy document that can justify these.

On Jun.29.2006 at 01:28 PM
Hyun’s comment is:

Wow, some harsh comments.
Although I don't love any of them, I kinda like the fact that the YBCA and MC isn't the conventional and "textbook" logo we've all come to be comfotable with. I actually like the 1st one the least especially if it's trying to make an R with the arrow, I hope that wasn't the intention because it's not working.

I wish everyone would try to be a bit more sensitive in these kinds of discussions. Remember, we don't know anything about the briefs or the client's demands. And afterall, how much better could we all have done?

btw, I was not involved in any of the designs!

On Jun.29.2006 at 02:31 PM
JonSel’s comment is:

I wish everyone would try to be a bit more sensitive in these kinds of discussions.

Hah. Sensitivity? On SpeakUp?

Seriously, it's a natural human reaction to dislike something you haven't seen and don't necessarily understand. I'm often really amazed, though, that we (designers) aren't more open-minded in our assessments of new work that challenges our standard rules and preconceptions. That doesn't mean we have to like the new work, just to be prepared to understand why it may have come to being before firing away.

Concerning this, I'm generally dubious when gradients are involved in logo design. I think they're superfluous and are a cover for poor craftsmanship. Here's where I draw the line: if you can remove the gradient and the form is still completely intact, then they are unnecessary and a crutch. In the case of MasterCard, the logo simply wouldn't exist without those gradients. So, before raking it over the coals for simply being a gradient, consider what the purpose of the gradient is and what it might convey.

I will disclose that I worked (just a little) on some MasterCard implementation with FB, so I know more about the strategy than most of the commenters. Why MC chose to put the logo on a black background on their website is beyond me. It's made for a white background and the rest of the look and feel accomodates this. The last thing I'll say is that the black and white mark (without gradients) is actually pretty well done and there could be a case made for using that as the primary mark.

I'm also the designer of the now-departed IRC logo, created pro bono while I was at Landor. This new logo represents a big strategy shift, as Pnk mentioned earlier, and I agree the video doesn't represent this well at all. I'll wait to see how this plays out, but I certainly am sad to see my logo go. Regardless of iconography, the IRC is an amazingly valuable organization around the world and I hope the new logo serves them well in their mission.

On Jun.29.2006 at 02:59 PM
R Berger’s comment is:

"how much better could we all have done?"

very much betterer.

On Jun.29.2006 at 03:09 PM
Hyun’s comment is:

you're right about human nature.
I guess I meant being more "Open-minded" and attempting to "understand" when I said "sensitive."

On Jun.29.2006 at 05:05 PM
Mr. Frankie L’s comment is:

if you can remove the gradient and the form is still completely intact,then they are unnecessary and a crutch. In the case of MasterCard, the logo simply wouldn't exist without those gradients.

I'd like to know what exactly that off-centered
gradient circle is supposed to be/represent.

A magnifying glass?

I must admit, on the black background,
the form doesn't become lost as it does on
a white background.

On Jun.29.2006 at 05:24 PM
Mr. Frankie L’s comment is:

The answer to my question:

The three circles of the new corporate logo build on the familiar interlocking red and yellow circles of the MasterCard consumer brand, and reflect the company's unique, three-tiered business model as a franchisor, processor and advisor:

On Jun.29.2006 at 05:26 PM
Cheshire Dave’s comment is:

I wish I could find an example of it, but Lucille Tenazas did the first Yerba Buena logo (before the swoosh thing), and it was more elegant than either the swoosh or the new logo. It was a little stark and cold and took a while to grow on me, but eventually I thought it identified itself as part of the fine/performing arts community of San Francisco. More than anything else, it had an understated coolness to it that I think neither of these reaches. I don't mind the new one so much, especially since it kills off the swoosh one, but I don't love it. Maybe I will eventually (when its successor is announced).

On Jun.29.2006 at 07:58 PM
DutchKid’s comment is:

Ik prefer the old IRC logo. The new one seems a bit generic to me (... yet another arrow) and I don't think it'll scale well.

On Jun.30.2006 at 07:23 AM
jenn.suz.hoy’s comment is:

@JonSel - MasterCard's new logo wouldn't stand without a gradient? Why did they need to suddenly incorporate a gradient when they're old logo has stood for global interconnectivity (which was said before now in these comments, by someone who is not me, I just happen to agree with them) in a much clearer way? What is being said by using that gradient?

To me, that the future is unclear, and we (i.e. MasterCard) is having a hard time focusing.

On Jun.30.2006 at 07:49 AM
Tom B’s comment is:

Looking at the MasterCard Website, www.mastercard.com, the logo makes a little bit more sense.

On a black background it becomes apparent that the middle circle is supposed to be a globe (i.e. MasterCard Worldwide).

It's a pretty lame logo nonetheless. Reminds me of the fun we had demolishing AT&T's new blob.

On Jun.30.2006 at 09:09 AM
Armin’s comment is:

Alright. I'll explain, now that I have a little more time. If anyone is interested.

This is not about sensivity. Nor about knowing what "strategy" went behind the logo. Air quotes very intentional. I have made this argument before and I have taken a long break from it, trying to give all this branding nonsense that has been created in the last years the benefit of the doubt. I played nice during Aflac and United Way, trying to understand the bigger concerns of what a rebranding entails. Unfortunately, things like this Mastercard logo prove that even the longest strategy document can not justify a poor execution that doesn't even hint at what good design can be. And while the argument of "good" being subjective is a common defense mechanism, it is nothing but a lame cop-out. There is such a thing as bad design and these three logos are examples of it.

IRC is amateur typography at best, poor professional typography at worst: Three different type sizes (where two of them look almost the same), three different tracking values, two different weights (where they could have bolded "international" to make the logo look more even). The arrow is nice, but it's really hard to screw up 90- and 45-degree angles.

ybca wants to be cool, and it almost is, but it really ain't. As Sheepstealer mentioned, the y should connect to the b if this were a script logo. They could have hired Underware to do a good job on it. And the cropping of the logo is really beyond me. The loop of the b could be one of the most beautiful things, but no, let's just crop it. The whole cropping should be a brand attribute – applied when it makes sense – rather than the logo itself.

Mastercard is not even worth getting into.

On Jun.30.2006 at 09:59 AM
JonSel’s comment is:

The whole cropping should be a brand attribute – applied when it makes sense

It actually is. The logo itself is the complete script letterforms, but in many applications it gets cropped. I don't know much more beyond that.

Three different type sizes…

My guess, since I don't know for sure, is that they were considering dropping the word "Committee" from the logo. They considered it when I did the previous ID 7-8 years ago, but couldn't get the board to agree. I think FutureBrand tried again but met resistance. That doesn't make apologies for the letterspacing issues, but it does account, somewhat, for why the execution is a bit off.

trying to understand the bigger concerns of what a rebranding entails.

The notion of "bigger concerns" is really important. This column should really be titled Logo Critiques, since that's what it is about. We're not discussing the bigger concern of a corporate rebranding (when relevant). As I said in the last rebranding column, many of the logo changes we look at are not truly rebrands, but simply new corporate identities, in the visual sense only. Yes, they help shape perceptions of the company, but the "Brand" (cap B and all) is so much bigger than that. Frankly, the Brand helps shape perceptions of the logo.

I think we ought to just get off the pretense of discussing branding at all, since we just don't have the background knowledge to intelligently comment on it. I wish that, if David insists on keeping this as a "rebranding" discussion, he would at least take the time and effort to post more than just the logo and a snippet of the press release. He could at least go the distance of Tony Spaeth over on Identityworks and provide some background business context for the move. Without that, we'll always be talking surface and we should just quit pretending otherwise.

On Jun.30.2006 at 11:06 AM
debbie millman’s comment is:

>I think we ought to just get off the pretense of discussing branding at all, since we just don't have the background knowledge to intelligently comment on it. I wish that, if David insists on keeping this as a "rebranding" discussion, he would at least take the time and effort to post more than just the logo and a snippet of the press release. He could at least go the distance of Tony Spaeth over on Identityworks and provide some background business context for the move. Without that, we'll always be talking surface and we should just quit pretending otherwise.

Bravo, Jon. It is about time.

On Jun.30.2006 at 11:53 AM
Feldhouse’s comment is:

Yes!! Thank you, Armin and JonSel. This is what I hate about these "rebranding" debates.

People come here, see these visuals, probably don't bother reading the press release, put their two cents in... and for what? I have had some beef with this whole "rebranding" segment because it gives this horrible illustration of what rebranding is all about. It simply has very little to do with the final outcome and has everything to do with the politics, debates, and everything else behind the scenes.

Like JonSel said, it's about the Brand with a capital B. Not just the final logo. Even though it's nice for the design community to know what's going on with these "rebrandings," it starts to get into some gray areas.

If these rebranding posts continue to be as vague as they have been, people will continue to be misinformed. Perhaps just a few more minutes of quality time spent thinking about these rebrandings will lead to a higher level of discussion.

On Jun.30.2006 at 12:15 PM
Derrick Schultz’s comment is:

I just moved from Union Square in San Francisco two weeks ago and cant help but wonder where the previous logos for the YBCA ever were. Currently (or as of two weeks ago when i left), they used a motif of brightly colored stripes on black with eleganty designed squarish sanserif type, which i think is beautiful and representative of who they are and the works they promote. Having been to many of their showings and walked through their campus by the metreon many times, i can help but think "what the fuck?" with that logo (I would normally refrain from the f bomb, but this calls for it).

I just dont understand the context of which a script face works for them. It will look awful in the space of their modern designed campus and will probably make most of their culturally signifact works look like children's museum work when branded.

its one thing to talk about strategy and positioning, but we stil have to realize as designers that an identity is still the first face, visually, of a company. I'm honestly appalled that this is the first face of the new ybca.

On Jun.30.2006 at 12:34 PM
David Weinberger’s comment is:

I think we ought to just get off the pretense of discussing branding at all, since we just don't have the background knowledge to intelligently comment on it. I wish that, if David insists on keeping this as a "rebranding" discussion, he would at least take the time and effort to post more than just the logo and a snippet of the press release. He could at least go the distance of Tony Spaeth over on Identityworks and provide some background business context for the move. Without that, we'll always be talking surface and we should just quit pretending otherwise.

and then

Bravo, Jon. It is about time.

Bravo? I'm not insisting that this is any type of discussion. I am giving these "redesign" groupings a title as I see most of them as rebrandings. I'm sure you know that the snippets of info I provide are links to either news articles or press releases that often do provide insight into strategy shifts or business or brand issues that the company has. If anyone chooses not to read those and just make comments like "that sucks" or "seen that before" well, that's their choice.

The posts do take a good deal of time and effort. I know you know that Jon. Thanks for that slight. Instead of reviewing one at a time which often takes a week or so, I try to cover as many relevant ones as I can. Tony Spaeth is great. We sometimes trade scoops on identities or artwork and I read his site as everyone should. I didn't realize this bothered anyone this much. Jon, You know what, I'm not a huge fan of Quipsologies as I see most of them as irrelevant, unnecessarily esoteric or just plain "hey look at this link I found to someone else's blog" but some people like them so that's cool. Yeah it'd be great if the comments in Recent Rebrandings lead to an in-depth discussion on the good and bad points of branding at a corporate and consumer level, ROI, management vision, etc. But if a simple critique on craft and quality gets some designers involved in a discussion that otherwise wouldn't comment much, then I'm fine with that. I actually really like that.

Jon, did you not like that I asked you what you think branding is? Well, it's a lot of things to me but it seems that your definition places a lot of control of a brand in the hands of the company. We both worked at Landor and they taught us that "A brand is a promise" Right? Well I never bought that. That implies to me that you are in control of your own brand but I believe that mostly the brand lives in the consumer. Thats why something as simple as a design change can have a big effect on the brand. Anyway.

Maybe you shouldn't read the comments. Maybe you should just look at the pretty pictures to keep up with the latest design work in the industry. That wouldn't be so horrible, would it? Like a weekly design annual. I do bet you are curious though. Hey better yet, why don't the three of us get together and talk about how to improve the column. I'm in Vegas right now but i'll be back next week. Debbie, you have my number.

On Jun.30.2006 at 12:59 PM
Mason’s comment is:

Credit card companies have fueled the growth of the debtors class in the last 10 years. For this reason I welcome the new MasterCard logo.

On Jun.30.2006 at 02:54 PM
jason schwartz’s comment is:

+ IRC +
not a huge fan of the new IRC logo. it doesn't say "rescue" to me at all. it looks more like a construction sign. plus, i would have liked to see the original wing maintained.
+ YBCA +
the YBCA logo is nice, not sure why they moved to babyfood green as their official color. this logo has a MAJOR downfall because it now REQUIRES FULL-BLEED printing capabilities. that's gonna be rough for "in-house" printing. what happened to the original slogan... 'it's fun to stay at the YBCA?!'
+ MC +
+ i agree with 95% of the comments on here about the mastercard logo. there must have been a long-drawn out battle philosophy vs. style for that thing to make it through to see the light. i'd like to hear from someone at mastercard about it.

On Jun.30.2006 at 04:12 PM
KP’s comment is:

I hate to say this – and I hate that it's the only comment I will make right now as I don't have plenty of time to put some susbtance behind my claim – but I think these examples, specifically YBCA and Mastercard prove that Futurebrand is one of (if not the) worst branding firms when it comes to the actual craft and execution, as well as visual ideation of design.

Well, let's all hope that is the last time we read something like this on SpeakUp. I always counted on you, Armin, to be a benevolent host, exercising your commentary and insight on design with politic grace and humor — in a way that many of the posters to SU have not.

I'm going to some blinders on and pretend that's what will continue to happen. Because of all the contests that SU has sponsered, "Worst branding firm" will be a firestarter for sure. I've been led to plenty of sites of design firms through SU that offered poor design. Do we really want a king of hill competition?

And in this corner, wearing red to blue trunks: Gradients! Haven't we put this baby to bed yet? They CAN be used, they WILL be used. And they sure as hell have been used badly. However, the sludgey mess that is MasterCard Worldwide would very likely not be sharpened by their removal. Even at it's best representation on the website, it fails to make its message clear. Is that the fault of "gradients"? Really?

And is fault what we're looking for?

On Jun.30.2006 at 05:19 PM
JonSel’s comment is:

instead of reviewing one at a time which often takes a week or so, I try to cover as many relevant ones as I can...


I'm not a huge fan of Quipsologies

There's a big difference between the Quipsologies and the Rebrandings column. The Quipsologies don't purport to be for discussion or be anything beyond, "some things that might be of interest for our readers." Think of it as the front section of a magazine. Lots of little blurbs and factoids, nothing overly in depth. If you want more, it's up to the reader to search. The rebranding columns ought to be more like a feature – an indepth look at what a company has done with their identity and why. If it takes a lot of time to compile that info on only one recent identity, then cover just that one. I'd certainly appreciate more depth and less breadth.

the snippets of info I provide are links to either news articles or press releases

You and I both know that corporate press releases are hardly the place to find detailed information about corporate intent. The fact is, no corporation could actually spell out its brand in a press release. They simply have to "be" the brand. Want to be seen as innovative? BE innovative. You can't just tell the customers what you are and expect them to believe it.

This is where Walter Landor's "the brand is a promise" line works for me. A company sets up all these expectations through their communications and service offerings. That's really all they can do. These items are all promises for emotional and rational benefit. If they succeed, then perceptions are aligned and everything is good. If not, then usually the company is the one that has to adjust, not the consumer. So while I don't think Landor's statement can define the entire branding process, it's certainly a very tangible idea.

Like a weekly design annual.

I don't think this would be a bad idea, and, frankly, that's kinda where I see the Rebrandings column. At least it would be clear and we'd all know where the discussion was going. I'm all up for a craft discussion as well.

If you want to discuss branding, ROI and the works, let's go for it. But provide some context and background info and more than we're getting from the current column.

On Jun.30.2006 at 05:25 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:

I think we ought to just get off the pretense of discussing branding at all, since we just don't have the background knowledge to intelligently comment on it.

Frankly, it's disingenuous to pull that one. This site has been about open opinions and - sometimes - inside knowledge and analytical discussions based on factual information or aesthetic choices, but in the end it's about opinions and everyone here has a right to make "gut reaction" opinions about logos we see in the public domain.
Armin, is in no need of my defense, but he is wisely leaving the flow of content to the rest of us, and if a logo deserves a beating, so be it. If it's great folks give it credit too.

Of course we don't have the minutes of every in-house creative meeting, nor the outtakes before the final solution, but we judge what we see and there's nothing wrong with that. If we want to include arguments of context and background instead of snarky comments it's up to us individually. But I kind of resent the moral outrage as if we aren't intellectually capable of making an honest call. Since when do designers pull their punches on others logo design?

On Jun.30.2006 at 10:34 PM
Keith McCord’s comment is:

I follow these "rebranding" threads pretty closely and as a young designer, it really gives me an outlook as to what is out there right now. I commend David on bringing these logos to light, and offering as much information as he does. As for what is said about these logos once they are posted, well that is up to us, and i think that we should take the responsibility of investigating what each comapny is looking for.
In one way I agree with you, Jon, the briefs/press releases can rarely be relied upon for accurate representation of what the LOGO is/turns out to be, but it does give us a frame of reference for what the company was thinking when they decided to REBRAND themselves. And while some of us view a logo as only a change of visual representation (as has ben previously expressed) there has to be some REASON a company would feel it needs to change its visual identity.
So call it what you want, but I fully appreciate the work done by Davud in these threads, and all the folks here at SpeakUp, especially those who offer insight into the industry that I am just breaking into. Please feel free to fire away (with no need for pulling any punches) as you have for countless posts that concern the everyday designer and that have brought thousands of readers to Speak Up over the past few years.
Also, I thank Armin and his tireless efforts to maintain and add to this site. He has every right to SpeakUp, if not moreso, and voice his own opinion. Thank you for your honesty Armin.

On Jul.01.2006 at 03:02 AM
Keith McCord’s comment is:

Now that I have that off my chest, here are my 2¢...

The logo and its applications were developed at no cost to the IRC by the marketing and communications agency Foote Cone & Belding – New York and its branding affiliate FutureBrand. -IRC's New Look

Ok, so here's what we have, a pro bono logo... It is descibed as being designed to convey an immdeiate recognition. This explains to me the color scheme and the emphasis on the word "rescue" (even if that is an Enlish only term) Where it goes astray for me is the Arrow/R shape. What is it pointing to? Why an arrow? The type below the logo hit me, initially, as being poorly executed. Armin cemented this with his comments about letter spacing/font choices/etc... I sumehow feel that if they were considering taking out committe, that they would try to downplay it, not space it out far enough that you could read it from a half mile away... I also think that the old logo was very elegantly done. The color is nice, the typography well handled, but agree that it lacks a sense of urgency. All in all, I can see how this logo came to be.

Interesting to hear that this isn't the full logo according to Jon...any possibility of a lnk to the full one? I tried to get on the website, I suppose it may be under construction. The online ticket window, however is still open with the old logo. I agree with the majority of what has been said, however, I appreciate the disbanding of that swoosh...There will always be only one in my heart. I appreciate the playfulness of this logo, it fits in more with what I see of the "design attitude," based just on seeing their tickets screen.

MasterCard Worldwide
Oh God, shield my eyes...I honestly can see no way how this became the logo of one of the most recognizable brands in the world... I appreciate what they were trying to do (add a 3rd dimension, spruce up the type, modernize the look), but I can not see how this possibly got to this point. I guess its a matter of what I call the "yessir" mentality....after you've worked your brain out, you just don't have the will to fight what the big cheese is saying. I think that this could be a really nice logo, mnus the 1000 filters on it. I honestly don't mind the third circle, except for the previous remarks about placement (painfully obvious on a black background) and I think this had real potential until someone decided they wanted it to be "fancier" and some poor schmuck at FutureBrand did this version thinking they would never choose it, but then they did.

On Jul.01.2006 at 03:36 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:

Regarding the nature of the Recent Rebrandings posts, I too feel that there has been something missing, though I'm not really arrogant enough to be able to say with any certainty what that thing is. It just seems that comparing the old logo to the new and reading some BS press release (c'mon, you KNOW they all say the same thing..."Our new brand will confidently represent our strategic values and lead us to a new era of yada yada yada blech," or translated, "New thing good, old thing bad,") does little to give us the true direction of the rebranding. That said, (watch now as I 180)I also think that the logo SHOULD be a really good indicator of the brand. Not the whole, mind you, but a competent rebranding starts and ends with a good logo. But it all could be a moot point, considering that I'm on a website that I paid nothing to get into and does a lot of work to bring me information and opinions about my chosen field. Whether or not I'm getting my "competent rebranding" jibblies tickled is kind of up to me.

ANYWAY,the rebrandings:

I initially liked the new IRC logo, until I realized that it wasn't going to be placed on the side of a souped-up cartoon truck or helicopter. Seriously, it looks like the kind of logo that some saturday morning vagabond team of Rescue Heroes would approve of. "IRC to the Rescue! Ho!" New from Mattel!

With the YBCA logo I again enjoyed the change, but I wondered if that was really the most recent old logo. Then I began to wonder if the new logo actually fit the Center's direction. For an Art Center, it's awfully monotone.

Mastercard International's new logo....oy. It seems to say "look closer," with the magnifying glass, which I guess is good, but why that represents MC Worldwide is beyond me. Washing out the red circle is murdering the MC brand. Mastercard's current overriding feature is that contrast between the red and yellow and its interlocking. To wash that out and replace it with a gradient throws out the baby with the bathwater. Or rather, throws out the concept with the whiz-bang of it all.

One of the things I have enjoyed about this post is the fire that people have exhibited. We need to disagree, to get so worked up that we feel like calling someone an idiot. Or other things. I think that's been missing from some of the more recent posts - dissenting voices. We're here to Speak Up, not come to a consensus. Of course, I say this as I come to an agreement that all the logos suck. Damn hypocrisy.

On Jul.01.2006 at 08:54 AM
Armin’s comment is:

KP, you are right, I was not my usual benevolent self. And I am not trying to crown a champion of crap. I feel firms like Futurebrand have a very big responsibility in that they bring design to the masses. Most designers will never get to work on global brands like Mastercard and define what their visual manifestation is. Granted, Mastercad Worlwide is not a consumer-facing "product", but IT IS an investor- and B2B-facing product, where thousands of potential design buyers are exposed to their work. As participants of the design industry, Futurebrand is responsible for performing at their best; not only when it comes to strategy and all the political mahandling that goes behind the scenes, but also with the end-result. Badly executed design can not be excused by numbers.

So, while I may apologize for my delivery, I do not take back the feeling. If Futurebrand wants to bill itself as a top-tier branding and design consultancy they better execute like one on all areas of their offerings.

On Jul.01.2006 at 10:53 AM
Holley’s comment is:

I cannot stand the MasterCard logo. How hideous can you get?! It looks like a magnifying glass over top of the two colored circles. Its pretty ballsy of MasterCard to accept this new logo. But then again, people hate change...but people also hate crappy logos.

On Jul.01.2006 at 06:45 PM
Matt’s comment is:

pnk’s comment is:
IRC...There is significant dissonance created between the caring, human face of the messaging found there and the macho, urgent look of the new mark. The old mark seems much more in keeping with the spirit of the organization.

I can see how the old logo, while looking nice on a letterhead or on the wall behind the podium at a fundraiser, would fall short out in the field, where the heavy lifting of an organization like this actually occurs. Someone else compared it to a construction company logo, and its important to remember that, in many ways, thats closer to the work they actually do on a day to day basis. The new logo may not say "caring", but I can see how it would jump out and catch the eye when you're delivering food and aid to a humanitarian crisis and the logo is appearing on the IRC's team-member clothing, on boxes of supplies, on the sides of trucks, etc. It seems to be aiming to veer away from the traditional "non-profit" logo and more towards the HELP-HAS-ARRIVED urgency and immediacy of the Red Cross/Crescent logos.

As for MasterCard...to me it just doesnt read as...anything really. I stare at it and stare at it, and I still cant really tell wtf I'm looking at. If anything, it looks LESS unified and global than the old logo. Perhaps part of the problem is that the original MC logo, when first created, so perfectly captured the notion of worlds connecting and business moving that any attempt to modify it, no matter how well intentioned, would drift away from that. I have a feeling that the first time I see this logo in motion on TV I'll say "ohhhh, THAT's what they were going for!", but as a static logo it fails.

On Jul.02.2006 at 01:59 PM
KJ’s comment is:

Anyone know who did the old MasterCard logo?

On Jul.02.2006 at 04:35 PM
Keith McCord’s comment is:

Design info on MasterCard

On Jul.03.2006 at 01:27 AM
Keith McCord’s comment is:

From the source
You get a bit of a better idea from this site...very interesting...

On Jul.03.2006 at 01:31 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:


"Anyone know who did the old MasterCard logo?"


The Legendary DON ERVIN aka The Last DON Designed the 1979 MasterCard Identity while at Siegel + Gale.

DON ERVIN also Designed the Identities for Abbott Laboratories, Cargill, Transamerica, Berol, Horn & Hardart, Mellon Bank, TRW, Pitney Bowes, CONOCO, Deloitte Haskins + Sells. To DON ERVIN'S Credit, The Original Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Metlife) with the ML Motif years before Snoopy became the Spokesmodel and Symbol.

I'd be Remiss if I didn't mention DON ERVIN's Legendary Film Title Sequence and Symbol for THE MISFIT'S, featuring Marilyn Monroe, Clark Gable, Eli Wallach, Thelma Ritter, and Montgomery Clift.

The 1990 MasterCard Identity was ReDesigned by ListerButler.

The 1996 MasterCard Identity was Revitalized by InterBrand.

No Comments on the Identities PER SE!!!!!

Only to say, Any Identity Consultancy, Design Firm/Consultancy is ONLY as Great as its Personnel.

The Pendulum Swings Back and Forth. There are lean times for every Creative Consultancy insofar as Personnel.

What I will take time to say, All these Identity Consultancies are OWNED and Operated by a Parent Company now-a-days a Communications Conglomerate.

Take your pick, OMNICOM, WPP Interpublic, Publicis Group, Grey Global, Incepta Group plc.

None are of the First Tier Identity Consultancies are Independent. Very Few if any are Headed by Bona Fide Graphic Designer(s).
MBA's, Marketing, Communications, Advertising and Public Relations Professionals are Heading these BUY OUT Identity Consultancies.
Many of the Creative Directors, Design Directors, Project Directors are so young their Experience in COMBAT is the Equivalent of MOCK Paintball Warfare.

As I said for three (3) years IDENTITY DESIGN IS IN A RECESSON.

What Boggles my Mind why any Corporation would give the Creative Development of their work to any of these BUY OUT Identity Consultancies when the BEST Identity work was always Commenced by Chermayeff & Geismar, Vignelli Associates, Monigle Associates, BrandEquity International,
ONOMA, and Pentagram continue to remain Solvent and Independent.

If not by choice the aforementioned Creative Consultancies. There are PLENTY of Independent Identity Designer(s) and Consultant(s) Capable of Solving the Problem far Superior to these BUY OUT Identity Consultancies.

In Reference to Recent Rebrandings.

David could write a Dissertation on any given Identity Revitalization. The Comments would be the SAME.
There wouldn't be anymore insight shared in reference to one's Analysis or Commentary of said Identity ReDesign, ReBrand, or Revitalization.

Most people are Expounding from a Visceral Level.
When Feelings are involved, you get a GUT and Knee Jerk REACTION.

Those are the MOST Honest and Heartfelt Reactions.

Unlike, Focus Groups, David isn't Feeding them Pizza and Lemonade.
In all Fairness he is Conducting Qualitative Analysis and the Response is Genuine, like them or not.

Maestro, doesn't allow viewer Interaction.
If allowed the Commentary wouldn't be any more informed or Intelligible than the Comments on Speak Up.

Not a Subscriber to Wireality. The site is Devoted to Identity Design and Revitalizations.
The Feedback and Commentary is less than Enthusiastic and Palatable than the Identity Commentary on Speak Up

Unlike Maestro Tony Spaeth whose website is Devoted Entirely to Identity Design and Revitalization.
David doesn't have the same amount of time to Fish for information in reference to Credit and work Commenced.
Almost none of the Press Releases contain information in reference to Crediting an Identity Consultancy or Design Firm.

Anyone who has tried to obtain this information Readily understand. Because of Confidentiality it is Difficult to obtain this information from a Corporation. Unless you have an inside Track with said Identity Consultancy or Design Firm it is unlikely you will ever obtain this information.

Maestro Tony Spaeth has the Patience and time, David does not.
Speaking from Experience, I'm still trying to get Safeway to Open Up and Reveal to me which Creative Consultancy Revitalized their Identity.

I've been trying for over a year. I've written, I've called, I've provided them links to Speak Up and Design Observer.

I told them I'd Feature a Discussion about the History of their Identity. Nothing.

You Win Some...

Others have been overwhelmingly Generous in their offerings.

It's easier to get the Scoop if you have an inside Repartee with the Creative Director of said Identity Program.

Just When I Think I'm OUT, They PULL ME BACK IN???!!!

Michael Corleone


On Jul.05.2006 at 04:01 AM
Feldhouse’s comment is:


If I may...

David could write a Dissertation on any given Identity Revitalization. The Comments would be the SAME.

I have to disagree here. Remember the Kodak discussion that raised so many hands from the peanut gallery? The light was shed on the subject when Allen Hori noted the bars aren't part of the design. More light was shed when a designer who worked on the mark, Christian Cervantes, spoke up as well. I believe the conversation took a turn at both points and actually gave some clarity to the situation at hand. After Christian gave his two cents, the conversation nearly died. My theory is when other designers not involved in a project hear what the designer who was involved did, their point of view changes and they can clearly rationalize it.

When people are given information that is critical to the situation, they can make educated comments. Without this information, we will continue to get posts of "good/bad/indifferent." This is where I think we (as a design community) need to make a better effort to inform each other whenever possible. (And yes, I know it's nearly impossible but I still think it's obtainable)

On Jul.05.2006 at 11:51 AM
Viakenny’s comment is:

the "old" MasterCard logo will remain for the cards.
only the logo for MasterCard Worldwide, the B2B division of MasterCard, Inc. that changed.

On Jul.05.2006 at 12:17 PM
His Only Begotten Son’s comment is:


It doesn't Negate the Fact that other than Jerry The King Kuyper for AT&T under Saul Bass, and GE under Landor, Miles Newlyn for Wolf Olins, referencing Unilever, and Alan Hori for Kodak has Responded to Request to Participate in our Open Forum.

There has been Enormous Opportunity for other Senior Management at Respective Identity Consultancies to Participate.

Alan Hori Commented because he's a Personal Friend of D. Mark Kingsley.

Jerry The King Kuyper Commented on AT&T because he's a Personal Friend of Mine.

I suspect Miles Newlyn Commented because Maestro Tony Spaeth informed him of the Discussion on Speak Up or Somebody else.

My point of Intention, it is Impossible and Improvable to get Creatives to Participate within an Open Forum to Discuss their work. The most Demanding and Overwhelming Reason is The Demand for their Professional and Personal Time.

Most important, you CANNOT compare David Weinberger to Maestro Tony Spaeth. In the Respect, Maestro is an Independent and a MADE MAN. He has earned the Trust and Respect of Everyone in the Industry, he has an Inside Track on almost all Identity work.

There are also Identity Revitalizations that Escape his Grasp.

David on the other hand is Renowned in his own Right. His Responsiblity is more Demanding than Maestro's, he is a Creative Director and in charge of a very large staff.

His work for Speak Up is a Labor of Love. I'll invite anyone Criticizing David Weinberger or wanting more 411 information) in reference to Confidential Identity Projects, to write the next
Recent Rebrands.

You will not understand how difficult obtaining the 411 is until you are in the Trenches yourself.

It is a Commonly Held MISCONCEPTION that Creatives working in Identity Related Fields AUTOMATICALLY know which Consultancy Created a Given Identity, as well Privy to the Background Story, NOT TRUE.

That 411 is Guarded and if you do not have an Inside Track with the Creative Director on any Identity ReDesign or Revitalization, it is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain that 411 until the 411 is made Public. Often times the 411 is not made Public. If it is, you still have to obtain the Background Story. No Press Release will give you that information.

Again, it is an Imposition and Myopic to Require, Expect and Demand an Identity Designer Professional David Weinberger's Talent, Character and Caliber to Accomplish more. When his First and Ultimate Responsiblity is to Provide for himself and his Family.

Grasshopper, you want MORE 411 on Identity Projects.

I've just Anointed you to WRITE an Identity Revitalization of your Choice for the next Recent Rebrandings or before the year is out.

THRILL ME!!!!!!!

As my OLD BOSS used to SAY.

Speak Now or Forever HOLD YOUR PEACE!!!!!!!!

Back to Fighting with my Father the Legendary Lou Danziger.

Dad what do you MEAN I'm not Good Enough to become a MEMBER OF THE AGI????!!!!!!!!

I thought I'm Automatically Inducted because I'm your Son.


On Jul.05.2006 at 01:12 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

I can't agree more with what 'Armin' has stated above. There is no excuse for poor execution.

And to blame it on lower grade or lack of 'Personel' is a cop out. FutureBrand and any other brand centric firm has a plethora of outside design resources they can tap to execute a mark with precision. To say a firms creative ability will ebb and flow with their limited personel is a lame excuse. Part of being a top-notch firm is realizing you need to bring in outside talent to pull of a project whether or not they are an employee or freelance.

Utilizing modeled effects (3D) in branding isn't an automatic negative. It can be executed well and with new print technologies in all areas of application it can be carried out with precision. Like a movie that relies on CGI instead of a well crafted story, I look at MC new mark as relying on FX rather then a well crafted brand story and mark.

On Jul.05.2006 at 02:44 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:


"And to blame it on lower grade or lack of 'Personnel's is a cop out. FutureBrand and any other brand centric firm has a plethora of outside design resources they can tap to execute a mark with precision".

I don't MAKE Excuses for Anyone!!!!!!!

Please Read my Post and Comments with Understanding before you Pretend to Paraphrase Me.

What I've Said, is what I've Always said since I've Been Writing on Speak Up for over three years.

The Talent Today does NOT Exist Compared to the Old Days. They Craft Aspect of Identity has NOT BEEN Passed Down to the younger Generation of Designer(s).

Smaller Identity Firms as Mentioned in my First Post has always Commenced the BEST Identity work,
Bar None.

e.g. Landor, Lippincott & Margulies, Siegel & Gale, FutureBrand, InterBrand ARE ONLY as Good as their Personnel.

Landor's Creativity Died when Margaret Youngblood left three years ago.

Margaret Youngblood is Essentially Irreplaceable.

Any wonder why Landor isn't Creating Great Identities anymore.

Fact of Matter, there has not been any Great Identities coming from Landor since Walter Landor Passed in 1994 and John Diefenbach sold Controlling Interest to Young & Rubicam.

Siegel + Gale's Creativity Died when Creative Directors Ken Cooke and Gene Grossman left two years ago or more.

You Can't Replace Ken Cooke or Gene Grossman.

FutureBrand's Creativity Died when John Diefenbach Former CEO of Landor sold his Controlling Interest of Diefenbach Elkins and left to Consult with Wolf Olins. Then started TrueBrand with Vince Carra'. Since had moved on to other Endeavors.

Hell, Wolf Olins is NOT the same Identity Consultancy it was when Wally Olins was Manning the Ship.

Any Wonder why Henry Drefuss Industrial Design Practice Failed after his Death.

Any Wonder why M&CO is not a Force to Be Reckoned
with after the Death of Tibor Kalman.

Any wonder why ALL the Personnel at Saul Bass Retired after Saul Bass Died in 1996.

Rhetorical Question!!!!!!

True Identity Consultancies can tap into Resources for Identity work when their Staff's are WEAK.

What's your Excuse for why FutureBrand DID NOT.

What's your Excuse for ALL THE LAME Identities were SEEING since 1996 after Bass and Rand Died.

I've Given you my Analogy.

I'd be interested in Hearing some Concrete and Scholarly Discourse coming from you in reference to WHY THE DECLINE in the Aesthetic and Production Level of Identity Practice.

Other that what I've already Stated and Made Clear!!!!!!!


On Jul.05.2006 at 03:53 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:

Hey, no harm no foul.

You said: "Only to say, Any Identity Consultancy, Design Firm/Consultancy is ONLY as Great as its Personnel.

The Pendulum Swings Back and Forth. There are lean times for every Creative Consultancy insofar as Personnel."

My paraphase was a fair response to that statement. And it wasn't really addressed to you in specific Mavin it was poignant towards the branding firms in general.

And to blame it on lower grade or lack of 'Personel' is a cop out. FutureBrand and any other brand centric firm has a plethora of outside design resources they can tap to execute a mark with precision. To say a firms creative ability will ebb and flow with their limited personel is a lame excuse. Part of being a top-notch firm is realizing you need to bring in outside talent to pull off a project whether or not they are an employee or freelance.

This is a design dialogue not a monologue. We many not agree on every point posted, but I enjoy reading opinions that agree, contradict and appose my own. It's all part of growing.

On Jul.05.2006 at 05:58 PM
Tony Spaeth’s comment is:

I am not sure I can live up to the promise DM makes for the Tony Spaeth brand. But I will keep telling stories, when they appear, of leaders intelligently using identity. And expressing regret when it becomes clear the corporate leaders were not effectively engaged, for whatever reason, in their design responsibility.

I am indebted to David Weinberger, as are the rest of us, for flagging rebrandings on SpeakUp. Please keep it up, David, and to Forum posters. I'll then dig for more when there's something important to learn from client and designer, as in International Rescue Committee and certainly "MasterCard Worldwide."

On Jul.05.2006 at 06:17 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:


Thanks, Acknowledged and Understood.

I didn't mean to make MY COMMENT sound as Condescending as I did. Other than I'm EXTREMELY PASSIONATE about Identity Design. I LIVE FOR IT.


MADE MAN is an Understatement, yet well Deserved.
You are Beloved and Respected by the Identity Industry and Community at Large.

I don't know anyone else that can get Access to the Information you get. I've Tried and Repeatedly Failed.

Yet, I pick MYSELF UP and KEEP SOLDIERING ON for the Shear Love of Identity.

David with all his Time Constraints and Commitments to Family, Career and Friends has Commenced a Remarkable Job of Bringing Identity Awareness to Speak Up. From a Professional Practitioners Birds Eye View is UNPARALLEL.

The thought that he is somehow Shortchanging Speak Up's Community is ABSURD!!!!!


Many Are Called, FEW ARE CHOSEN!!!

Signing Off.


BTW, GRASSHOPPER, This in NO WAY Exonerate you from writing the NEXT or FUTURE Recent Rebrandings.

With Full Credits and Back Story ala Maestro Tony Spaeth.


On Jul.05.2006 at 06:58 PM
R Berger’s comment is:

Has anyone seen this?


On Jul.07.2006 at 09:36 AM
cchs’s comment is:

Maybe they should have hired a San Francisco-based designer to create the YBCA identity. Why go all the way to the opposite coast to brand a local arts organization? Beyond its poor craft and clunky execution, it really doesn't reflect local values or sensitivities with regard to the arts, diversity, etc. Sometimes a more intimate understanding of local culture is required to created a contextually-sensitive solution. This logotype's failure reflects the flaw in its creation: it is removed.

On Jul.07.2006 at 11:24 AM
BobSchro’s comment is:

Design Maven's blanket statements about "BUY OUT design consultancies" are inappropriate. Granted, integrity get's lost in the minutia of modern overmarketing... but, to say the creativity of these firms has been lost since "so and so" has left or since it was sold to "parent company X" is absurd...

Instead of dropping names, why not make a name for yourself?

I work at siegle+gale now AND I was here while the acclaimed Mr. Grossmann was here... We were good friends. Granted, the old guy was good... but, so am I...

The "good old days" of identity design are over... Recession? Brand identity design is as it always has been, it's evolving... With or without a designer's consent. Our clients' needs and expectations are growing everyday. Apparently, some designers have to catch up...

I see the current state of Brand Identity design as an exciting opportunity to redefine what it is AND what our roles and responsibilities as designers are...

We can all either sit back and complain how things aren't like they used to be... or, we can actually try and do something about it.

I am doing something about it.

On Jul.08.2006 at 01:18 PM
David Weinberger’s comment is:

OK let's clear something up. The Senior leadership at a brand consultancy is quite often different from the Creative leadership. So while you may know the names of the people with their names on the door or even a president or CEO or two, it is the Designers to the Creative Directors that are largely responsible for the creative output. I know agencies where the names on the door aren't involved in the day to day at all. I worked with Bob Schroeder at Landor back in the day, and he is now part of the Creative leadership at Siegel & Gale and therefor the industry.

It is quite hard for designers to make a name for themselves in branding these days. Often, designers are part of a team so it is hard to claim sole ownership and the name of the consultancy is often the only name credited. I do guarantee you that if you saw a list of the projects that Bob has worked on, your jaw would drop.

Are consultancies putting out the most creative work in the industry? Sometimes. And it certainly is a challenge to do so. But I do agree with Bob that it is an exciting time. Like it or not, brand consultancies like FutureBrand, Landor, Interbrand, Wolff Olins, Siegel & Gale, Lippincott Mercer, G2, BIG and Enterprise IG have a lot to do with defining the visual landscape of our time. Any designer out there should jump at the chance to work at one of these firms. You can do amazing work.

On Jul.12.2006 at 12:00 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Admin Note: Couple of comments deleted due to unnecessary roughness.

On Jul.12.2006 at 12:27 PM
BobSchro’s comment is:

I don't really feel this can be a "discussion" Maven. It comes off more like your own private monologue.

I'll say what I said before. The claims made by you are blanket statements...

I do not know what you are trying to say with your "statements of fact." Your list of criteria (aside from your references to "BUY OUTS") existed even when the "GODs" as you call them were still in practice... what is your point?

Alan Siegel's name is still on the door. He is still working here and he is fantastic to work for. In fact, he was just in my office... I don't get the impression that he is a sell out, or that his integrity has changed since joining Omnicom.

On Jul.12.2006 at 04:04 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:

Bob Schro:

If you re-check my Postings I never said Alan was a Sell Out.
I said there was a Decline in Asthetic and Craft of Identity Design for a Culmination of Reasons across the board for all BUY OUT Consultancies.

Alan's Name is still on the Door. That's a Given.
Alan is an Attorney, not a Designer!!!!

Alan is not Responsible for Execution of Identity Design.

The Problem that Plague BUY OUTS Listed Below.

1. Acquisition of Identity Consultancies by Communication Conglomerates.

2. Bona Fide Designers are no longer Principals of many of these BUY OUT Consultancies.

3. The Craft Aspect of Identity Design has not been passed down to the younger generation of Designers.

4. Lack of Capability and Understanding of how to Reduce Symbols, e.g. Glyphs, Pictograms, Monograms, Monoseals, Seals, Ideograms to their BAREST ESSENTIAL!!!!!

Not Ornamentation and Software Filter Quackery.

5. Lack of Creativity

6. Lack of Originality.

Siegel operates on a Different Model because Alan is still there. The same with Ken Roberts who is the CEO of Lippincott & Margulies. Ken Roberts learned his Love for Identity at Anspach Grossman Portugal with Gene Grossman, Maestro Tony Spaeth, and Ken Love now Retired from L+M and AGP.

I don't get your point either.

You keep alluding to BUY OUTS. I wish you would address Points two (2) through Six (6).

You'd be Surprise how many Former and Current Creative Directors at First Tier Identity Consultancies Contact me and Complain about the Lack of Professionalism of the Current State-of-the Art of Identity Practice.

BUY OUTS existed even when the "GODs" as you call them were still in practice.

The BUY OUT Craze of Identity Consultancies Purportedly Begin when Young & Rubicam bought Landor from John Diefenbach in 1994.

Communication Conglomerates were Buying Ad Agencies, Public Relations, Communications, Crises Management Consultancies because they need more Streams of Income.

Your Argument doesn't hold Water.

Bob any other Comments Please Contact me offline. We can argue and fight for days Months, Weeks, Years.


On Jul.12.2006 at 07:13 PM
Mark’s comment is:

IRC: not bad simple and eyecatching, it supposed to be an arrow right?

YBCA:um, yikes! what was wrong with the previous one and why is the letters so bold? what is with the curve of the "b" looking cut off from the connection with the "y"? and why choose sea-green as a color? Why make cursive look so......bad?

Mastercard Worldwide:Um,why isn't the circle centered? what was this done on Microsoft Powerpoint?

Is that circle supposed to be a globe?

On Jul.23.2006 at 01:28 PM