NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
Henry Steiner, a one-time student of Paul Rand and designer of the HSBC logo, is the latest contemporary designer to alter a Paul Rand logo with a redesign for the once-named Europeiska Ferieskolan — now called Education First. Rand’s original logo was, well, a Rand design — perhaps not as superb as, say, IBM or UPS, but still smart, beautifully crafted and timeless. The redesign was commissioned to integrate “Education First” into the mark, to allow room for the product/service name to be locked-up, and to provide EF with a logo “…to represent all of our products around the world.” Steiner’s design retains the foundation of the Rand mark and executes the update around it with careful craftsmanship. When the logo is set with a product name the neutrally-toned typography finds a good visual balance. The drop shadow is an extra visual element that while not necessarily helping the semantics of the mark (it plays more contrast to the concentric circles than support) does help alleviate the blue box from being a visually flat containing shape. While, by default, I wish to keep Rand’s work from being sent to the graveyard or going under the knife, this rebranding accomplishes the goals set out by the client and at the same time retains the equity that had been established by Rand — and, at least, this logo was not subject to to gradients, shines, and bevels.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Unit B’s comment is:
A pretty nicely done upgrade, true to the soul of the original. It retains Rand's character and is actually somewhat more legible, IMHO. (Is it me, or is the new blue the original IBM blue? Hmm...) While not earth shaking, it's a classy evolution. The light type selection works well.
On Jan.29.2008 at 11:11 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
I don't read the black shape as a drop shadow. It appears to be the interior of the book/brochure.
With all due respect to Mr. Steiner and Mr. Rand, I couldn't resist a quick look at setting the base of the black shape horizontal. The result is the cover page lifts up instead of the shadow/page dropping back and achieves a more positive impression in my view.
On Jan.29.2008 at 11:15 PM
Joachim’s comment is:
I'm not sure how to feel about this. I'm glad it avoids the bevels, drop shadows and gradients, but it doesn't succeed. I guess the extra elements, Helvetica oblique, and colour is what makes this mark appear dull and lifeless.
On Jan.30.2008 at 12:14 AM
Miles’s comment is:
I agree with Jerry Kuyper: that's definitely not a drop shadow.
On Jan.30.2008 at 12:16 AM
Greg Formager’s comment is:
I disagree with almost all of the opinions put forth on this blog, but this has got to be the one I disagree most with. I think that new treatment is horrible.
On Jan.30.2008 at 12:42 AM
coolcutter’s comment is:
honestly i couldn't tell which was the newer logo. they both put off an electric company vibe with the circle pattern and color. the original was the better of the two.
if they wanted to add a fresh vibe to it, if anything maybe they shouldve changed the typeface slightly. the circle pattern is the most recognizable element. a slight change in typeface is kinda like seeing your friend, still recognizable, but with a new haircut. but this logo looks like your old friend is wearing a suspect book/drop shadow with more bland typeface than before. it's like, "hey bud. why the hell are you wearing that?"
K. West’s comment is:
Unfortunately, the Rand name doesn't spark any particular reverence in me (only from ignorance, mind you) so when I see an "EF" with a concentric circle laid over it, it just seems lazy and message-less. Basically, for me, anything that contains the sort of dizzying radio signal of the original helps it go down a little smoother for me.
On Jan.30.2008 at 01:47 AM
nicelogo.com’s comment is:
I do love how proud they are to own an original Rand designed logo, and by not completely destroying it was a respectful move (like not reupholstering your Eames chair).
On Jan.30.2008 at 02:23 AM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
Agreed that "drop shadow" was not perhaps the best selection of terms. It is indeed a shadow and I too was aware of the relative book-like page reference, though with the flat object and hinge I began reading it more as a sheet/page being lifted, rather than something being opened.
On Jan.30.2008 at 03:04 AM
DG3’s comment is:
They both suck.
On Jan.30.2008 at 03:08 AM
Rosie’s comment is:
Perhaps some of the commenters should go visit the design encyclopedia!
I wonder if perhaps in the future, the bloggers here might be able to provide a little more background on the company itself so that there is some base to work when looking at these rebrands?
That said, the original logo was well done and speaks more universally than what may originally pop into your head when you think about the kind of work EF does.
I understand the concept behind the new logo, but I sort of feel that it's a clash of ideas - Rand seemed to be trying to show the company in a more abstract, understood by everyone way. The new one does look like a book of some sort (we can debate on the drop shadow thing forever) and takes it in a more literal direction. Of course there's never going to be a solution that is best, but I kind of feel that this wouldn't be one of my top picks.
On Jan.30.2008 at 03:48 AM
philip bulley’s comment is:
Rand's minimalism remains, but still it just looks dated. not asking for UPS rebrand-style gradients, sheens etc, but i just don't think its very clever nor is it imaginative. always hated this logo anyway - reminds me of annoying packs of european tourist kids getting in the way whilst i'm trying to get a bit of shopping done on oxford street. grrr.
On Jan.30.2008 at 04:47 AM
DG3’s comment is:
If they must keep the circles, why not make them less of a distraction? Something along the lines of this.
Goffredo Puccetti’s comment is:
In these times where master designs are shamelessly altered and/or destroyed beyond repair (RMN by Frutiger, UPS by Rand, etc etc) it is nice to see a Company approaching a redesign task with some consciousness and attention. Thanks to Steiner there are no bevels and swooshs here!!!
Having said so, I fail to fully appreciate the benefits of this redesign. But anyway: top marks to EF.
Able Parris’s comment is:
I think the new logo is quite an upgrade. I agree that the black does not look like a drop shadow, but tilting it to the left would make it less readable so I can see why it is like it is.
@DG: Your quick mockup would not work, and try to bring better criticism to the table besides just saying "they both suck."
On Jan.30.2008 at 08:33 AM
DG3’s comment is:
Ok, 'sucks' was a little harsh. But from what others have said, the feeling is mutual. But I'm glad YOU like their new logo.
On Jan.30.2008 at 10:23 AM
Ryan Paul’s comment is:
I think everyone here can bring something informative to the table. After all, we're all professionals here.
DG3, while I appreciate your passionate response to the new logo, I sort of wish your comment was more specific. "They both suck" doesn't help me understand the root of the problem, nor does it help me figure out how it could have been better resolved.
I'm not suggesting that you should, or shouldn't, like this logo... we all have an equally valid opinion. I just think by being constructive, there's more to be gained by everyone.
On Jan.30.2008 at 01:18 PM
Persia’s comment is:
DG3, I think your new logo is too 'periodic table', though I like the cleanness of it.
For me, the concentric circles confuse the eye-- they seem to lead to a focal point, so you're looking for the focal point when you should be reading the letters. I like the book idea, as it's 'opening up' the logo and minimizes the disorienting nature of the original logo.
On Jan.30.2008 at 02:51 PM
wookiepants’s comment is:
Needs more Web 2.0.
Seriously, where has all the meaningful criticism gone? Rarely do we hear from people like Jerry Kuyper anymore. Felix? Maven? Vit? Kingsley? Millman? All M.I.A.
Instead we get "That Sucks" or "I coulda done that in 5 minutes" in just about every entry.
DG3, don't quit your job waiting tables just yet.
Most of all, the posts (not all mind you) smack of professional jealousy. "Waaaaah, why aren't I doing that work?" Because you suck.
Oh "logo smackdown", where art thou when we need you? I wax nostalgic for the old days...
On Jan.30.2008 at 03:21 PM
Dan in Van’s comment is:
DG3's logo is clean, but dull and you've almost made the concentric circles surplus to requirement. The elements are disjointed and there because they're in the original. They're not very well integrated, though I appreciate this was a quick scamp.
I didn't see that as a drop shadow at first either. Being educationally-related, I read it as being a book. Doesn't anyone else think black was a really bad choice for the 'shadow' anyway? It seems too heavy. Surely this could have been done with another blue?
The other thing about the circles is that in the Rand original, what's so nice is that are negative space. In the new rendition, they kind of become 'drawn' and solid, and too obvious... just a thought. I think they lack the elegance and simplicity. The whole thing could've been achieved without a holding shape, but some clients seems to like a 'badge'.
On Jan.30.2008 at 03:28 PM
Rachel’s comment is:
While I'm a sucker for a logo that incorporates an old, highly recognizable mark into an update (like the new AT&T logo), I'm not feelin' this one. I've never heard of Education First, never seen this logo (that I can recall), so in my mind there's no real need to keep any element of the old logo, which to me screams "electric company" (thanks coolcutter) and reminds me of something I'd see on the Paleo-Future blog. Maybe this mark is more recognizable outside the U.S.? I don't know. The only thing I like is the book-like shape - says education to me, much more than the concentric circles.
On Jan.30.2008 at 03:31 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
It appears that the "EF" mark is far more legible when reversed out of a colored field, though otherwise I can't say I find many good things to say about the updated composition...
I think the Helvetica Light Italic is a bit too wimpy to be used in this knockout capacity; if that mark gets any smaller, the drop in legibility will be dramatic. It's also in serious trouble if it's printed on any sort of uncoated stock.
On Jan.30.2008 at 04:10 PM
Jung’s comment is:
If it is the book or any of their kind, it is very odd to have abstract visual interpretation on top of literal perspective...
To me, it has too much things going on at the same time. I agree with some of designers here that this maybe not the best work of his, but it certainly is visually more powerful than the new mark.
Dear DG3, thanks for sharing what not to do with us.
brandy’s comment is:
Window dressing…Tell me one thing that communicates any more clearly about the new mark. Rand's original was strong and if there was to be a "re-do" I would have just as soon started fresh.
The fact is that the the original mark could have been very, very easily re-staged and supported with language (as they have attempted to go in the new one) and a flexible, smart, expressive system. The original would have held up in any application. It reminds me of what happens often in packaging: instead of clarifying the message, they add another widget or dohickie to suggest "new, brighter, whiter"
I too have never seen this mark before but even without reading a word and comparing the two, I think: "why?"…instead, spend the budget making Rand's mark communicate by using it as the basis for a smart new brand expression and language. "Education First" is a great big step and in some ways a much bigger leap than "tweaking" Paul's original.
On Jan.30.2008 at 04:23 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Wookie,
I'm not MIA, I'm sitting pretty at the number two comment. Clients are getting in my way. Check my very late post on Dubai International.
On Jan.30.2008 at 04:36 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
Just want to mention one thing.
"Thou shalt be honest, even with Mr Rand." :)
Rand fails either communicating to us that EF's priority is education. The newer version does introduce the element 'book' to enforce it, but i feel book is a cliche. It seems like a British Library publication cover.
Maybe client insisted. That is the reason all designers give. I don't buy that reason.
Brand New love for Underconsideration. Thank you, Armin. Good work!
On Jan.30.2008 at 04:44 PM
Andrew’s comment is:
Are there any 100% Paul Rand logos still out there that are still being used? I can't think of one. Everything Rand has designed has looked seriously dated since the early '90s.
Sorry folks, the UPS logo was nothing special. Nor was the NEXT logo that required a companion 17-page booklet to explain the design. The IBM logo was not Rand's but he did add the stripes. Big deal.
Cummins? - Hideous!
Westinghouse? –Dated. Who uses an outlet like that?– Brazilians?
abc? - Okay, maybe 1.
Anyone else care to mention any other 'great' designs Rand has createted that are still in use?
I've never understood the 'genius' of Rand. He was much better at ranting about the philosophy of design than designing. Like most of my College professors.
Khakis’s comment is:
Why did Rand use concentric circles, in the first place? I'll give him credit for having a good reason at the time. Does it still have the desired read? Does the company still have the same values to communicate? My gut reaction is no, for at least one of those points. (anyone want to contribute a little research to the discussion?)
I'm not going to let my respect for Rand to cloud the fact that whatever the intention when the logo was designed, it doesn't function now. Saving a logo that doesn't communicate (ie, doesn't do its job) just because of who designed it doesn't make sense.
Sometimes the designer has to be the one to make the tough decision.
On Jan.30.2008 at 05:11 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Andrew,
I know what you mean, Leonardo da Vinci's work is beginning to look a little dated too.
Christian Palino’s comment is:
I think its worth keeping in mind that the original logo that Rand designed was a mark that did not encompass having the name "Education First" contained or seemingly present in their use of it.
It appears that the client requested a new identity that would have the name "Education First" included in the logo design which could also be paired with their various product names (for example: Educational Tours, International travel for teachers and students or Foundation for Foreign Study). This means that there was a need to have a logo that represented the company as a whole that could then have various lock-ups to support the individual products.
In this respect (whether we like it or not) having the original "EF" mark and the name "Education First" combined in a visual element that would be separate from the product name helps avoid a situation where the typographic hierarchy would have to enable something like this:
Education First
Educational Tours
International travel for teachers and students
(as long-winded as that product name is, it is a requirement)
And for better or for worse, Rand's original logo was already being placed in a containing shape (have a look closely at the at the press release PDF as well as the main site).
On Jan.30.2008 at 05:53 PM
DG3’s comment is:
My only point was they should have got away from the 'distracting' circles and made it more pleasing to the eye.
Take away the Rand backstory and you're left with 2 lousy logos (ok, 3 if you include mine).
On Jan.30.2008 at 08:08 PM
Asen Tsvyatkov’s comment is:
I kind of have to agree with Andrew a bit on Paul Rand, because I can understand a how one can have a certain tiredness of having a such a design paradigm.
A feeling that is all the more reinforced by Rand's well-publicized, conservative outlook on design. Combine these two and you have a dogmatic, stagnant image of graphic design that serves well as a good academic reference, but does little in terms of giving cues to variety and creative freedom.
It does look good, in a way that if Paul Rand was alive would have probably liked it to be. Notice all the conditionals in that previous sentence? Having some dated design consultant "carefully" update Rand's work is like having my appendix reattached.
I think it is healthy to once in a while respectfully disregard some of that 'iconic' influences for the sake of doing something riskier and easily more creative. If the client is an educational company that has a crumbling brand which painfully needs to differentiate, it is probably not best to try and reinvigorate a corporate design that is 10 years older than its target audience and quite frankly makes me think of a freight company.
Cummins, however, is brilliant.
On Jan.30.2008 at 08:14 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
My initial impression is that
this really doesn't work well.
I have yet to understand what
Europeiska Ferieskolan did as an
organization, and how that
differs for Education First.
What did the concentric circles
originally represent? They are
very evocative of broadcast
vertigo / etc, and I have difficulty
understanding what they mean or
communicate it terms of Education
First. Can someone explain?
What do the letters "EF" do for
the organization anymore? They
now have a name that's easy to
pronounce, spell, and remember;
unlike Europeiska Ferieskolan
(which I can't even pronounce,
let alone spell) They should
champion that name over a pair
of letters which no longer have
any real purpose. These letters
Seem to only serve nostalgia.
Judging from the web site
(which has a different version
Of the logo) I also don't see any
cohesive system or understand
What his drop shadow/open
book means...
There is already:
--Giant letters
--Concentric circles
--A 14 letter name
--All in an italicized Box
--Then with a drop shadow on it?
How many things am I asked to remember?
Why? What does it all mean, if anything?
I don't understand.
I'm reminded of OPEN's TIAA CREFF Logo
& system, However OPEN's design and
system have a very clear intention, something
I don't get here.
I look at it this way:
If the tenants of Mies van der Rohe's
Farnsworth House needed more
square footage of living space,
I would advise them to move as
opposed to building an addition
or second story.
Sometimes, no matter how wonderful
something is, it just gets outgrown.
+++++ Answers (if they exist) to some
+++++ of these questions would be very
+++++ helpful and appreciated.
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
Both versions make me dizzy — at least the new one tells me what EF means.
*goes to lay down*
On Jan.30.2008 at 09:53 PM
damon’s comment is:
you people need to stop sucking paul rand's dick.
holy fuck, if I read one more "rand is rolling around in his grave" comment I'm going to die.
things progress, that's the VERY PURPOSE OF DESIGN.
get a clue. Most current brand work is shit, but not all brand work done in the past is the basis by which we're supposed to create foundation for everything going forward.
as far as this logo is concerned, i sort of feel as though the concentric circles impact is lost by adding a background carrier, and I find the black box shadow/opposing page to be a bit useless. Might make sense for a paper producer or publisher, I dunno.
the type is beyond boring, comatose would be kind.
sometimes a shine, bevel, or gradient makes shit look nice... it'ss not a crutch, but being traditional isn't a fail safe either.
3/10 on this one.
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Christian,
In "From Lauscaux to Brooklyn" Rand devoted 18 pages to the rationale and demonstrations of EF. He most certainly had Education First locked up with the EF logo. Now it could be they didn't embrace his recommendation or over the years Rand's system feel into disrepair, I have no insight there. I recommend looking at the book for anyone who has any interest in seeing the project through his eyes.
Assen,
"A feeling that is all the more reinforced by Rand's well-publicized, conservative outlook on design. Combine these two and you have a dogmatic, stagnant image of graphic design that serves well as a good academic reference, but does little in terms of giving cues to variety and creative freedom."
And while you are checking "Lauscaux" out, look at the work he did with the Cunmmins logo. Rand was more spirited and playful with the logos of major companies, think IBM, than any designer I can think of. Dogmatic?, stagnant?, I think not. Cues to variety and creative freedom? Absolutely!
Has anyone heard of the middle path? Having a reasonable understanding of and respect for design history seems achievable.
It means not labeling our predecessors as gods and bowing down to everything they did in their career.
It also means not being rude, crass or inane. "I like it" and "I sort of feel as though the" is not the level of discourse required to persuade others to your point of view.
On Jan.30.2008 at 11:15 PM
brandy’s comment is:
Right on Jerry!
Well said. Folks who were no doubt in diapers or worse, in embryonic stage should not, without deeper understanding, relegate the conversation here to Romper Room discourse with regard to Paul Rand or any other designer…god or not!
(this may be something those "Agency" folks can't quite grasp)
On Jan.30.2008 at 11:35 PM
K. West’s comment is:
I read up on Rand--yeah I know. I think the original UPS is gorgeous btw.
I don't consider this original EF up to his standard.
On Jan.31.2008 at 01:42 AM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
Jerry, I have "From Lascaux to Brooklyn" here, my comment was in regard to the way the logo had been handled by the client – admittedly I didn't word the comment right. The collateral material I've found (I managed to drum up some older collateral out here, I'll see if I can get scans of it up) all presents the logo without Rand's complete lock-up – often just the logo by itself with varying presentations of the name or a product name.
I've asked Mr. Steiner to have a look here and offer us any insight about the project he'd like to share. No promises, but hopefully he'll contribute some background for us.
On Jan.31.2008 at 02:37 AM
Luci E.’s comment is:
Don`t joke about the spiritual things! Do you believe in God? And if you do, take Him seriously. Read His word, the Bible. Repent and turn to God, until it`s not too late...
On Jan.31.2008 at 05:36 AM
Goffredo Puccetti’s comment is:
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is: (...)
In "From Lauscaux to Brooklyn" Rand devoted 18 pages to the rationale and demonstrations of EF. He most certainly had Education First locked up with the EF logo.
--
I agree. At page 201 of the Book 'Paul Rand' by Steven Heller, Phaidon Press 1999, one can see a spread from the EF presentation booklet. 'Education First' is definitely there next to the EF logo from the beginning. And no square to contain the EF logo.
The circles were meant to represent sound waves, and I think they serve the purpose when appropriately displayed as negative space.
In Rand'd words: « the sound waves pattern serves a clear purpose. It is conceptually and graphically appropriate. It provides a visual device that is both decorative and mnemonic, easily incorporated as an organic and inseparable part of the logo (...) »
Regarding the fact the many Rand's design have been updated, I do not understand that line of reasoning: that to me is more a testimony of the decadence of contemporary corporate design rather than the demonstration of some failure in them. Just check the latest post about that Capital One bank re-branding. Does that mean that the omnipresent swooshes are good??? No, it only means that design schools suck, that a lot of contemporary design agencies are ruled by people who never bothered check out what it has been created before they were born.
The redesign of the UPS logo simply demonstrate that the people who commisioned were idiots and the ones who redesigned were boring followers of trends and fashion and not inventors.
Am I the only one who think that adding the stripes to the IBM was indeed a very big deal - without irony?
Am I the only one who think that the sentence "sometimes a shine, bevel, or gradient makes shit look nice" is incomplete and should read:
"sometimes a shine, bevel, or gradient makes shit look nice shit; but it is still shit nonetheless".
I have no particular interest in sucking anybody's dick; still I think Paul Rand was a great designer and his work should be studied more carefully.
On Jan.31.2008 at 05:51 AM
Persia’s comment is:
I wonder if you took a generational poll how many of the older viewers/commenters liked the circles and how many of the younger ones didn't.
I (at 32) can see the 'radio waves' look/feel but it doesn't mean anything to me-- what does that have to do with education? I'd suspect it felt more 'cutting edge' and relevant at the time, and probably has more resonance with people 30+ than with those under 30. Some design elements age more gracefully than others, and perhaps this one just doesn't age well.
On Jan.31.2008 at 09:13 AM
C-Lo’s comment is:
You put the logo on a faux pamphlet and expect me to not notice it's barely readable? Yeah let's draw things around the crap logo to make it less of a crap logo. I don't care who did this, but they need to go back to night school or something to get back up to speed on what works.
(Give me.. Your Dirty Love. Like some tacky little pamphlet in your daddy's bottom drawer) -Frank Zappa
On Jan.31.2008 at 10:01 AM
Joseph’s comment is:
Honestly, The original mark is better than the "upgrade" they didn't need it. And it looks like student work done to an exist mark.
On Jan.31.2008 at 10:31 AM
Philip Hult’s comment is:
I am the CEO of EF and comissioned both the original Pual Rand logo as well as the Henry Steiner update. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The main point that is being missed in the above disucssion is the reason behind the update. We had found that EF's main problem was that people had a hard time remembering what the letters E and F stood for. To aide recal we wanted to permanently lockup the words Education First with the logo AND still be able to put a product or division name next to the logo.
Paul Rand's original only allowed you to lock up EITHER Education First OR a product name and not both.
Personally I found both Paul and Henry wonderful men to work with. If there are any designers out there in London who would like to work with EF and help us with our design work please drop me a line.
Best
Philip Hult
On Jan.31.2008 at 10:44 AM
brandy’s comment is:
Thank you Philip…
For reading and contributing to this forum. What a treat to actually hear from the client to clarify the strategy and context of a project.
Without input like yours, often, we designers tend to step into the vortex of naval gazing, speculation and just plain gossip without the benefit of the real background/story. Thanks for clarifying!
J’s comment is:
Rand said: "the sound waves pattern serves a clear purpose. It is conceptually and graphically appropriate. It provides a visual device that is both decorative and mnemonic, easily incorporated as an organic and inseparable part of the logo"
...except that explains nothing.
Mr. Hult, thanks for stopping by and making a comment. Perhaps you can clarify how the sound waves fit in with your company's identity?
On Jan.31.2008 at 11:41 AM
Philip Hult’s comment is:
Paul originally presented 4 or 5 designs only one of which incorporated sound waves. After looking at them for a few weeks both of us independently thought the waves held up the best.
The 'idea', if there was one, was that the waves were like a radio singnal reflecting communications which is our biggest business (teaching people English, helping them communicate)
Philip
On Jan.31.2008 at 11:57 AM
Tony Goff’s comment is:
I have to admit I liked the old version better, far simpler and cleaner in my opinion. Maybe updating the old blue to the new blue and inverting the rings would have worked well but I just don't like the book like drop shadow and the text above the logo.
On Feb.01.2008 at 06:25 AM
Chris Oldt’s comment is:
Of the two, I prefer the original. Unfortunately concentric circles have been done to death now which has watered down the meaning of that original mark. I think the new approach feels very awkward because of the black shape. I don't exactly know if it's a shadow or the back cover of a book. As a shadow it appears off somehow. As a book cover it appears that if the book were closed then the black portion of the cover would stick out - or be longer than the front. It just doesn't feel well resolved to me.
I would have started from scratch, maybe keeping the letter forms the same as the original to carry some continuity between the old and new.
On Feb.01.2008 at 03:49 PM
stephanie’s comment is:
I read Brand New consistently, it's one of my favorite sites to read about branding and logo design.
I just want to state how much I appreciate everyone who comment on this site...the ones who play the devil's advocate, the ones who takes out the time to rebuff and calmly provide background information to help fuel the discussion, and even the ones who ridicule everything said. The dynamic between y'all is amazing.
For someone still in design school and soaking up everything I can possibly absorb, Brand New is a treasure mine. Thanks guys.
BTW, being from a younger generation (early 20's), I just want to say that I do have a profound respect for design history, and certainly do study and read up on all the "classics". So rest assured that the next generation is not going to be in hell.
That said, the logo does need a tune up, but the new one seems too understated. The concept of the logo would be lost on me without a clear explanation of what it constitutes, and I am definitely the audience they would want to appeal to. (In fact, I am very much engrossed in their site.) Their audience (the younger kids) would not care for the history behind their logo, but how much attention it grabs.
On Feb.03.2008 at 02:42 PM
Philip Hult’s comment is:
We considered completely changing the logo and starting from scratch but the economic considerations of chainging signs on close to 1000 schools did come up. It would have cost us several million dollars.
With the 'updated logo' we can change signs gradually as they need replacing - a much less expensive scheme.
Philip
On Feb.05.2008 at 10:58 AM
alphadog’s comment is:
I wonder how many seizures were kicked off by the original logo? Just kidding, Rand-lovers, put the pitchforks down.
Seriously, I find my eye wandering all over the two letter, yet never really seeing them unless I force myself to find them.
This is disturbing to me. I have to force myself to find the letters.
This makes a good logo?
Will someone who's not actively analyzing the logo, like all the commenters here, give it any amount of time as he/she rushes on to their next job/task/concern in life?
On Feb.11.2008 at 01:01 PM
Feareeawab’s comment is:
Not the biggest I've unexpectedly seen, but obscene and thick.
On Feb.19.2008 at 02:20 PM
Malikov Design’s comment is:
Go to ef.com and see them both on ef products in action. To my mind no redesign was needed -- Rand's logo works great where ever you put it. I'd just unlock the palette.
How to redesign a logo: Put a logo on a file, take a picture, posterize it, call it a new logo.
On Jun.26.2008 at 02:10 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
بحث عن a b c d e f
On Nov.17.2008 at 04:07 AM
Christine Kim’s comment is:
hi
untms9yz612tvnh1
good luck
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
