NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
In April of 2006 Paris-based Alcatel announced that it would merge with New Jersey-based Lucent Technologies, creating one of the world’s biggest telecommunications companies. This past December 1st, the merger was official and a new identity for the siamesed company was unveiled.
The identity was designed by EURO RSCG Worldwide — yes, I know: “Huh?” — and the resulting icon for the identity is dubbed “The Infinity Symbol” formed by the literal unity between Alcatel’s “A” and Lucent’s “L” in what the press release describes as an icon that “looks as if it were drawn by hand” and, more importantly, “portraying the combination of two great companies creating a better future for its employees, its customers and its customers’ customers.” If that is not enough meaning for you, the new identity also symbolizes “endless possibilities for the future of the combined company, and its commitment to being a strong, stable and enduring ally for our customers around the world.” As glaring as the new identity is, it is the selected color that surprised me the most, as purple — a rare choice in corporate and brand identity, and perhaps Alcatel-Lucent’s boldest move in establishing a recognizable brand — is a very hard color to pull off unless you are Barney. And so as not to disappoint, there is plenty of rhetoric around the hue: a) “[Purple] combines the stability of blue with the energy of red” and b) “[purple] has traditionally symbolized power and ambition and is associated with wisdom, dignity, independence and creativity.” On the trying-to-not-be-generic typography they offer that it “is designed to aid readability and comprehension with upper and lowercase letters.” No word, however, on what the generous shading means.
There isn’t enough positive reinforcement I can offer to this criteria and the resulting icon: A too-soon throwback to the generally curvaceous persona of numerous start-ups during the dot com era. Instead of a company that could literally be poised for world domination through telecommunication and 88,000 employees. The only admirable trait in this new identity is the color, even if a slightly more colorful purple could have pumped up the volume to the next level: A 4 out of 10 in my imaginary rating scale. And, of course, this new “Infinity Symbol” does not even have the fifteenth of impact, innovation or daringness of the one and only, Lucent’s late 90s-defining “Ring of Innovation”.
Also known as “The Big Red Zero,” “The Flaming Goose Egg,” “The Coffee Stain,” and, my favorite, “The Devil’s Asshole,” Lucent’s swooping, red brush stroke was (in)famously designed by Landor in 1996 to much of the industry’s (the telecommunications’, not the design’s) mocking chagrin. While not as long-standing as the UPS or AT&T logos, Lucent’s ring has become one of the most identifiable symbols and is regularly lumped along with Nike’s swoosh, Target’s target and Apple’s apple by businesses and organizations when alluding to the type of identity and recognizability they would like to achieve with their own. The ring also defied (and defined) a design era plagued by the ancestors of this new Alcatel-Lucent type of logos: heavy on curves and shading, lacking execution or longevity, mired in their own spin of meaning. It’s time has come too soon and put to rest by an inferior mark… a sad trend in brand and corporate identity these past five years that, like this new icon indicates, may last to infinity. And beyond.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
frickinmuck’s comment is:
terrible and a huge disappointment. the old lucent logo was memorable and powerful. sad it had to be displaced by something so totally hideous and forgettable.
On Dec.02.2006 at 07:09 PM
nanaimobar’s comment is:
The "Infinity Symbol" for one looks like a glyph that you'd find in a latin inspired script typeface. To me it doesn't seem original for that reason. And what's with the circle? Is it just me, or would the "Infinity Symbol" look a little bit better without it? Or is it just a lost cause all together. I agree with you on the 4 out of 10 on the imaginery rating scale. If this were a school project it would have failed. 40% doesn't cut it there, so why should it cut it here.
On Dec.02.2006 at 08:38 PM
Feldhouse’s comment is:
I think they won the bid on eBay for the "replace your name in this logo" item. In all seriousness:
Lucent was a ground-breaking mark. It was edgy and very advanced for a corporate mark for its time. It paved the way for more corporations to allow for design visionaries to create stellar marks, however, the new logo falls all but short of stellar.
I cannot imagine if all the logos in the world used gradiants and swooshes. I am not a big fan of the color selection or explaination. I don't think purple holds its own weight here, especially with "infinity" because purple is the color of royalty, and we all know royalty don't last forever. Royalty is generally overthrown and usually in a painful manner. Looks like this is some major foreshadowing.
It's a shame to see the art of identity dying. Can someone please tell me why a designer would even present this logo in a presentation? Hello, Creative Director??? What happened to design education with these design firms? Do they not know never to show a logo you think won't work? What about going back to the drawing board? What about thinking outside the box?
It's just very disappointing to see a mark like this even out in the public eye. Identity is in the cycle of one step forward (Cisco, KFC) two steps back (see: Sams club, Fuji, Kodak, Payless, etc).
On Dec.02.2006 at 09:05 PM
Drew Bell’s comment is:
I think they missed out on some color opportunities. After all, green combines the fashion sense of yellow with the sneer of blue. And orange combines the hubris of red with the overdue library book fees of yellow.
On Dec.03.2006 at 01:29 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
Oh man. The press release reads like a Dilbert parody. "...designed to aid readability and comprehension with upper and lowercase letters." Hee hee. You just can't make this stuff up. It's obviously written by someone at the agency, in an attempt to justify their design fee. I almost expected to read: "Dynamically utilizes the Latin alphabet to incrementally functionalize the communication paradigm."
And yes, I hate the shaded circle. Of course they'll have a lineart version as well, but geez, I thought the days of "What the heck, add a bevel!" were behind us. Now that I think about it, though, I think they had to add the purple circle, because the symbol itself isn't memorable enough without it.
On Dec.03.2006 at 03:16 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
Just for kicks, I converted the purple to a lineart version.
It's not any better without the purple & shading. The only thing that comes to mind when I stare at it is: "What the heck is it?"
On Dec.03.2006 at 03:31 AM
Mark.S.’s comment is:
If you owned a classic car, i.e. an Aston Martin or a rare Ferrari, and took to it with an angle grinder in a futile attempt to modernize, people would be horrified, would they not?
I'm sorry but this re-design, and I hate to use the word design in this sentence, is crap!
What is the current fascination with turning logos into f**king chocolate coated lollies?
Bryony’s comment is:
gumball machine + personalized m&m’s = source of inspiration
Everything in this logo looks forced, and the rationale behind is the most forced at all. I have to say, kudos on the purple, yes it is a rare corporate color and if you place their competitors on a color wheel they now stand out from the crowd. Yet, of all the purples available, they made a poor choice in my opinion.
The rest is pure rubbish that I will try to forget ASAP.
On Dec.03.2006 at 10:49 AM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
Very weak design. I guess they thought adding the highlights and shadows validated the image, but as Splashman's b/w version shows, the mark falls even flatter without the eye candy. Back to the drawing board, AL.
On Dec.03.2006 at 01:35 PM
felixxx’s comment is:
I'm OK with this new mark.
What I find repulsive, on close inspection, is that it appears to have been drawn from a laptop on a rainy day in the back of a bumpy cab on 53rd St.
I was cut off somehow... Speaking from, identity design experience with Lucent I'm not spurprised at the irrational Barneyfication here. On my project the rational was to marry the ring. Here, it appears we have the same type of logic; red + blue = purple.
I would've loved to have been in the room to hear the ad geniuses who came up with this one.
David, I'd be interested to know if the CEO position has changed here. Anyone know? You might want to take a page fom Tony and give us a clearer picture of the politics at play.
That said, great reporting thus far...
On Dec.03.2006 at 01:59 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Two thinks I noticed.
1. Yes the shapes are wonky and not built well at all.
2. The modeling effect they applied to the mark looks like a noobish user of Photoshop just discovered layer effects. If they are going to use the whole 'Aqua' and 'Candy Coated' effect for their mark they at least should hire someone who can pull it off to look good. That said it would just be a polish turd at that point.
This is how you apply 'Aqua' to a mark.
Jeff Andrews’s comment is:
Wow! In a million years I don't think I would have taken a mark for a multi-million dollar telecommunications company in this direction. It screams amateurish and out-dated. It lacks any vision or clear-cut concept. It doesn't say strong, stable and enduring. Nor for that matter, does it imply power and ambition, wisdom, dignity, independence and/or creativity! Make a checklist...nope, nope, nope, nope....
I didn't see the infinity symbol in the mark until I'd read the article. Pretty powerful concept when you have to go looking for it.
Out of five? A big fat zero!
On Dec.03.2006 at 03:53 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Feldman-
I don' t think the identity profession is dying across the board, there is still stellar work being produced but I do think those working the larger corporate identities are. And they are doing so spectacularily.
Joe Moran’s comment is:
I just plucked out my offending eye, and am going for the other one with a rusty nail. Next, I'll turn on the gas oven and cover myself in kerosene and light a candle by my bed.
Soon, hopefully, it will all be over.
Goodnight, Alcatel | Lucent! Life was but a dream.
On Dec.03.2006 at 06:54 PM
Feldhouse’s comment is:
fatnuckle:
This is probably something that needs to be addressed on SpeakUp and not comments in BN. Perhaps it will happen one day. Until then it's only small talk between designers. I think we should gather all the identities in the past year and see how many are strong and how many are weak. The year end review of identity design. Armin, I smell something good cooking here...
Acedro Todd’s comment is:
All I see when I look at this mark is an elephant.
On Dec.03.2006 at 10:40 PM
Alu’s comment is:
It would have been nice to see a fusion of the two company's existing logos. Does it remind anyone else of AstraZeneca?
Aaron’s comment is:
I can't stand this mark. I border line despise it.
The reasonings for this logo, seem to me, to be reasons and justifications that were come up with after-the-fact. If these reasons were given to the designers and this logo is what they came up with, I would almost accept the logo, and if this is the case, I apologize for the rant, but coming up with a half-assed mark and then trying to drum up justification of it makes me want to throw up. I've done it before, and I hate it when I do. But I'm also not redesigning Lucent's mark. Maybe I despise in others what I see in myself.
On Dec.04.2006 at 02:16 AM
Gabe Ruane’s comment is:
AstraZeneca came to mind instantly for me as well.
The final product here screams of client-driven design, or at least I hope it does. All of the above criticism is right on, and the weaknesses jump out at all of us who do this for a living, but I think it's a fair assumption that this project was hijacked by a short-sighted client with a leaning towards trendy identity work (and outdated trends at that)
On Dec.04.2006 at 07:50 AM
Joosse’s comment is:
I see an infinity/Möbius strip kind of thing. It says, "This merger/buyout was only one in a long series, and it's destined to happen again soon."
Corporate circle of life or detached resignation of one's fate?
(Note: weighty questions on a Monday ≠ endorsement of new logo)
On Dec.04.2006 at 11:01 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
This reminds me of the "design concepts" that I came up with in junior highschool.
On Dec.04.2006 at 11:04 AM
Ravenone’s comment is:
It's okay. I like the idea of the L+A=Infinity loop, but I really like the old, red lucent ring. However; it reminds me more of biological or chemestry supplies than telecom.
On Dec.04.2006 at 11:23 AM
EnergonCube’s comment is:
Yes, we all agree this logo is horrible. Bleck!
However, I have to wonder what the designer(s) went through to end up with this. A cocky CEO + a "logo committee" could have easily beaten the firm down and forced their hand.
Had it been me, I would have walked away from it. But hey, it's the ocean of mediocrity that makes us appreciate the truly great all the more.
On Dec.04.2006 at 12:27 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Golden Arm:
I actually thought you would embrace this one. (wink)
The very Reason, Advertising Agencies shouldn't be involved with Corporate Identity.
I've been discussing this Identity all weekend among friends, beginning with Dr. James Bowie who broke the Story and initially wrote about Lucent on AIGA Journal.
http://voice.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentAlias=%5Fgetfullarticle&aid=2076918
Shortly after with pk whom immediately iterated the Pharmaceutical Aesthetic of this Identity.
Later with my Landor innercircle of former Creative Directors.
I also sent an email to Henrik Olsen whom Developed and Designed the Luncent Identity while at Landor.
Hoping Henrik will have time to Chime in.
Those that noticed the Resemblance of this Identity to Astra Zeneca are Correct.
That's been the Inside Joke all weekend.
What I'm most perplexed about is Alcatel-Lucent CEO Patricia Russo Boosting "the Alcatel Identity was too straightforward".
At least Margaret Youngblood's Alcatel Identity was Original, Unique, Memorable possessed Clarity and Verve, unlike the Static PURPLE PILL.
Let's not even discuss the Lucent Innovation Ring.
It was Simply the First Corporate Identity to break the Mold of Traditional Hard Edge Identity Design.
The First Abstract Symbol (Visual Identity) in America is Credited to Chermayeff & Geismar. The White House Conference on Children,1970 (brush stroke abstract).
Created sixteen years before Landor Developed and Designed the Identity for Lucent.
The disappointment in this new Identity Speak Volumes...
Open Ended Comment.
I have No Problem with the Color Choice.
The first use of Color of THE COLOR PURPLE, No Pun Intended was by Pharmacia & Upjohn.
Their Identity affectionately known as the TOMBSTONE.
http://www.identityworks.com/reviews/2000/pharmacia.htm
Their Identity was Short Lived not because of Design, because of Merger and Acquisition.
My disappointment is the LACK OF VISION by Marketing Strategist, and the Designers.
If you're going to Implement an Infinity Symbol
at least have the Ingenuity of the Designer of the Fujitsu Symbol.
http://www.fujitsu.com/global/
Unlike Landor's Lucent Technologies Identity, there isn't anything Revolutionary or Groundbreaking about this new Identity which we all Expected. At least the Aware and Informed.
What Message is this New Alcatel-Lucent Identity Sending.
To the Drug Culture, I'm sure it says.
PURPLE HAZE
or
GOOFY GRAPE
And So it shall be Named???!!!
DM
DBD+A’s comment is:
Slammed these together qucikly--mostly out of curiosity. Surely this must have been explored...
yi’s comment is:
What is up with the Web 2.0 gradient? This is only going make them seem even more dated once the whole Web 2.0 trend dies next year. And, infinity symbol? I say it's more like a drunk roller coaster. The type is ok. They could have just stopped there.
On Dec.04.2006 at 03:00 PM
Armin’s comment is:
David, you just reminded me of a post I wrote on Speak Up a while back...
On Dec.04.2006 at 03:49 PM
alex de Jánosi’s comment is:
all I can say is thank goodness one of those 'sold-out' corporate identity firms is not responsible for this missed opportunity....phew.
On Dec.04.2006 at 03:58 PM
Ed’s comment is:
another infinity use that I have seen...
On Dec.04.2006 at 04:03 PM
Design Maven’s comment is:
This is the First Visual Identity to Break the Mold of Hard Edge Identity Design, Developed and Designed by Chermyeff & Geismar. The White House Council on Children
1970.
The Landor Lucent Technologies Identity was the First Corporate Identity to Break the Mold for a Corporation twenty six (26) years after Chermayeff & Geismar.
DM
jordan fowler’s comment is:
Too bad they couldn't merge the circle of lucent and the triangle of "the other brand that no one knows."
On Dec.04.2006 at 11:07 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Jordon:
Too bad they couldn't merge the circle of lucent and the triangle of "the other brand that no one knows".
Both Lucent and Alcatel are Landor San Francisco Created Identities. Both Directed by the Legendary Margaret Youngblood.
At a time, when Landor was a Major Player and Force to be Reckoned in Identity Design
1980s-1990s.
If Americans are unaware of Alcatel, it's because it's a Corporation in France.
It's a known Identity to Scholars of Landor and the Global Telecommunications Industry.
DM
On Dec.05.2006 at 01:01 AM
felixxx’s comment is:
This is the First Visual Identity to Break the Mold of Hard Edge Identity Design...
Appreciate the lesson Mavey, but you're wrong. Don't make me go flip thru my library and find a painterly design pre 1970- it's be too easy. In leu, here is one that clearly debunks your outlandish theory. What are you working for C&G?
Lets get back to hypothesizing about why this A/L loop is so terrible. OK. So, its not a great mark. They're busted. Wooh. Big deal. Whats more interesting (or perhaps depressing) is the continued deteorization of the business of corporate identity design. Excuse me, Branding.
On Dec.05.2006 at 10:22 AM
Orangetiki’s comment is:
It's like if I drew the Lucent Technologies logo on one toy train, the Alcatel logo on another, and then rammed them into each other head on until I came up with something.
P.S. Nice catch Felixxx. I love finding funk-ups like that with logos.
On Dec.05.2006 at 11:22 AM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
It's A Photograph Felix.
It's Not an Abstract Identity. Lucent was an Abstact Identity that Broke the Mold.
As Pre-usual you TWIST Comments to SUIT YOUR NEED.
Chermayeff & Geismar's Identity was Purely Abstract and the Visual Identity to Break the Mold of Hard Edge Identity Design Tradition.
Symbols Created by the Human Hand, with Brush, Ink, Triangles, T Squares, Pencil and Pen.
Find Me a Fricken Abstact Identity that was used for a Corporation or Government Entity before Chermayeff & Geismar.
It does not Exist before Chermayeff & Geismar.
That whatever you call it was created in the 1930s before there was an International Standard or Universal Understanding of Identity.
Not a Symbol or Mark that was Executed by the Human Hand incorporating Line, Shape, Texture, Value, Color.
I suspect you could use a line conversion
or anything you wanted as an Identity. That's not a Corporate Identity by Identity Design Standards.
Find me a Legitimate Abstract Corporate Identity not a Photograph or a Photoengraving.
How many Fortune 100 / 500 Corporations Today use Photographs to Represent their Company???!!!
I'll answer for you, NONE.
The Oskosh Bgosh Photograph was clearly a Photograph not an Abstract Visual Symbol.
I can also pull out of my Archive Photographs used for Corporations in the 1930s, 40, 50s. They may have been Trademarked they are not SEMIOCTIC.
Nice Type Treament though.
DM
On Dec.05.2006 at 02:21 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Follow Up:
Before anyone else Misinterpret my Comment.
There may be Corporations that use Photographs as Identity
or Trademark.
This is UNDERSTOOD as AMATEUR DESIGN created by HACKS Clearly with NO UNDERSTANDING of How to Communicate with SEMIOTICS e.g.
Alphaglyphs
Glyphs
Ideograms
Monogram
Monoseals
Pictograms
Pictographs
Seals
Signatures
These are the Traditional Criteria that Define and Govern Corporate Identity.
What is and What isn't.
DM
felixxx’s comment is:
mavey, i quoted you... "hard edged" not "abstract". youre back-pedaling... two totally different things! lets not argue, i get your point. and agree for the most part (but thought it was earlier- when C&G's abstract Chase broke the mold) Perhaps you forgot about that one. Hell, it's posible- youre old.
How many Fortune 100 / 500 Corporations Today use Photographs to Represent their Company???!!!
I'll answer for you, NONE.
these idiots use a photo... and they're HUGE!!! Like I said, the interesting thing about the new A/L logoloop is the new paradigm of identity design. CEO now subscribe to BIY (Brand it Yourself).
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Felix:
Sorry Chase didn't Break THE Mold.
It may have been one of the First Hard Edge Abstract Identities for a Bank.
Yes, it was Revolutionary and Groundbreaking.
Not a Brush Script Identity. Meaning Free of Confinement or Outline.
Chase is a Hard Edge Identity confined by an Outline or Hard Edge and Filled In.
Just like CBS, Transamerica, Weyerhaeuser, Boise
Cascade (others.
Funny, you'd Pick another C&G Identity to try to Stump Me.
Yeah, Good Buddy, I remember ACLU came to you for an Identity. Missed Opportunity on they're behalf. If I'm remembering the story correctly.
Felix, There are Exceptions to every Rule.
I remember Pentagram Developing a Photographic Identity for a small client.
Certainly, I don't Classify Pentagram as Hacks.
They are one of a Handful of Pioneers that Paved the Way in Identity Practice Globally. That's One Identity in a Million for them. I have an Enormous Amount of Respect for Pentagram's Identity Practice. My Mentor and Good Friend is a Pentagram Partner.
I think their client was a Photographer.
The Solution was more than likely appropriate, perhaps driven by the client.
Landor of all their Gazillion Hand Drawn Identities created a Photographic Identity. Can't Remember the Company. That's one in a Gazillion.
It was Awarded a BIG CRIT by Marty Neumeier in the 1990s. I believe that was for the Identity Manual not neccessarily the Identity.
You may want to ask JonSel, he was at Landor NY at the time and is in Possession of the Identity Manual. Or has at least seen it.
Beautiful Identity Manual, I wanted a copy myself.
First Tier's can get away with Murder. That's Part of being Privileged and Royalty.
Where Landor and Pentagram Clearly understand how to Create Identities Semiotically. It's Okay for them to Go Against the Norm. They can get away with it Win Awards, Receive Kudos and Accolades.
Lets not Forget Lucent in the Beginning was the Most Ridiculed Identity in History.
Now it's one of the Most Beloved. Certainly one the most Basdardized in History. Next to Bass's AT&T, Glaser's, I Love NY, Davidson's, Nike.
For other Creative Entities it looks Suspect and Raises more than a Brow. There's little Justification for not putting Pencil to Paper In Developing and Designing Identities.
That's the reason I got into it. Other than Illustration, Identity is the only Aspect of Design where the Designer continue to put Pencil to Paper.
At least that's the way I continue to Develop and Design Mine.
I agree, No Need to Argue, we both understand each others Points.
DM
On Dec.05.2006 at 07:50 PM
Des’s comment is:
Another very similar infinity symbol at:
thrivent.com
On Dec.06.2006 at 10:13 AM
designr66’s comment is:
I agree with most of the folks here, that this new logo is not am improvement over the original. It looks cheaply made, resembles the Astra-Zeneca logo and has no individuality whatsoever - not exactly the "wow" effect you want to achieve when you ring in a new beginning.
David Carson was the designer of the original Lucent font, one he developed especially for the company. It was meticulously designed, something that the current creative director failed to notice. They should have used Helvetica and saved some money.
On Dec.06.2006 at 10:24 AM
felixxx’s comment is:
lucent's unveiling was brilliant. as i understand it Carson was the creator of the TV spots... not so sure if did the all the type exclusively. If so, nice work.
Maven,
Two years ago I attended a speach by C&G priciples themselves at the New School Univ. The Chase mark was (and has previously been cited many times elsewhere) noted as the first abstract corporate identity for a major company. The rest is history.
Tony Spaeth’s comment is:
Turns out this one is by Landor, too, the French tell me. I'll post when I find out more. Excellent summary, David.
On Dec.06.2006 at 03:25 PM
Tony Spaeth’s comment is:
Sorry... Armin!
On Dec.06.2006 at 03:26 PM
Ravenone’s comment is:
I figured out what it is!
It's not a logo. ITS CANDY!
designr66’s comment is:
Felixxx made an interest comment earlier that this was yet another signal of a deterioration in the quality of corporate design. Call it CD, call it branding, call it logo design - whatever - the terminology is unimportant. This deterioration is the bastard child of the internet revolution. When web design became "hot" and art schools started to offer courses (and even full degrees) in web design, traditional design skills fell by the wayside.
When I was at SVA from 1984-88, the computer was in its infancy and we were still learning how to do traditional mechanicals and comps (Thank you, Fred Molenky!). We learned the meticulous process of being handmaidens for our designs from thumbnails through inking in our final designs on hot press board. I haven't been to college lately but I'm guessing that this thorough process of creation is no longer stressed.
I now use scanners, digital cameras and CS2 to complete my freelance work, just like everyone else. But I still do my thumbnails, my research and work out most of my ideas before I even touch the computer.
I also teach computer graphics at the high school level and I can see the impatience that my students have - if there is a motto for the current generation, "instant gratification" would be it. I have been able to water down the lessons I learned at SVA and the projects I've done as a design professional, so that the students have a greater understanding and appreciation of the creative process. Not all of them get it, not all appreciate it - but at least they are all aware of it. They have learned that not everything is disposable and not everything can be achieved instantly.
Unfortunately, many designers between the ages of 22 and 30 who have come out of the design schools may still feel this sense of impatience and rush through the creative process like it's something to get over with so the fun work can begin. Likewise, many of them have turned their backs on print media and have focused on web and broadcast design - things that have less permanence and provide the instant gratification that they seek. As a result of this, web design firms see a constant turnover of creative staff as they become bored and look for the next "thing" to do. Print designers tend to stick around because they understand the design process and know that coming up with the ideas are the most creative and hardest part of the project. Print designers also know that printed material has a great deal more permanence than an animated banner or a Flash spot that may only last for a few days, weeks or months.
I have a feeling that the people involved in the Alcatel-Lucent logo design process are probably under 30, do not have a great deal of corporate design experience, do not have a great deal of experience with anything that has permanence but mostly, may not have a great deal of experience at coming up with lots of concepts for a single focused project. With this in mind, lets hope that they pay attention to the postings and any other reviews that might pop up, learn from this experience and do better the next time. Let's also hope that the folks at A-L learn that design is their friend, not a chore to be done as quickly as possible.
On Dec.07.2006 at 03:07 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Felix:
Chase is the First Geometric Abstract Identity for a Major Company.
That Statement is very, very True. Chase DID NOT BREAK THE MOLD of Traditional Geometric Identity Design. Which was Designed with, T Squared, Straight Edge, Triangle, French Curves etc.
Lucent did, because is it was Free Form.
Chase wasn't Free Form. It was Geometric, the same as every Identity before it's time.
If you look at all the Corporate Identities that were Developed and Designed up to 1996. All of them were GEOMETRIC. Meaning Hard Edge.
They were all Geometric. Produced with a T Square, Triangle, Ruling Pen, and French Curves, outlines or filled in with a Brush.
Free Form is the Operative Word when speaking of Lucent and White House Congress for Children.
The Difference is the Difference between Hard Edge, Geometric Abstract Painters, who's work was Heavily Ruled and Outlined.
Examples Josef Albers, Piet Mondrian, Elssworth Kelly, Alexander Lieberman, Gene Davis, Kenneth Noland, Frank Stella, (others).
Opposed to Abstract Expressionist, Free Form Jackson Pollock, Sam Francis, Arshile Gorky, Marcel Dunchamp, Hans Hofmann, Willem de Kooning, Franz Kline, Robert Motherwell, (others)
The Premise for my Argument is that Eye Magazine Featured an Article on the Lucent Identity in 1996-1997. The author of that Article and other Designers noted that Lucent was the Identity that Broke the Mold of Tradition and set a new Precedent in Identity Design.
That Statement is Ultimately True. There was and has never been a Free Form Identity without Geometric Form ever Designed and implemented for a Corporation before Lucent. They were all Traditionally, Geometric.
Chermayeff & Geismar's Visual Identity for The Whitehouse Congress on Children, 1970 predate Lucent Technologies Identity by twenty six (26) years.
It was actually the first Abstract Free Form Identity, that Broke Tradition. It was Designed before Lucent Technologies.
Did it change anything, No!!! For the Record, it was First.
Chase did change the way we work in Identity by giving Designers a New Vision. Nevertheless, it was GEOMETRIC.
If you're still not understanding my Argument and Position. You should find a copy of the Eye Magazine Article, that Features the Lucent Technologies Identity. Featured were Alan Siegel Siegel & Gale, Gene Grossman of Anspach Grossman Portugal whom were invited to compete for Lucent Identity Project with Landor.
Upon Further Examination, Olivetti's Identity was Abstact.
It was Non Descript, Developed and Designed in 1954 by M. Nizzoli.
Others can agrue Olivetti was the First Abstract Geometric Identity Worldwide.
DM
On Dec.08.2006 at 03:39 PM
Ravenone’s comment is:
designr66-
As a 20-something out of a school with a massive arts emphasis; I can tell you at least at my school, we were taught to do things as quickly as we could. It did feel massively rushed and a lot of times I felt as if the quality of most of my projects suffered because of it. Instant Gratification does seem to be the name of the game these days, and the lure of the Undo button is mighty; and a lot of people don't understand design, or the importance of good design. Why go with Good Design when Instant Gratification is cheaper?
tangram’s comment is:
Nobody here ever mention of two other giants in telecommunication, Sony and Ericsson of their logo.
On Dec.13.2006 at 02:37 AM
designr66’s comment is:
Ravenone:
Ah, you bring up the root of the point being made here, aside from Felix and Maven's tete-a tete. Actually, you can use their argument to clarify this point as well.
The root of all of this is that the process of "making" has been reduced to it's minimum. What set C&G off from the rest of the pack was that they focused on identity by first THINKING about the problem at hand. They developed a solution and took off with it. I know I'm watering down the meticulous process here, but we're all experienced designers and we know what goes on during the creative process.
As short a time ago as 15 years, we were all still doing our doodles for napkin sketches, creating marker comps for clients, then handing over the final approved design to an artist for manual drawing and inking. We were all handmaidens for our projects.
Now, we're at the whims of push-button mentality. A few clicks allow us to fix what used to take days. We can create in a few hours what used to take weeks at the hands of a skilled pen and ink artist. No more, though. When we can make and fix things so much more easily, our clients now expect things almost instantly. This includes the processes we use to come up with that initial idea, that spark.
It doesn't matter who came up with the first break-the-mold identity. It doesn't matter that Landor and Pentagram aren't the giants of CID that they used to be. What matters is that the artistry, the skill, the intelligence behind all the projects that C&G, Pentagram and Landor have created has been diminished by a lack of design education. Students don't learn as much about the process of "making" and clients only care about how fast they can get their "stuff" to market. If it doesn't work, oh well - we'll fix it later like we fix some bad HTML code.
The good news is that more companies are updating their CID because they realize the value of doing so. The bad news is they think that faster is better. We need to explain to the students and the clients that design is not the same as bandwidth.
On Dec.13.2006 at 12:50 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
designer66:
Believe it or not, That's been my Battle Cry for a long time.
The Lack of Preparedness of Students Fortunate enough to get Positions at these First Tier Corporate Identity Consultancies.
If you read some of my Commentary, particularly the three below.
Cisco: The Bridge between the Old and New
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002795.html
Recent Rebrandings 13
by David Weinberger
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002732.html
AT&T says Bye-bye to Saul Bass
by Armin Vit
http://www.underconsideration.com/speakup/archives/002478.html
You're also MISSING a Major Point. Regardless of the Education of the Designer(s).
Identity Design has taken a BACK SEAT to Marketing.
Most of today's Identity Programs are Marketing Driven and not Design Driven.
Meaning, Marketing Strategy Supercede Design.
When you talk about Chermayeff & Geismar.
You're talking about Founding Fathers of Identity Practice that understand the Difference between
Functionalism
and
Formalism
Chermayeff & Geismar are Formalist they understand how to incorporate Functionalist Principles and not let it Destroy the Design Process.
On the other hand, Saul Bass was a Functionalist
and incorporated Functionalist Principles in his Identity work.
Ultimately his work was Driven by Design and not by Stacks.
In the Good Ole Days, It would've taken three (3) to four (3) years to Roll Out and Launch to Current AT&T Identity Program.
Generally, the Process is a two (2) to three (3) year process.
It take one year to conduct Phase One.
The current at&t Identity Program was Launched and Rolled Out in four (4) to six (6) months.
Needless to say, the outcome was Disastrous.
DM
On Dec.13.2006 at 05:32 PM
Ravenone’s comment is:
Marketing, Design and Art, from my perspective, seem like they should be working together. One would assume that by collaboration (not necessarily compromise) the end result would be something with the ability to last much longer...
Why use just one tool? Work together using what you have as it may best be used.
How would you make it clear to a perspective client that faster is not necessarily better?
Who would you point to as an example of good design being used propperly?
On Dec.14.2006 at 03:51 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
RavenOne:
You're correct and very insighhtful.
Marketing and Design are the Cats and Dogs of the Design Industry.
They Don't Get Along. In the Good Ole Days Designers met Directly with the Clients.
Marketing just simply Conducted Research and Crunched Numbers. Gave the Stacks to Designers.
Marketing has a Bigger and much Broader Role now-a-days. Today, it's Marketing meeting with the Clients.
Designers never talk to Clients anymore at these First Tier Corporate Identity Consultancies.
The Design Process is now an After Thought. Today it's Marketing Standing between the Client and Designer. The Marketing Division is All Knowing, All Seeing and All Powerful.
Marketing knows NOTHING in REFERENCE TO DESIGN.
That's the PROBLEM!!!
It is Worldwide Design Consultancies like PENTAGRAM that has the Sense and Common Decency
to not Employ Marketing Strategist, Period.
Simply Employ Independent Marketing Strategist to Sell an Idea on a As Needed Basis.
At Pentagram, Designers Meet and Resolve Design Issues, Problems and Concerns with the Client.
Marketing's Role is Simply to Conduct Research. And not become Cow Tows, and Accomodationist for the Client.
Not even the Best and Most Gifted Designers can Crank Out Memorable and Unique Identities on a Consistant basis in four (4) to six (6) months.
PAUL RAND can't even do that. Mr. Rand was emphatically known for telling Clients, "If if take me a day, month or year, I DO NOT work on Schedule".
I'll save the Rest for design66.
DM
On Dec.15.2006 at 02:50 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Yawn, this logo so utterly predictable.
what a waste.
On Dec.17.2006 at 01:05 AM
CD’s comment is:
Alcatel HAD a good clean functional looking icon and lettering. I am a former Alcatel employee, I was looking forward to seeing what the Alcatel-Lucent symbol would look like. I was expecting a evolution from that symbol, or at least something compatible with it, but instead we get "the little purple pill" (apologies to Nexium), with an bad amalgam of the letters AL and infinity, ending up looking like neither. I hope the rest of the merger goes better than this did.
On Dec.21.2006 at 10:32 PM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
designr66
I disagree that the students and schools of today are to blame. It's the clients of today that want instant gratification, not necessarily the designers. Today's big corporations want everything to be done quick and cheap, not well, and they get what they pay for. This logo will be outdated and silly looking (ok, well, more than it is now) in just a couple of years, and then maybe they'll have the sense to fix the name and take some time to do a proper logo.
Why do it right the first time when you can do it poorly twice for the same money?
On Dec.28.2006 at 08:11 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Excuse me but what the heck is a "prosumer?"
it's some term that EURO RSCG uses on their website. ;P
On Dec.30.2006 at 03:52 PM
_’s comment is:
if i see one more gradient logo, or a logo that uses a faux 3-dimensional touch i will projectile vomit on my screen.
On Jan.16.2007 at 12:30 PM
Isoruku’s comment is:
I worked for Lucent in the late 1990s, and remember when I saw the Lucent logo for the first time. To say I was shocked is an understatement. Despite what the people at Landor might say (regardless of what they might admit in private), the Lucent logo is an obvious take-off on the "enso" - one of Japan's most enduring and revered symbols. The enso - a circle with no beginning and no end - is part of the Japanese sumi-e ink brush tradition, and is steeped in the mythos of Zen Buddhism. While I agree that Lucent's logo was distinctive, it always made me a bit uncomfortable, since their commercialization of the enso tended to rob it of its power. (Like adopting a crucifix or a Star of David as a logo.) So all in all, I'm glad to see it go.
Here's one of the thousands of ensos for your perusal: 
Mold Remover’s comment is:
Is this a wordpress blog? or some other software?
On Mar.26.2007 at 05:57 PM
Mold Remover’s comment is:
Is this a wordpress blog? or some other software?
On Mar.26.2007 at 05:57 PM
Mold Remover’s comment is:
Is this a wordpress blog? or some other software?
On Mar.26.2007 at 05:57 PM
Mold Remover’s comment is:
Is this a wordpress blog? or some other software?
On Mar.26.2007 at 05:57 PM
Exigent’s comment is:
A vast improvement would be made if the sphere was dropped and the infinity logo was colored purple.
All in all, bleh.
On Mar.27.2007 at 05:26 PM
Corey Buckner’s comment is:
Ugh! I mean, the "infinity" symbol itself isn't so bad, but the purple bubble is hideous. It makes me think they sell grape jelly or grape juice or something. NOTHING about that symbol says telecommunications.
On Mar.30.2007 at 12:03 AM
dbrenton’s comment is:
Why does this website hate everything? This is a well crafted logo. I like it. Good Job EURO RSCG Worldwide!
On Jun.16.2008 at 04:54 PM
Spatulala’s comment is:
Blaming clients, or marketing, or computers for the failures of design is too easy. Designers are not trained to be leaders, and consequently are not able to command the respect they deserve for the talents they own, and end up agreeing to do things that they know are wrong. Too much focus on pretty pictures, not enough on solving problems. If I need heart surgery, I will not be suggesting to my surgeon how I think he needs to tweak his procedure in order to get a better result.
On Jun.16.2008 at 06:27 PM
kirk’s comment is:
This is kind of late but I saw this recently. The flaming goose egg lives on...In pizza form.
I want pizza now.
On Jul.30.2008 at 11:41 AM
name’s comment is:
Great site. Keep doing.,
On Jul.29.2009 at 11:38 PM
name’s comment is:
I like it so much,
On Jul.30.2009 at 02:58 AM
name’s comment is:
It is a very good thing,
On Jul.30.2009 at 06:23 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
