NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
For most identity designers, companies like LogoWorks, LogoBee or whatever other cute name they acquire, are not to be taken seriously and are only seen as damaging to the industry by lowering (rather ridiculously) prices and quality. For offset and other specialty quality printers, companies like Vistaprint hold a similar position: cheap, fast, mediocre quality. If you have ever printed anything with a quality printer and anything with Vistaprint you know the difference but, let’s face it, most civilians (non-designers) people don’t — which is worth more than $400 million in 2008 revenue for Vistaprint, according to their 10-k. And Graphic Arts Online, lists it as the 40th top printer in North America.
But we are here to talk about their logo, which very much appropriately looks as if it was designed by LogoWorks or one of its ilk. For a public company with such high stakes you would think they might opt for something a little more sophisticated than fountains of CMY(no K) gushing out of their name. The previous logo didn’t set a very high standard but at the very least it didn’t call too much attention to itself, with the thin lines and small type. This one demands that you see it, and it’s not a pretty sight. The typography looks like the bastard child of Tobias Frere-Jones’ Interstate and Avenir, and those have to be the smallest, relatively speaking, tittles (dots over the “i”s) I have seen lately. What’s even sadder is that you could flip the logos and have the old one replace the new one and it wouldn’t make a difference, they are both equally underwhelming.
Thanks to John Mindiola III for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Tony Miller’s comment is:
I'll grant you that they are not stellar examples of the logo creator's art, but the 2nd one does seem like somewhat of an improvement. That old logo looks like they sell paper towels. The roll doesn't remind me of 'large imposing rolls of paper hot off the press', it reminds me of the $0.99 roll holders you can get at the grocery store.
On Jul.01.2009 at 08:06 AM
josh’s comment is:
yeah cmyk? isn't that the first thing you'd come up with on in brainstorming and move on? i feel like there is a lot of anger in your post that might be clouding judgement though...
On Jul.01.2009 at 08:14 AM
FJ de Kermadec’s comment is:
VistaPrint indeed churns out horrible, poorly printed junk.
However, they churn out that horrible, poorly printed junk rather reliably, and even their worst product usually looks better than a client’s own attempt at feeding pre-cut business card paper with convenient tear-away edges into a clogged ink-jet with a passion for green tints.
I agree the new logo is very much in line with the company and its market. Much like their clients’ expectations, it is mediocre.
However, let us not criticise them too fast: for these clients we will never convince to upgrade to Moo.com, they are, and will probably remain, a good last resort.
On Jul.01.2009 at 08:30 AM
ScottyM’s comment is:
^^ Are you serious, questioning Armin's brief opinion on this one? Logo 2 is terrible.
The arcs of "CMY" are going where, exactly? And the gradient, to boot? Yikes, does that subtly convey that their print quality fades on heavy jobs, as well? (yes, it does)
Probably one of the worst I've seen this year. In fact, Logo 1 is far superior. At least it was simple and clean.
Yee-ow, this is super-duper bad.
On Jul.01.2009 at 08:38 AM
Luke S’s comment is:
The new logo looks very..... (wait for it....) Web 2.0. Ugh, there I said it.
On Jul.01.2009 at 09:00 AM
C Swift’s comment is:
Gotta agree the before logo is still better than the after - way more dynamic & interesting...... if it ain't broke.
On Jul.01.2009 at 09:04 AM
Soda & Candy’s comment is:
Yeah, I prefer the before logo as well, but agree that they are both pretty ordinary.
On Jul.01.2009 at 09:24 AM
Kosal Sen’s comment is:
Is a logo redesign with no apparent change of tone, message, or style still considered rebranding?
On Jul.01.2009 at 09:32 AM
Andrew Klein’s comment is:
It's very off-the-shelf swoosh, 4-color-bargain-gang-run printer looking...
Conventional in concept and clumsy in design and execution....I suppose it's appropriate in then?
As for the business, there will always be a market for the lowest bidder in any industry - design and printing. Sometimes that's exactly what a client wants; "the cheapest possible printing"... I can't argue if that's truly what they want and can afford.
On Jul.01.2009 at 09:40 AM
jRod’s comment is:
yeah, i really like the first one better. no harsh gradients. i think that one could take the original and tweak it back into shape. a thicker line here, a bolder font there... that kind of thing.
how could anyone that pulls in $400 mil a year not go all out with its new branding effort? they had a chance to really help their image here, and they blew it.
On Jul.01.2009 at 09:57 AM
Doug’s comment is:
Both identities are poorly executed, but VistaPrint as a company offers a fine service. They can handle smaller quantities of print collateral for much less than most offset (and some digital) printers. I've used them for wedding 'save the date' magnets for several clients and they've come out wonderfully. It's an excellent solution for small businesses, which is why the company is doing so well.
On Jul.01.2009 at 10:05 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> i feel like there is a lot of anger in your post that might be clouding judgement though...
Josh, I wouldn't call it anger, but I'll admit there is no love there. No problem in calling it like you see it. And it's hard to simply look at a logo for what it is, without taking into consideration the organization behind it.
On Jul.01.2009 at 10:11 AM
Dale Campbell’s comment is:
Apparently they don't print the color black...
On Jul.01.2009 at 10:27 AM
Carlo’s comment is:
You're kidding right?
The first logo disappears in all sorts of ways long before the new logo. The new logo is a far more cohesive mark.
I think the first logo looks like something you'd see on the side of a beat-up white delivery van; while the new logo seems like a mediocre but significant upgrade for a white SUV that belongs to their new sales rep fleet but doubles as a delivery vehicle :)
On Jul.01.2009 at 10:42 AM
Emily Brackett’s comment is:
The new is more readable. And overall it sums up their brand completely: mediocre, not too professional, decent but nothing superlative, etc., etc.
On Jul.01.2009 at 10:45 AM
Troy Gilbert’s comment is:
What's with all the hate? It's rather unbecoming -- though not unexpected -- of this crowd. They off a cheap service (in both senses of the word). Nothing wrong with that.
And the logo, while unimaginative, at least appears to me as competently executed and benign. I'd be surprised if most of the commenters here regularly do noticeably better work.
I guess it's easy to be critical...
On Jul.01.2009 at 10:46 AM
Lemuel’s comment is:
Re: "For most identity designers, companies like LogoWorks, LogoBee or whatever other cute name they acquire, are not to be taken seriously and are only seen as damaging to the industry by lowering (rather ridiculously) prices and quality."
Hmmmm. Interesting. I've created affordable logos for small- to medium-sized companies for years who would never have been able to afford the services of a high-priced New York design firm. Should the "little man" be denied access to a professional, well-designed logo simply because he can't afford to spend his entire annual profit on a new logo created some overpaid design firm?
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:02 AM
Jack’s comment is:
I think it's wonderful.
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:07 AM
Andrew Klein’s comment is:
"I'd be surprised if most of the commenters here regularly do noticeably better work."
ouch! Troy...
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:11 AM
Doug Bartow’s comment is:
I've noticed this company's cards around the local deli and florist shops, as they offer free cards to small businesses as long as the can put their name and url on the back of the cards. As far as the new mark, yes, and opportunity missed. But when have gross billings ever dictated visual literacy w/r/t brand design (hello, Verizon). Even more alarming is the FREE logo design they offer on their www site. Yeah, it's free. Below is a sample I generated by simply typing my firm name into their magic logo machine web thingy. This makes Logoworks look pricey. The problem is, I actually like the scissors version. Totally non-sequitur. Please talk me off the ledge here...
Miles’s comment is:
This new mark is a member of the itty bitty tittle committee.
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:25 AM
Violet’s comment is:
O M G.
That is horrible! Not well thought out, hell, don't think they brainstormed this for more than 5 minutes!
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:28 AM
V as in Victor’s comment is:
All of the online printers have eerily similar logos. All done less than stellar, all looking more cheaper than not. It's almost like they're all trying to say, "We do everything cheaper, even our own identity." Every one has some element of the CMYK breakdown so the designing public will understand that they do printing. Even though I'm pretty sure they're all cheap because they're all running digital. Granted, I understand that digital can still be run in CMYK "plates", but all the sites give the feel of running conventional. It just seems odd to me.
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:42 AM
Ryan Gonzalez’s comment is:
Junk like this makes me want to close my browser; that logo was probably designed in those inane logo contests.
There's no thought behind it, no care put into the design.
It's lazy work for a company not willing (or smart enough) to get a real designer to really think about and create a good logo.
Yuck.
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:43 AM
Garrick’s comment is:
I agree with Josh.
Your first paragraph is spent denouncing the low-end of the design and print markets. That's an entirely separate conversation.
I love this site because I get to see the before and after. I think we can agree that the logo has gone from an 'F' to maybe a 'C' which is better--but leaves much to be desired. I think the poor guy that designed this logo would see your rant and feel foolish, when most of your ire is related to his employer and even more so towards the unrelated LogoWorks division of HP. Will you agree?
Armin’s comment is:
> Your first paragraph is spent denouncing the low-end of the design and print markets. That's an entirely separate conversation.
I feel like we've been having this discussion too much lately. You can't just talk about logos without considering who or what the logo is being done for. Without that context or personal interpretation of the holder of the mark we are just discussing kerning and type choices, which is completely useless. As most have already pointed out in the comments: the logo is reflective of the perception of Vistaprint in the market. Identity and brand design goes beyond what a logo looks like, it's about the representation that logo is making about the company it represents.
On Jul.01.2009 at 11:57 AM
IXdesignSTUDIO’s comment is:
Lemuel
Good point. But this is just how this (and other) industry(ies) work. You brand your own value. Great designers often charge fractions of their lower-tier designers in higher places.
The simple answer is this: charge what you deserve because nobody will pay you otherwise, and give favors (discounts) to smaller businesses that need and deserve them.
On Jul.01.2009 at 12:03 PM
James Re’s comment is:
cheap looking logo for a cheap looking company
On Jul.01.2009 at 12:23 PM
Fellow Designer’s comment is:
Soooo... since it's obvious that the redesign is far below your expectations, what would you have done? Maybe the best thing to do here is to show everyone how your interpretation would be far superior to their efforts of re-branding.
Not knocking you or anything... just curious as to what your approach would be since you dislike theirs so much.
On Jul.01.2009 at 12:26 PM
Ryan K’s comment is:
The strangest part to me, besides the almost 3D square gradient fountains of CMY, is the decision to use that blue with the other colors. Maybe it's just me, but that corporate blue really doesn't go well with CMY.
I think I prefer the before logo. Although the color combo there is not so great either.
And yes, I have used them before. But mostly for things like family baby shower invites (postcards) and grad announcements, where keeping cost low was a must. If you complain about the bad quality the they usually do a better job on the second or third try. And they've never charged me for reprinting a job, they must know how bad their own quality is. Or maybe that was Over Night Prints, I get them confused.
On Jul.01.2009 at 12:48 PM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I think it's entirely appropriate. If it was a stellar, premium-looking logo, technically wouldn't it fail in its intended communication?
On Jul.01.2009 at 12:55 PM
H_yasha’s comment is:
I agree with Fellow Designer's comment. I feel that the logo isn't the greatest, but what is considered a correct approach? Both of the logos may fail to execute at a superior level but it is simple and readable. Vistaprint offers a low-priced, good service what else is to be expected?
On Jul.01.2009 at 12:56 PM
Michael’s comment is:
Meh, it is what it is. For me, my decision of how to take things like this into consideration is usually based on expectations more than execution. I wouldn't have high expectations for VistaPrint, so when I see it I just about expected something like this anyways. No big deal.
What's the big deal? You don't go to McDonald's to get filet mignon. Maybe if you did, you'd be pleasantly surprised, but if you get some reheated meat product on a sesame seed bun then you probably ordered it properly.
Maybe if someone took the Target logo and made it look like the thing above I might be shocked (and maybe have a few good laughs at its expense), but I don't know if VistaPrint elicits the same response.
Oh, and I am looking for a good printer who does business cards, any recommendations?
On Jul.01.2009 at 12:57 PM
Geoff’s comment is:
At least Reading Rainbow got the gradient right. VistaPrint's fountains don't look visually accurate. If they're leaping from left to right, wouldn't the thick-left be opaque and the thin-right be fading away?
But then again, they mixed up the color arrangement as well (YMC).
And if they are indeed leaping from right to left (CMY), that's counter-intuitive to the English language, and subsequently how the word-mark is read.
On Jul.01.2009 at 01:19 PM
Armin’s comment is:
> Soooo... since it's obvious that the redesign is far below your expectations, what would you have done?
I would have used Gotham ; )
On Jul.01.2009 at 01:26 PM
JBIII’s comment is:
Armin, I think Fellow Designer has drawn a line in the sand. I would love to see a "Brand OFF" between Fellow Designer and Armin. Take the VistaPrint logo and make it worthy. Little bit different than LayerTennis.......
I think it would be a good lesson for anyone not familiar with a true process to developing a strong brand.
Anyone else second this?
The winner gets 50 FREE business cards from VistaPrint with the new logo on it.
On Jul.01.2009 at 01:49 PM
Lemuel’s comment is:
@ Doug Bartow: LOL - I thought I was the only one who hated the Verizon logo! Everytime I drive by one of their retail stores, I think, "wow...if only I could have landed that contract."
On Jul.01.2009 at 01:58 PM
Sharon’s comment is:
@JBIII - VPs lowest business card order quantity is 250...
On Jul.01.2009 at 02:08 PM
Steven Hoober’s comment is:
First, the company: I am 100% pleased with Vistaprint. They have one distinction with many other on-demand or quick-print services. They trust you. I look like a graphics professional, and they let me get away with other stuff, and corrected errors.
4-color process on-demand is MUCH better than it was even 5 years ago. The flooded back is indistinguishable from actual spot flood except under a pretty big loupe. Unless you need odd sizes, die cuts, different paper, embossing, etc. Vistaprint is who I suggest for business cards.
Logo-wise, it's always been enh. The old one at least reminded me of a 4-color printing press. The new one reminds me of a crappy logo designer. I'd rather have no logo at all than this sort of uninspired or default design.
Nisio’s comment is:
There seems to be a disproportionate intensity of dislike to this logo. It's not great but even from a practical sense it's an improvement. I know brand is reputation, positioning etc, but realistically most people make their comments based on the logo, primarily because even if a brand repositions itself, the repositioning can take years.
So I don't really see in this instance with line-of-sight only on a new mark, how this is a rebrand discussion rather than just a logo kicking, or a chance to have a dig at an unpopular (within design circles), printer.
Ty Halasz’s comment is:
I have used VistaPrint a number of times for my clients on a budget, and while they've never blown me away with the resulting quality, they've been consistently average, which, I suppose, is what you pay for.
I noticed this redesign a couple of nights ago when I was ordering new business cards for a client, and needless to say, I was very disappointed. Sure, the old logo was crap, but at least it was meaningful crap. It was a printing press, and had relevance. Plus, the typography wasn't a terrible choice.
But the new logo is simply atrocious, and a reversion all sorts of Web 2.0 nastiness. The type sucks. The gradients suck. The icons are meaningless. It's a disappointing step down on all levels.
On Jul.01.2009 at 03:25 PM
musser’s comment is:
Golly... I'm really not sure which logo is the 'new' one. In any case, I like the one on the left best. The other isn't practical or universal.
On Jul.01.2009 at 04:13 PM
Joey V’s comment is:
It doesn't seem like they spent any time on it at all. The gradient rainbow things are all inconsistent. The yellow one fades from the V, the magenta one has a distinct border between it and the S, and the cyan one fades from nowhere and ends with a distinct border by the T. Those little things really bug me.
On Jul.01.2009 at 04:13 PM
Mark’s comment is:
It looks okay, I think it could of worked better as a wordmark though.
I think an tweaked version of the previous wordmark minus the illustration could have worked.
Blufyor’s comment is:
This reminds me of some godawful banking logo (like Capital One's) more than a printer's.
On Jul.01.2009 at 04:39 PM
Erick’s comment is:
They're both awful. They need a designer. Perhaps they could find one somewhere that would work freelance? Until then, needs more cowbell.
On Jul.01.2009 at 06:31 PM
Anthony’s comment is:
I really don't think it's THAT bad...
On Jul.01.2009 at 06:53 PM
Kellie Schroeder’s comment is:
I love Geoff's reading rainbow logo above! :) Great correlation! How about Doug Henning!
It's just as hilarious as Vista Print's "doofy desktop PC publisher" logo.
Sorry to be so harsh, Vista. But...deep down...somewhere in a safe place....you know it's true.
You suck. Your printing sucks (I've had to use you enough to know) and your service sucks.
In that respect...your logo matches your brand promise....cheap, utter disappointment. Get 'er done!
On Jul.02.2009 at 12:17 AM
M’s comment is:
Any of you who suggest using vista print I suggest you google "vistprint complaints" and "vistaprint scam".
On Jul.02.2009 at 12:28 AM
Joe Moran’s comment is:
See… Mmmm, Why? Paint it black. Or, have some stones. Ha!
VR/
On Jul.02.2009 at 01:53 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
@ M:
So, I searched your "vistaprint scam" as you had suggested, and didn't really find any reason to be mad at VistaPrint. Seriously, it's called reading the fine print (er, pixels). Yes, they send you through about a fistful of silly "special offers," but it's pretty easy to find the "no, thanks" button and move on. I've used VistaPrint 3 or 4 times now, and have been very pleased. Postcard invites and even a simple t-shirt, and they arrived on time (which, yes, took a while, but that's cos I'm a cheapskate who picked the 21-day option). Are the logos bad? Oh, yes, they're awful, especially considering your CMYK layouts will be converted to RGB anyway, which means, yep, no true black. Ah well, you get what you pay for.
On Jul.02.2009 at 02:13 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
Hey, you guys got my link wrong! When you click on my name, it should take you to:
coroflot.com/mindiola
P.S. Thank you for posting my idea! I love you guys! You're the best!
On Jul.02.2009 at 02:16 AM
Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:
My name is Bill and I am an elitist Design snob.
I received a BFA in Graphic Design from a respected design program (RIT); I am trained and experienced in the craft and aesthetics of Graphic Design (capital G, capital D). I have practiced Graphic Design professionally for 25 years.
I know the VistaPrint logo is crap and frankly, I don't care.
In 25 years I've witnessed the explosion of public awareness of graphic design. But the understanding of quality design, in theory and practice, remains with a relatively small percentage of professionals. Because (in the US) there is no licensing or accreditation for this profession, anyone can claim they're a graphic designer. And, in fact, they are. But claiming the title doesn't mean that their work is well-designed, effective, or worth the card stock that it's printed on.
Similarly VistaPrint, as Armin points out, is not a quality print shop. Their business is based on low low quality at low low prices. They have made it clear with their business model that thoughtful insight and attention to craft are not their focus.
This is an appropriately inferior logo for an appropriately inferior vendor.
Like I said, I'm a Design snob.
On Jul.02.2009 at 03:00 AM
Dwight’s comment is:
@Bill Dawson very well said! A cheap company with a cheap logo is an effective design!
On Jul.02.2009 at 08:06 AM
dave’s comment is:
I use vistaprint all the time. My businesscards and postcards are perfectly adequate for my needs.
On Jul.03.2009 at 02:31 AM
the lurker’s comment is:
the hate, bias, and jealousy in this post and others on this board have made me a better designer. so many people that post here have good jobs and lots of experience and it's sad that they behave like children and express themselves even worse. it helps me realize that if these people made it, there's no question that i can.
some of you guys are in your 30s and 40s. your opinions tho are like on a jerry springer level. super juvenile trailer park level lameness.
are fountains of cmy that crazy? you people try to be so smart you've become retarded. people need an easy read...not a riddle. they're not marketing themselves to you people that have your own komori. come on.
On Jul.03.2009 at 02:49 AM
John McCollum’s comment is:
quoth fellowdesigner, "Soooo... since it's obvious that the redesign is far below your expectations, what would you have done? Maybe the best thing to do here is to show everyone how your interpretation would be far superior to their efforts of re-branding."
I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous suggestion. Properly done, an identity for a client this prominent should take weeks. It should take lots of research, and dozens upon dozens of sketches.
The fact that no one on this list has time to do this right shouldn't preclude any of us from observing that this logo is poorly conceived or executed.
Taking your suggestion to its logical conclusion would eliminate all forms of criticism, critical evaluation and commentary in general.
You don't have to suit up and hit the gridiron to call a fumble a fumble.
On Jul.03.2009 at 06:12 PM
Helen Park’s comment is:
Yes, the logo is bad, but what annoys me more is that the placement of it on their website header. No margin or padding around it what so ever. So cramped.
On Jul.03.2009 at 07:26 PM
Milkrow’s comment is:
I really appreciate all the comments that steer this conversation around to "Who is the logo for and is it appropriate to their business and target market?" However, while the logo appears commensurate with VP's quality and services; it is helpful to consider that this visual shift in brand may have more to do with overall service offerings and (as someone pointed out) a more close alignment with their capabilities (no true black) than it does with improving the visuals.
I think this is a transitional identity. I think Vista is growing and expanding and soon will shift its identity again. Clearly they are focused on capturing the business that small print shops used to have and the low-cost logo business that small design studios used to be able to compete for. Logo emporiums that do mediocre work sadly have their place but we must consider, criticize and scrutinize the impact these business and those like VP have on the business of working designers/small studios.
@ Lemeul VistaPrint isn't cutting into the business for large, expensive design studios...they are cutting into YOUR work — the small design studios and freelancers if I may be so bold as to assume that of you. Little by little, large corporate brands who can sustain the infrastructure to offer cheap, online solutions to the "little man" will choke off small design studios and sole proprietors who, albeit more expensive, provide a tailored, more professional and BETTER result.
I strongly dislike this new logo, but I don't think it wasn't thought through...just executed poorly. I think VP is a client who could afford the NYC de$ign studio, but that wouldn't be in keeping with their brand and their main customer base might look on in disdain.
Could it be a calculated move? How else can VP erode the value small businesses see in custom brand solutions by competent, professional design studios if they too aren't willing to make-due with canned solutions? No concept, no true black, no polished typography...no kidding.
On Jul.04.2009 at 03:54 PM
Steve’s comment is:
Ehhhhh. Lacking originality... they can do better.
On Jul.06.2009 at 08:42 AM
orangetiki’s comment is:
Luke hit it on the nose. It's a "Let's make this all the web 2.0 rage that the kids like, but let's try to keep the idea of print rollers in the logo" So yeah it's poop, but probably the poop that they want.
On Jul.06.2009 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
big improvement
On Jul.07.2009 at 07:58 PM
G. DiBiase’s comment is:
In all honesty I feel that they are completely aware that anyone who would care at all about the look of their logo and would take the time to critique their brand would probably not be a VistaPrint customer. Therefor VistaPrint could more than likely care less about appeasing the design savvy non-customers that some of us are. Many of the elements and reasoning involved in successful branding are so esoteric that some businesses feel they can get by without budgeting for a professional, coherant and effective logo design. However there are plenty of talented designers who give away great work for too little so why not care enough to find one of those guys and get a decent logo for cheap. "Help out someone's portfolio"...Ha.
On Jul.08.2009 at 09:58 AM
G. DiBiase’s comment is:
And right on Milkrow!
On Jul.08.2009 at 10:02 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
