NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
I was in Cincinnati last year for less than 24 hours and in that limited time I got to see some amazing architecture and get a little taste of the city, which feels nothing like the new logo for the official City of Cincinnati released last week. But it’s not the awkwardness of the new logo that stood out for me, but the fact that Cincinnati-based retail store Macy’s paid LPK’s design fee of $75,000. It’s like the ultimate Sugar Mama, paying for dinner, vacations and some branding. The logo has all the pitfalls of a weird logo: Odd lock-up, questionable typography (is it supposed to be small caps?), undecipherable meaning of icon and, in this case, just too many “C”s. It could be worse certainly, but as forward-looking as Cincinnati feels in its cityscape, this is rather limiting.
Thanks to Matt Barnes for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Victor’s comment is:
I don't think its as bad as the article is saying. It could have been way worse
On Jun.15.2009 at 08:05 AM
Marcus Booster’s comment is:
I like the big C from the future, but the type feels like it could have been worked in better. Overall I don't think it's that bad.
On Jun.15.2009 at 08:28 AM
Chad Kaufman’s comment is:
I think the inappropriateness of the logo comes when considering the applications of the logo. This looks more like a tech company logo that should remain on screen, but think of where a city's logo usually appears—Banners, print, and paired with more conservative and/or historical material that most cities usually reference when promoting their city.
On Jun.15.2009 at 08:34 AM
Evan MacDonald’s comment is:
I can't help but chuckle. While I really don't think this is all too bad of a logo, I wonder where Macy's money went. I have a feeling that two jr designers took this one, spent the morning working then went to the movies.
Really, it isn't that bad. But 75K? for THAT?!
Oh well. Job security, eh?
On Jun.15.2009 at 08:50 AM
colormist’s comment is:
Grew up in Ohio and recently stayed a weekend in Cincy. The architecture is gorgeous and the city is pretty clean (also pretty empty). Macy's is right downtown, so I see why they'd comp the money for the logo.
I can't help but read this logo as
City of Cincinnati C". Having the extra C serve either as the first C of Cincinnati or a dual purpose as the first C of City and Cincinnati would alleviate that.
I also think of Orange, Red, Black, and White when I think of Cincy (pro sports teams in the area). No idea why they went with blue & green blob.
Meh, nothing really to be excited about.
As a side note, the other two metros in Ohio are Columbus and Cleveland. You'd think they'd find some other defining mark for Cincy to distinguish itself from the other two Big C cities.
On Jun.15.2009 at 08:58 AM
Chris Thompson’s comment is:
It's not as horrible as most people here have been saying. The good thing is that most people really won't see much of this logo. The important thing to keep in mind is it likely will not be used for tourism, just for things like city letterhead, paperwork, some city vehicles and signs around city hall. It's really not that big of a deal and is certainly a lot better than what they've been using.
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:19 AM
Chris R.’s comment is:
Being from Cincinnati and knowing how classically unproductive the City of Cincinnati is, I could see how they might be a nightmare client to work for. (try Google searching "Cincinnati Banks Project" or "Cincinnati Subway")
I would really be curious to read a press release from LPK on what the mark is supposed to mean. It definitely doesn't feel "Cincinnati" to me. This city's full of great things that are unknown even to people that live here (outstanding architecture, robust history, distinct and homey neighborhoods, great food, and an awesome downtown area considering the city size to name a few off the tip of my tounge). Seems like a missed opportunity to communicate these.
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:32 AM
Ryan Adair’s comment is:
I have never been to Cinci, and after seeing this...i am even less inclined to visit.
It sucks.
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:33 AM
Sand’s comment is:
Hurray for gradients!
I don't know... I like that the logo pushes boundaries of design, changing the perception of city branding in a good way (vs. Wisconsin logo)... I just kinda think it's more appropriate as a tech/IT logo... it's almost dehumanizing...
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:47 AM
Kabir’s comment is:
I would really like it without the C on the right. Just the 'city of Cincinnati', with may be a more subtle mark, would be better.
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:47 AM
Amy’s comment is:
As far as a city logo goes, this one is much better than most I've seen. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but it's certainly better than, say, Nashville's. It at least beats the current city crest that is commonly used as a logo.
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:56 AM
James’s comment is:
I am a designer in Cincinnati (who's lived here all my life) and although I don't think this logo is horrid, it definitely does not capture Cincy very well. Cincinnati is a a city rich with architecture and history and this logo doesn't convey that to me. Although knowing LPK's work, I'm not surprised they missed the mark.
By the way, this logo is not the logo that will be used for tourism... that logo can be found here: http://www.cincinnatiusa.com/
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:58 AM
Carlo’s comment is:
I think "C" is a beautiful letter. I don't see a problem with flaunting it! :)
On Jun.15.2009 at 10:07 AM
jeremy begley’s comment is:
I think that for a city trying to show its forward thinking as well as rich history the logo leaves something to be desired
On Jun.15.2009 at 10:10 AM
Chad’s comment is:
It was nice of Macy's to give a white dinner plate and round placemat.
On Jun.15.2009 at 10:15 AM
Jonathan’s comment is:
I really, really like the C. Then the type just ruins it. :\
On Jun.15.2009 at 10:23 AM
Andrew Klein’s comment is:
looks vaguely pharmaceutical
maybe they could hire the talent that does voice-over work for the drug commercials' . "... ask your doctor about Cincinnati"
On Jun.15.2009 at 10:26 AM
Tim’s comment is:
Andrew:
You are probably thinking of the post-merger logo of Bayer (Bayer blue with a hint of Schering green).
jRod’s comment is:
wow, $75K, huh? yeah, well i have a lawn mower that rivals that logo in sleekness and complexity that i would be willing to sell to the fine city of Cincinatti for $50,000. How could you pass this up?
Chris Rugen’s comment is:
Hmm. The C is certainly dynamic, but because it isn't connected to Cincinnati in any direct way, the broader branding and identity will have to be very well-handled and innovative to make it work. The type is the first indication that this may not be the case. Though I'll reserve full judgment until (and if) I see more.
I suspect, however, that this logo will not age well. I'm guessing it will succumb to the Byzantine nature of city politics and will be applied with... inconsistency. I hope, for everyone's sake, that this is not the case, and that it has a champion in city government who can defend it and fight for it a bit.
I'm always skeptical of these "design for what the city *will* be" logos and identities. It's a city, not a soda. You can't just wave your hands and tell people that now everything is different and the taste is even better. My understanding is that the best of these campaigns catch onto building momentum, they don't try to generate it.
On Jun.15.2009 at 11:18 AM
Doug Bartow’s comment is:
Regardless of the final outcome of this (or any) particular identity project: anyone who would scoff at the design fee of a large identity job vs. the final visual deliverables has probably never been involved in a brand job of that scale. Plain and simple.
On Jun.15.2009 at 11:23 AM
Ryan K’s comment is:
it's Cincinnati Ohio, right? Maybe the icon is supposed to be an "O" in some cases, "City of Cincinnati O" and then a "C" as well.
Either way I don't like it, but that was I saw.
On Jun.15.2009 at 11:33 AM
Joseph Maguire ’s comment is:
To have a biased review of a new mark you need to point visual references to this new architecture you speak of. In my opinion the mark is simple and clean and modern. Does it miss the opportunity to be unique? I think so, but its not the end of the world and its clean, and for the most part its better then the majority of the marks posted up here :)
Btw why do you care so much about what agencies get paid for marks? 75k be transparent about it rather than throwing out the number, if its 75k just for the identity design than fine its valid to bring up but its most likely part of a huge group of associated projects that are interconnected and that is why these creative costs balloon. Anyways I just think its silly to talk about budgets when it has little to do with the creative.
On Jun.15.2009 at 11:40 AM
Josev’s comment is:
"Btw why do you care so much about what agencies get paid for marks? 75k be transparent about it rather than throwing out the number, if its 75k just for the identity design than fine its valid to bring up but its most likely part of a huge group of associated projects that are interconnected and that is why these creative costs balloon."
I was thinking this same thing as I read through these comments. Actually, I'm surprised that people within our own profession are questioning what, to me, seems like a reasonable fee. I'm assuming that the fee covered application of the mark as well. Also, regarding fees, has anyone here ever worked with a city or small governmental agency?
On Jun.15.2009 at 12:09 PM
Chris Rugen’s comment is:
I agree. That doesn't seem out of line for what was likely a large and complex project involving many iterations and individuals. Macy's involvement is far more interesting than that figure.
On Jun.15.2009 at 12:15 PM
Allan Rosenow’s comment is:
I live in Cincinnati, and although I don't really see the connection between the new logo and the city, I do kind of like it. You're right when you say the C looks meaningless, but it still appeals to me. My biggest complaint is that I think the typography should be rounder to match the C. It almost feels stretched horizontally.
On Jun.15.2009 at 12:21 PM
Gabe Ruane’s comment is:
Why did Macy's pay for this work? Why did the City allow it to be paid for by a private corporation?
Where can we see it animated (seems clearly to have been designed with motion in mind)?
I feel like I'm getting 1/3 of the story at best...
On Jun.15.2009 at 12:29 PM
Lauren Alexander’s comment is:
This logo feels like Cincinnati just has merged with a giant pharmaceutical company.
Way too much uninviting corporate futurism. Am I going to need a referral and FDA approval to visit the city now?
On Jun.15.2009 at 12:38 PM
Charlie of Toronto’s comment is:
It's a nicely rendered "C" (ala Mastercard) but it has little meaning in it's current context or at least none that anyone here can seemingly decipher. Everyone knows that "Cincinnati" starts with a "C"... but so what? From a communication stand point, isn't that obvious? What I'd like to know is... why is it rendered like a spinning blueish green wheel? Anyone...?
On Jun.15.2009 at 12:40 PM
Chris R.’s comment is:
@ Joseph Maguire
Here's some of the architecture I was thinking of when I commented about it. It's not "new" per sé, but there's great architecture (particurly Italianate, Tudor Revival, and Victorian) all over the city.
Union Terminal
Fountain Square
Cincinnati Music Hall
Rodrigo Müller’s comment is:
"But 75K? for THAT?!"
On Jun.15.2009 at 02:49 PM
Kelly R’s comment is:
I think that the 'c' looks an awful lot like the Chicago Cubs 'c'.
On Jun.15.2009 at 03:58 PM
oscar’s comment is:
$75k? They could have saved all that money and just had a contest instead!
(I kid, I kid)
On Jun.15.2009 at 04:24 PM
Daho’s comment is:
I love the color scheme and the gradient in the C.
I see "movement" in the logo, as in the city is a place on the move.
Much more modern than I would imagine the place to be, and for that I applaud the logo.
On Jun.15.2009 at 04:39 PM
adam’s comment is:
i like to hear about budgets on design projects. why do so many designers act like fees and costs are some big huge secret that no one should ever know about? maybe sharing this info could help regulate our industry a bit more huh?
on the other hand, i do agree that its silly for some of these comments to question the cost associated with this project. while the write-up for this piece does seem to leave out much crucial information, maybe it IS leaving out other information, like what else was involved . . . research, print applications, motion/video, etc.
as a working designer, how can you not think about this? i doubt two interns spent one morning on solely this one mark and then the agency billed $75 grand. come on now.
On Jun.15.2009 at 04:51 PM
mog’s comment is:
Absolutely nothing about that logo says "Cincinnati" to me. It could be the logo for any city that starts with C, or indeed any company, product, or service that starts with C.
Blue and green makes me think of Seattle (where it's a cliche, as we've covered here before). There aren't really any colors that make me think of Cincinnati, so I can't fault them for not using them...but they had the opportunity to associate Cincinnati with new colors (who ever thought of plum being Belfast's color before that heart logo?), and they instead chose a fairly common color combination already "owned" by another American city. That's something they could be faulted for, IMO.
I don't see why they put so much emphasis on the C. Cincinnati will never be able to "own" the letter C, because even as a midwest American city it is dwarfed by...Chicago.
And the small caps treatment bothers me because I didn't even notice the initial C was larger until Armin pointed it out. I don't think I've ever been so bothered by "not the same size, but not noticeably different either" typography ever since I discovered that the "2" in the PlayStation 2 logo type is slightly larger than the capitals. And that was a decade ago.
On Jun.15.2009 at 05:20 PM
Steve Rose’s comment is:
I dont' care for it. That "city of" part looks to big to me. Anyway, does anyone not know that Cincinnati is a city?
On Jun.15.2009 at 05:43 PM
DavidC’s comment is:
As is customary, when something like this gets revealed, people like to discuss how it works/doesn't work. Does anyone remember Atlanta's 1996 Olympic Mascot, Izzy? Most of us -- with any design sense or education -- were disgusted by that (too). The problem with this new Cincinnati logo is not just that is doesn't function as a cohesive unit, or when applied to multiple formats (I'd love to see this one embroidered on a baseball cap). Yes, the "C" has movement; is that what Cincinnati is all about? The biggest problem is that, with all of the extremely talented designers available in and to the city of Cincinnati (I can name a handful who taught me at UC, and more who graduated with me from DAAP), Macy's would pay LPK -- or ANYONE -- $75,000 for that. In a time when jobs are scarce, that money could have gone a long way to help someone (or several people) who truly needed it. This looks like a student (no disrespect to students) project. Students (and their Instructors) are always happy to work on projects like this for free, just for the recognition.
On Jun.15.2009 at 05:59 PM
john’s comment is:
I have never been to Cincinnati. The only things I know about Cincinnati are sports teams, Dr. Johnny Fever and the Proctor & Gamble products at my local supermarket. I have absolutely no idea if this mark "says" Cincinnati or not. That said, it's not aesthetically terrible, so sure, I'll say I like it.
On Jun.15.2009 at 06:05 PM
Sebastiaan’s comment is:
I quite like it to be honest. Don't think it's a terrible logo. It is finally something different than all those Barcalona / Spain type of logo's cities adopt these days. I do must agree (I don't know Cincinnati at all) that I won't get a feeling that I see something this city is famous for. But as standalone logo I like it, perhaps for a bank or a big corporate firm.
I like the movement in the C. But would like to see it fitted within their campaign style.
On Jun.15.2009 at 06:11 PM
JM’s comment is:
All I can say is, thank God they didn't use the acronym for 'City Of Cincinnati'!
Misha Birmele’s comment is:
Is Cincinnati also a pharmaceutical brand??
On Jun.15.2009 at 08:26 PM
Blue Buddha’s comment is:
Having never been to Cincinnati, I don't know if this logo is exemplary of the area—however I don't dislike the logo as it is. It does feel very much like a newscast logo though, and I can really see the "C" being animated for the 5pm nightly news.
I have to imagine that the price tag was for all aspects of re-branding, from city business cards to buses, websites, and everything else.
On Jun.15.2009 at 08:32 PM
Paul’s comment is:
I don't think that the brand is as bad as it is portrayed in the above. Sure it could use some work, it won't reproduce on emboidery etc, though from a digital perspective it has a lot of potential. The 75k price tag one would assume as per some of the comments above that this would encompass associated materials, style-guides and the like.
On Jun.15.2009 at 09:54 PM
Tim Gengler’s comment is:
I like the C. Knowing little about Cincinnati, the color scheme and the styling are pretty pleasant and futuristic, which seem like nice enough traits to have.
The only thing that seems really off to me is the right alignment. Some font adjustments and a different alignment could have made a significant improvement.
And seeing that price and realizing that I regularly do work at 0.25% of that just makes me sad.
On Jun.15.2009 at 10:14 PM
EnergonCube’s comment is:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and give LPK the benefit of the doubt. I have to imagine they presented better directions than this! I must also assume that the creative process was yet another sacrifice at the alter of bureaucracy.
It's a shame that destination brands are, for the most part, sh*t. The clients (i.e., the destination) are simply too close to themselves and are blinded by their own sense of self-worth. They forget that the real audience is not them, it's everybody else. And when that happens, we get crappy logos, taglines, and advertising much like this.
A shame, really.
On Jun.15.2009 at 10:27 PM
dan’s comment is:
i'm a cincinnatian, and own a design firm here. LPK is a top tier design house up there with local shops Northlich and Landor, among many others.
BUT… as a local, i just *knew* i had seen that logo before, and… well… i blogged about it, and found that "C" treatment isn't quite an original idea to the cincinnati area:
http://danielredbeard.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/new-logo-for-cincinnati/
On Jun.15.2009 at 11:48 PM
baddrawingblock’s comment is:
I'm guessing really this is the tip of the iceberg here.. Lets not forget the revisions and applications, this is for a city after all, so it won't be a letterhead and namecard and hey lets go for drinks kind of scenario. Come on guys, as designers we all should know that branding isn't just the final logo. I wonder what the other rejected logos that got shot down look like.
As for the logo, yes it doesn't look fantastic, not a big fan of gradients here but it doesn't look horrible at least.
On Jun.15.2009 at 11:49 PM
Felix S’s comment is:
I do understand the complexity involved when it comes to designing big identity or rebranding project, but the price the client pays should be equivalent to the quality and/or value of the outcome the designer/design studio produces. The process is part of it, but the target audience wouldn't care less about the process. It's the final outcome that matters the most to them.
I don't know how the process goes with this project, but judging from the outcome alone, it's not even worth a fraction of the total price.
On Jun.16.2009 at 01:07 AM
Kevin LeMaster’s comment is:
I was wondering when they were going to announce this. It's been appearing on podia, etc. at press conferences for several months. In fact, it was displayed behind Mayor Mallory during his State of the City speech.
Re: colors...I wonder if those were chosen to highlight a green, environmentally-friendly, progressive direction. Just a thought.
On Jun.16.2009 at 01:20 AM
dan’s comment is:
Under-considered! Looks like they were trying to make something that would live with the new (repulsive) metro system identity... http://www.sorta.com/
On Jun.16.2009 at 02:33 AM
dg3’s comment is:
Yeah, that's about right for Cincinnati.
On Jun.16.2009 at 09:37 AM
Sab66’s comment is:
Not horrible, not spectacular. I don't hate the 'C' but the poor quality image attached to this article shows it's limitations pretty clearly. The typeface seems to make more sense than it has been given credit for here, but the slightly larger first letter does feel a bit odd. Overall I'd say it's average at best. But hey, when someone else is flipping the $75k bill right?
I'd have done it for $30k. Just saying, Macy's, you know, should you decide to redo the San Francisco logo or something.
On Jun.16.2009 at 04:18 PM
Nate’s comment is:
Is it me, or is the general rebranding of city/state/province logos in the crapper lately? I have yet to see anything in the last few years that has grabbed my attention, much less be considered a success.
It's too bad Milton Glaser had to crack one out of the park with the I ♥ NY logo in the seventies. Damn you Milt.
On Jun.17.2009 at 03:13 AM
kathryn’s comment is:
wow. i think the comments regarding the 75k shows what little people really know about brand development. why macy's published the budget is beyond me... the public has no concept of the stategic thinking that goes behind this kind of stuff, and they never will. that's all i'm even going to say about that. it's a waste of words.
i think the new identity is fresh, revived, environmentally conscious, reflects forward thinking, and is adaptable across many departments. to even get the city to break their traditional mold had to be a feat. the "C" seems to be a nice extractable piece that could have a lot of legs.
i'm a designer in the area that WISHES i could get into a reputable design agency such as LPK. i've been trying to get a job there for years. their portfolio speaks for themselves. sounds like these bitter designers are just jealous they didn't get awarded the work in the first place.
On Jun.17.2009 at 08:15 AM
JC’s comment is:
come on people...it's not that bad of a solution. it seems a little on the cold side, and definitely has a pharmaceutical feel to it. but let's keep in mind, this is cincinnati, not some vibrant and hip urban metropolis...anyone who lives in this city (like me) can relate to that.
as far as the cost, and being an LPK design ~ it seems about right. LPK definitely has a thing for designs with swooshes, and gradient elements ~ so it looks like something that would be created in their camp.
i'd give it a 7.5/10. nice job!
On Jun.17.2009 at 09:13 AM
Tom’s comment is:
Looks a lot like the logo for this credit union.
https://www.uccu.com/
William’s comment is:
Redneck Stationary! As a Cincinnati resident and a Cincinnati area native, I can tell you that this city is pulsing with great design talent. It is dreadful that we will be represented in any way, even as minor as letterhead, by this. As the article points out, it is a disconnect from the architecture, landscape and culture of the city.
On Jun.19.2009 at 11:51 AM
quitwhining’s comment is:
Is there ANYTHING that the people of Cincinnati won't complain about? There is not a place on Earth whose residents complain more.
On Jun.19.2009 at 01:10 PM
William’s comment is:
It is not whining to expect a certain level of design be applied. As for a generalized statement about Cincinnati as a whole; I only wish people were as passionately "whiny" with every facet of our city. I am, however, glad to hear that the status quo suits some people.
On Jun.19.2009 at 02:57 PM
mog’s comment is:
So a user named quitwhining posts a complaint about others...complaining?
I hope the irony wasn't lost on anyone else. o_O
And I'm SURE there's a place on Earth that complains more than Cincinnati. ;-)
On Jun.22.2009 at 01:07 AM
Fred’s comment is:
Total and utter RUBBISH! Design effects and BS for the sake of it! Does not in any way represent Cincinnati - what a glorious missed opportunity. Designer and client hold your head in shame!
On Jun.23.2009 at 08:13 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
