NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
It’s not everyday Brand New discusses an in-house logo but today is the day. In-house designers, rejoice. Anyone who has worked in-house knows the complicated process projects go through and their lengthy approval. To get a company to buy into a new corporate identity is a big deal, especially when it’s done in-house and not outsourced to a firm.
Based out of Washington, DC, “GTSI is a government solutions company that has revamped itself from being a product reseller to a full solutions enabled company.” To better reflect the gamut of services offered, the in-house team of two redesigned what was a dated early 90s mark (color and all) into a more streamlined version with a nice tag line. The typography is improved, going from Bodega Sans to Chalet Book. While the “g/t” ligature is interestingly quirky,the “i” bugs me; it seems to have too much presence and guides you out into the registration mark. Overall it is quite an accomplishment to keep a project of this magnitude in-house and have some nice design come out of it.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Doug’s comment is:
Nicely done, other than relying on the gradient in the icon. It's nice to see a firm hire graphic artists and trust them to do the job they were trained for. It happens far too often that in-house designers are snubbed in favor of the reputations (sic) of outside firms.
On Sep.10.2007 at 10:26 AM
Ty’s comment is:
As an in-house designer, I rejoice with my counterparts at GTSI, and I wish them well in the implementation of the new identity.
I am fond of the way the letters fit together and the new type. It borderlines on cluttered, but with good execution, it can work great.
I am slightly befuddled by the icon. What is it? From what I can deduce, it looks like they created a pretty looking icon sans meaning or symbolism. I read the press release on their site, and there is no mention of the thought behind the icon. Somewhat disappointing.
On Sep.10.2007 at 10:31 AM
Feldhouse’s comment is:
Ty,
The lines in the new icon stem from the old swoosh and, from what I gather, represent the growth of the company.
On Sep.10.2007 at 10:44 AM
Shane Guymon’s comment is:
It seems as a definite improvement, and I'm rather impressed taht it was an in-house job.
On Sep.10.2007 at 11:02 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
I'm curious, what's with the backhanded compliments that an in-house designer was able to pull off a decent redesign, instead of passing it off to some design firm?
As an in-house designer, I'm actually pretty insulted by these implications that we're not as capable or competent as a design firm.
On Sep.10.2007 at 11:21 AM
David’s comment is:
The type is a definite improvement. My concern is that they dumped the swoosh and adopted the 2.0 aesthetic.
At the very least, it's fresh, new, modern, and makes the company look a lot more personal. For now, until/if 2.0 goes out of style.
On Sep.10.2007 at 11:42 AM
Dydo’s comment is:
As Feldhouse mentioned, the icon does deal with the growth of the company and its emergence from being a computer/software reseller to the government to a sophisticated IT solutions provider. It also represents the core foundations of the company: Our Services, Our Solutions and Our People (3 stripes) focusing on One Mission.
On Sep.10.2007 at 11:49 AM
Feldhouse’s comment is:
Andrew - I am also an in-house designer. There is no backhanded compliment here. It is just a fact that redesigning a corporate identity takes a great deal of time and resources, generally which an in-house team does not have. I think the point being made is that good design can come from in-house.
On Sep.10.2007 at 11:50 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
Feldhouse - I know they're giving proper accolades to the in-house crew, it just seems rife with condescension.
On Sep.10.2007 at 11:58 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
A few points:
- It almost goes without saying that it's good to move away from the late 90's "a chicken in every pot and a swoosh in every logo." The new symbol indicates that GTSI still has a thing for swooshes, but doesn't really want to admit it. "Instead, we'll make three swooshes and disguise them by dumping them in a circle and adding a 2.0 gradient. Yeah, that's the ticket." I don't buy the notion that their motivation for integrating swooshes was consistency/recognition. Side-by-side, the only consistent aspects are the "gtsi" shape and (faintly) the circle.
- This is my design bias regarding logos in general: either (1) go with a symbol that draws focus and de-emphasize the type, or (2) drop the symbol entirely and focus on the type. In this case, my eye goes first to "gtsi" (contrast), then the tagline (poking out), then the symbol. My conclusion would be: why bother with the symbol? Especially if the only imagery available or the symbol were generic swooshes, I would have dropped the symbol and worked out a slightly more interesting arrangement of "gtsi".
- Except for the typeface, I'm not so sure about "typography is improved." As already noted, the "i" is a problem, as the designer apparently thought it was a good idea to integrate the (R) by flowing the i into it. I would like to think that consideration didn't determine their font choice, but I suspect otherwise. The g-t ligature was way too tight before, and is still a bit tight, in the sense that it draws the eye to the left side.
This is a decent refresh. I'm just not sure it merits the label "quite an accomplishment."
I've done in-house logo work before; it was always a good excuse to postpone some of the day-to-day grind.
On Sep.10.2007 at 01:25 PM
Jazzsun’s comment is:
Splashman brings up some interesting points, however I think depending upon the company, that you sometimes only need to take a half to three quarter jump away from the original, to keep the brand equity intact and provide at least some recognition to the old. (as seen in other logos on this site) The symbol I think is a good transition from the button of old. Maybe it was a carry-over. Anyway, working in-house on a re-design project like this while still carrying the day-to-day load, I think is an "accomplishment."
On Sep.10.2007 at 02:15 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Strange letter spacing.And the icon says zilch about what the company does or what their values are.But i guess it suits a company that describes itself as a "government solutions company" revamped to a "full solutions enabled company".Err..yeah, right; what is it again that you sell/provide ?
To mention the web 2.0 gradients would be beating a dead horse so i won't mention them.
On Sep.10.2007 at 02:23 PM
felix’s comment is:
its sucks glistening red balls.
literally.
On Sep.10.2007 at 02:27 PM
Nathan’s comment is:
Its a definite improvement. However, I don't like that the three swooshes are solid white over the red circle. The red circle has highlights and shadows, which should carry through into the swooshes. The registration mark is in the same location as previous - a nice touch. I'm also sure they expored connecting the 't' and 's' as in the previous logo, but I'd like to see that just out of curiousity.
On Sep.10.2007 at 02:39 PM
Nathan’s comment is:
I also like that they kept the red circle in the same proportion to the type and that the swooshes are picked up directly from the old logo. Its nice to see elements on the old carry through into a redesign.
On Sep.10.2007 at 02:42 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
A couple of thoughts related to "carryover" and "keeping the brand intact." As always, I don't claim to be a purveyor of truth -- these are just my opinions informed by experience, and there are many valid opinions on the subject.
Either (1) keep the visual branding intact, which I would define as being identified by an average observer as "definitely the same company," or (2) jump completely away. Why bother with a neither-here-nor-there solution?
What we have here is some half-hearted attempts at keeping some of the visual elements (swoosh, circle, color) intact. What did they actually achieve in this regard? The new logo essentially drops the swoosh (the negative-space swooshes are perceived very differently) and changes the colors (yes, there's still some red, but the gradient and knocked-out swooshes weaken the color to the point of being perceived very differently). The focus of the new logo is very different, and the tagline changes the shape of the entire arrangement.
The only obviously intact element is the "gtsi" word-shape, and I would argue that this element alone could have achieved a strong degree of visual carry-over without the baggage of the circle and swoosh(es).
My point is not that they should have started fresh, or kept or dropped any particular element. My point is either the logo is worth keeping essentially intact, or it's best to start over.
On Sep.10.2007 at 04:10 PM
Matt’s comment is:
definite improvement.
i agree re the letter i's general goofiness, and i would have increased the space between the g and the t, but otherwise, nice. (and nice tag -line as well).
i'm generally anti-gradient for reproduction reasons, but i think the shininess works in the mark's favor enough here that it's an acceptable trade-off.
and yeah, swooshes are for suckers...
On Sep.10.2007 at 06:49 PM
Drew’s comment is:
The main stumbling point of having an inhouse brand or logo redesign is not necessarily a competency issue but more of the challenge of convincing the company internally that they need a new logo.
For whatever reason, some business owners will listen to people they've never worked with before before they listen to someone who has worked at their company for years.
Maybe it's the 'grass is greener' fallacy.
Sometimes, I do think that inhouse people can be to close to a brand to be able to judge it objectively. Or if the designer is in the office, there will be too much meddling and interruption.
Heck, at one place I worked as an in house designer we had the President go completely behind our backs with some other random in-house designer and re-design a project we had been working on and trying to get approval on for 2 years.
That the inhouse designer was ALLOWED to do this and then it was actually APPROVED is the more amazing side of this story.
On Sep.10.2007 at 07:37 PM
JonSel’s comment is:
Perhaps I'm missing something. What's good about this logo?
On Sep.10.2007 at 07:56 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Splashman said: "It almost goes without saying that it's good to move away from the late 90's "a chicken in every pot and a swoosh in every logo."
LOL Brilliant comment.
On Sep.10.2007 at 08:45 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
This was the first thing that came to mind when I saw this logo.
Michelle French’s comment is:
When John first showed me this logo, I said "You know how I feel about swooshes and you want comments on a logo with three of them?"
All quirks aside, I once was an in-house designer and watched the design firm get to do all the plumb assignments and dictate what I had to do with mine.
Congrats for keeping this in-house and for having the, um, intestinal fortitude to subject yourselves to this forum.
On Sep.10.2007 at 09:33 PM
Frank’s comment is:
LOL @ Von
Zactly.The logo tells n-o-t-h-i-n-g.
Well, except they seem to think they have to be web 2.0.Somehow.For some reason.
On Sep.10.2007 at 09:33 PM
Dale’s comment is:
The typography: huge improvement. Although I keep wanting to read it as "gutsi."
The logo? I feel this is where the company might have benefited from an outside perspective: someone to question the relevance of swooshes at all, and to ask the pertinent question: Who on earth will realize that these three represent...Our Services, Our Solutions and Our People?
That's in-house mission babble that the public can't be expected to intuit. It looks to me like they overestimated the collateral of the old logo and tried, pointlessly, to keep the swoosh-motif alive.
If they felt they needed a logo in addition to the type-mark, might have worked better if they had started with the new slogan--"One Mission. Yours."--as a jumping off point for the brainstorming.
Not that I know what "One Mission. Yours." means. In short: quite pretty, but inscrutable.
On Sep.10.2007 at 11:33 PM
Jamsta’s comment is:
WOW, it's NOT red, white and blue! Finally!
Logo is improved, and I don't mind the look.
I'm not a fan of this modern day gradient "buttons" though. Logos should hold their own in B/W too...
@Von, hilarious! Good Call!
On Sep.11.2007 at 09:41 AM
Josh’s comment is:
Not so much a design comment but I think the periods in the tag are sloppy. It would read better if a colon were used instead, e.g., "One Mission: Yours"
Using periods in the chosen fashion reminds me of the well-worn web colloquialism, "Best. ***. Evar."
On Sep.11.2007 at 01:58 PM
rich melcher’s comment is:
Definitely a big improvement, but I'm not all that wowed either.
I, like many of you, am not into the 2.0 aesthetic of the button.
The stripe/swoosh elements are fine, but they should represent something meaningful. I'm okay that everyone may not know what they stand for; I just believe that if a designer puts an element into a design, the designer had better be able to justify it (to stakeholders).
Chalet is a decent typeface, but it's been heavily customized here...with mixed results.
Obviously, the (gt) ligature is one element. I think it's a bit clumsy. Maybe it would be better if they took the curvature from the terminal of the (t), inverted it, and turned it into the ear of the (g)...and then flowed that into the crossbar of the (t).
The (i) has also been tweaked. As designed, it's a (rather generic) straight rectangle with a square dot. I'm fine with making the dot a circle...and even with adding the terminal of the (t) to it. However, adding the registered symbol at its base makes me want to "connect the dots" at either end...that's distracting.
The space between the (t) and (s) seems awkward, both in the negative shape it creates and the distance between the letters. I wonder if tightening the kerning a bit might make the space less noticeable.
Lastly, the tagline content-wise is quite good. As others have mentioned the spacing, grammatical marks, and positioning could use some work.
At a quick glance, I really do think it looks pretty good...it's just that the lens of Brand New focuses on those nit-picky details that most “normal people” would rarely, if ever, notice.
On Sep.11.2007 at 04:51 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
Josh: Good point. Now that you mention it, I agree 100%.
On Sep.11.2007 at 06:36 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
Great Logo? I'd say not.
Major Improvement? I'd say defiantly.
Did you say generic? This may have been what the company set out to do...
When your existing logo looks like something that could have fallen off a local supermarket weekend flyer, the need to over compensate in a logo refresh can be overwhelming. Often, a preference can exist to throw originality out the window and take the attitude of" If we stereotypically look like "big important company," then we must be "big important company."
(Just for reference)
Simple formula: Big + Red + 3D + Swooshy (dynamicism) = "big important company"
The irony is these elements which GTSI "owned," no one owns. They are so generic and overused that they should have been the first things to go. This includes the awkward "gt" ligature.
My question is: Why does everyone want a logo that looks futuristic, swooshy, bubbley? No one's fooled, we know GTSI isn't actually from the future.
The tagline is indeed needed. Given the name of the organization (alphabet soup land), and the lack of personality in the mark, who would have any idea what GTSI was, or what they did?
(consider the statement)
"GTSI is a government solutions company that has revamped itself from being a product reseller to a full solutions enabled company."
Heck, I still don't know what they do...but thanks to that tagline, at least I know their mission is to help with something, they can even give me "full solutions."
On Sep.11.2007 at 06:53 PM
Frank’s comment is:
Although i have already commented on this, i have to say how incredibly lame their statement is, their tagline and their logo.
In a weird way it makes sense: All 3 elements (logo, tagline, statement) do not say *ANYTHING* about them.
Ok i'll be quiet now.
On Sep.11.2007 at 08:17 PM
Pedro’s comment is:
If an outside firm created this logo, most people here would say it sucks, too many pieces, following the trendy (not so trendy) 3-D button. But since its an in-house creative team, most are saying good job, its an improvement, its better...
Shouldn't the in-house designers be judged on the same level as an outside firm. Loose the symbol and just go with the wordmark. The wordmark has enough going on and instead of trying to add things in, keep it simple.
Look at the in-house teams of Crate and Barrel, Fossil, Publix Apple, Target, Starbucks..., just to name a few thats helping to raise the bar for all of us, in-house and design firm creatives alike.
On Sep.12.2007 at 01:37 AM
T.D.’s comment is:
I've worked with GTSI before and can shed a little light on what they do, if it helps. They basically put together computer systems (like servers) for government agencies to use, and buys huge bulk loads of them. Generally they are a subcontractor to other federal government IT contractors, who say "okay, we want to create this kind of computer system for the government, let's hire GTSI to pick out the servers for us," and then GTSI goes and chooses the computer hardware and software (operating system, for example) that it thinks will do the best job of supporting the new software that the prime contractor wants to create for the government to use. That's the gist of what GTSI does.
On Sep.12.2007 at 03:37 PM
Daniel Bertalotto’s comment is:
This is just a refresh to shed some of the trend-dated components of the old look and doesn't really accomplish anything. Both the icon and the type speak a different visual language – the type being contemporary and corporate and the icon being fluid with the dimensional gradient. They just don't compliment.
It's equally unfortunate that their tagline is as nondescript as their initialed moniker. It would almost help to make it a rename.
The whole brand seems vague at best.
On Sep.12.2007 at 06:18 PM
TY’s comment is:
Didn't take much to improve on the old logo. Chalet Book, though kerned poorly, does most of the work. Between the acronym, swooshes and Web 2.0 button, the logo literally says nothing.
Working in-house is kind of like having the client always looking over your shoulder. It's really hard (even for a great designer) to produce excellent work under those circumstances. Can't see the forest for the trees.
On Sep.12.2007 at 09:02 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Pedro:
Astute comments, allow me to add further insight.
"Look at the in-house teams of Crate and Barrel, Fossil, Publix,
Apple, Target, Starbucks...just to name a few thats helping to raise the
bar for all of us, in-house and designers alike".
True comments to an extent.
I can't speak for the others not listed below in my commentary other than
Apple who's Identity was Designed in-house by Rob Janoff and a Testament to
Great Identity Design.
If we're talking about Identities Designed in-house:
Tom Shortlidge who Developed and Designed Crate & Barrel's Identity
with owner Gordon Siegel was actually a noted Freelance Designer working on
Advertising for Crate & Barrel just to help out. Later was retained to
Develop Identity and Packaging and offered a position of Creative Director.
Crate&Barrel's Identity has recently been Monkeyed around with and
letterforms destroyed.
Target's Identity was Developed and Designed by a Renowned Designer
employed with a World Renowned First Tier Identity Consultancy.
Contrary to Popular Belief Target's Identity was not Designed in-house.
Terry Heckler of Heckler Associates Starbucks Designed Starbucks
Identity.
Starbucks does retain First Tier Identity and/or Branding Consultancies to
Position and Re-position their Company.
The aforementioned businesses are Design Conscious and Disseminate Brand
Awareness.
The Benchmark for all in-house Identity Design Projects remain THE CBS EYE
Developed and Design by William Golden and Georg Olden. Designed and
Implemented in 1951 unchanged since its inception 55 years ago.
Simply the Greatest in-house Identity and Team ever assembled.
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity.
On Sep.13.2007 at 01:15 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Clarification
I meant:
Terry Heckler of Heckler Associates Designed Starbucks Identity.
On Sep.13.2007 at 01:16 PM
Pedro’s comment is:
DM - Thanks for the clarification on the ID credits. Regards to my earlier comments, I was speaking design in general. I understand this site focuses mainly on logos but I can't dismiss the many vehicles of a brand (logo, packaging, environmental, advertising,...). Good design is good design, in-house developed, agency developed or a collaboration but with the logo i see on top, it's just newer not better.
On Sep.13.2007 at 11:25 PM
Jerry Kuyper may be THE KING, BUT, I'M HIS BOSS!!!!!!! ’s comment is:
Pedro:
Couldn't help but give the History Lesson.
That's the only Way Arm and Byrony allow me to write on the site.
You are 100% Correct.
The Total Picture has to be looked at across all touch points of the Design Process and Communcation which is Branding.
I can't believe I'm Defending Branding.
This is what I said to Feldhouse offline:
"I actually didn't want to comment on the gtsi Identity.
"I Straddle the Fence between what you said about the Identity and JonSel and Felix"..
"It isn't Great by any Stretch of the imagination. Nevertheless, it is better than the typography in CHRYSLER's Identity. Speaking in reference to the entire GTSI Identity".
Nothing Great will come out of D.C. unless Me and my Business Partners, Maestro Tony Spaeth, Jerry The King Kuyper, and Bob 2 Sharp, The Executioner Wolf Design it".
"In-house Design Teams need Professional Identity Counsel. Especially the GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT CONSULTANTS".
DM
The Hostile Takeover of Corporate Identity
On Sep.14.2007 at 12:09 PM
Tony Goff’s comment is:
Big improvement and again, well done to the inhouse team. I used to work inhouse as well (for some two and a half years) and it was the most soul destroying job of my short yet eventful life.
The hardest part is finding the time in the usual grind to take a step back and really think about the logo and what it needs. Then you have to get it past the powers that be who generally have no idea whatsoever about what your trying to do.
God forbid you have someone who knows design as well, there was one time a saleswoman tried to teach me how to design the logo as she, and I quote, "Studied Textiles" and thus knew design. Of course, how silly of me, designing curtains is inheritly linked to designing logos...
Still we got there eventually, we designed a new logo, site, letterheads and so forth all based around the three core colours of blue, orange and grey. Fast forward a year and I have a new job and the company is now using the core colours of black, blue, light blue and occasionally green.
What can I say, I love not being inhouse :)
On Sep.27.2007 at 11:28 AM
Excessive Caps’s comment is:
@DesignMaven: What with the Excessive Use of Caps in your post? It looks Annoying in the same way as that person who uses his fingers to Double-Quote Everything he/she says.
If you are a designer, that would make it Twice As Scary.
On Oct.04.2007 at 09:33 AM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
Ok, so I know I'm probably just a perv, but does anyone else think it's ironic that this company's name could be pronounced "goatse" and that it has a red circle in the logo?
I apologize in advance for even thinking this, but I just couldn't get around it.
In-house team sticking it to the man?
On Oct.18.2007 at 02:42 PM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
Oh, and if you don't know what "goatse" is DO NOT GOOGLE IT AT WORK!
On Oct.18.2007 at 02:44 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
