NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Nisio’s comment is:
I should write that on every piece of work that gets ruined by a client, "it's not my fault, my first idea was great!"
Is it just me of is that a bit immature?
Dareen’s comment is:
I don't think it's immature at all. Landor has a reputation to protect. If they completely disagreed with the way the client took the project despite their best efforts to go another way, why should they get the beating and abuse? Their existing clients will be able to still trust that they know what they're talking about and not to be second-guessed. Trust the professionals I always say.
On Mar.31.2009 at 07:31 AM
Dale Campbell’s comment is:
Wow. This is juicy.
It sort of comforts me to know that even a powerhouse like Landor can still fall victim to a client who simply does what they feel is right instead of taking the advice of an experienced professional who has dedicated themselves to that field of work.
I thought that sort of thing only happened to us little guys.
That being said, I think there is nothing at all wrong with what Landor has done. After all, if they (Landor) did in fact recommend names which were ignored, they have every right to let the public (who for the most part doesn't like the name change) that they had nothing to do with that.
Now whether or not they go about it via a blog posting sort of makes me think that they took the easiest path possible in doing so, but oh well.
Personally, I sort of think that the whole name change debate got a little blown out of proportion, as I recall stating that I really didn't mind it. Naturally, I would love to see/hear the recommendations that Landor's crew came up with...now THAT would be sweet!
Keep well,
Dale
Rafal S.’s comment is:
I believe that clients hire a respected consultancy like Landor exactly because they do not want to make mistakes like renaming the SciFi Channel to Syfy.
If Landor did not respond accordingly, but decided to sit quiet and play along... they should keep quiet right now. It is pretty obvious to me, that they should take some responsibility for the final outcome.
Shifting blame to a client is not an answer. We all know that clients make bad decisions. But it is partially our failure when they decide to stick to their wrong choices.
Moreover, as Dale Campbell pointed out, Landor offers us no explanation of the design/branding/naming process. They just say: The final solution is not our fault. But they somehow do not give us a glimpse of their own ideas... If they do not want us to have any sort of an inside view of Landor/client relations... I believe it is already too late.
On Mar.31.2009 at 09:00 AM
John McCollum’s comment is:
Yeah. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Whatever gains Landor may be seeking from the "general public" may be offset by a massive question mark they plant in the minds of existing and potential clients.
I know they're trying to play this off as a learning experience (i.e., "Trust the professionals"), but if I was a Landor client, I'd worry about being outed or abandoned if I run into disagreements with the company.
On Mar.31.2009 at 09:14 AM
Bakari’s comment is:
Rafal, I respectfully disagree. Sometimes one has to make a choice between pissing off a client by nagging about their bad decisions and getting paid. Obviously, we know which one most designers will choose. Sometimes you just can't change a client's mind, so I think Landor's comments are entirely within reason. Their reputation should not be tarnished by a client's hard-headedness.
I do agree that they should have posted their alternative suggestions though, just to be fair and not come off as whiners.
On Mar.31.2009 at 09:16 AM
MyCiti’s comment is:
On the other hand, have you noticed that the folks at Landor steal credit
for a design which they simply did not do???!!!
Jason A. Tselentis’s comment is:
For some reason, this Landor name-calling by the NY Times strikes me as an (albeit unfortunate) example of mainstream media trying to beat bloggers to the punch, and getting facts wrong during the sprint. Then again, perhaps Landor worked on the project, but not the name. Either way, something's missing from the story, and now that we have too many stories, which one do you trust? Surely, the comments found here and elsewhere will only expand the myth.
Speaking of myths, MyCiti, what's with the Landor link above? I thought that was a Pentagram design? Perhaps Landor was contracted to do the application of Scher's logotype. Two very different beasts: logotype design versus logotype application.
On Mar.31.2009 at 10:05 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
I don't think Landor would have gone on record as NOT doing something had the NY Times not directly credited them. Generally, when a client and agency don't agree on the final results, there's no reason for the client to credit the work in a press release or subsequent article. I don't know how the Times decided to put Landor's name in the article, but they clearly didn't get the entire story.
That citibank case study is certainly interesting. It looks like it is mostly a strategic project – it directly states Landor "was engaged to develop a new corporate brand strategy and architecture." What they likely did with the strategy was then apply Pentagram's citi mark, even though the visuals and accompanying text don't exactly make that clear. It's a little borderline for me.
On Mar.31.2009 at 10:23 AM
Rick’s comment is:
I've had many a client ruin a project, against our advisement, on the whim of some executive. But the fear of losing future business always prevented me from calling them out upon completion of the project.
But if Landor feels they have the clout to do that, then more power to them. They signed on to help the client with their branding efforts. But they can't do it for the client. The client has to buy-in to what they're putting together. And if the client goes rogue, then Landor shouldn't have to sink with the ship.
In the end the client always does what they want to do. Regardless of how persuasive or aggressive the branding agency is. So when the project is an utter and complete failure, you can't blame the folks that wanted to go in a different direction.
@MyCiti
If you notice the heading on the Landor page, it says 'Repositioning a global brand' not 'Designing the Citi logo'. Read the case study if you want to find out what they actually did, not what you claim that they claim they did.
felix sockwell’s comment is:
I don't know how the Times decided to put Landor's name in the article, but they clearly didn't get the entire story. —Jonsel
Read the case study if you want to find out what they actually did, not what you claim that they claim they did. —Rick
There are so many ways to posit "brand positioning" its no wonder the public (and insiders here) are bewildered by all the stray claims of ownership. "We turned Citi's blue to silver" should be the headline. Truth. Done.
On Mar.31.2009 at 10:58 AM
Rafal S.’s comment is:
Bakari, I guess you are somehow right...
But I still would like to know, what exactly did Landor do for the project? Did they simply design a logo with a Syfy name given to them? I still feel I lack something to make an informed judgement of my own.
My objections were simply regarding the business practice You mentioned: accepting any bad decision made by our clients, and taking the money that comes with it. And then commenting how unfortunate it all was...
It simply seems that the outcome is so embarrassing, that they have to make explanations on their blog. It may be worth it for a smaller company, but not a respected company like them.
And, as it’s been mentioned before, all of us have made such decisions: letting our clients ruin our work and their very own image...
But I don’t post comments with lame explanations, and that is because:
1. I believe that bad decision made by a client is a designer’s failure in some way.
2. I finally agreed to cooperate and make a design I am not happy with... so did Landor.
It is like having a cookie and eating it at the same time.
On Mar.31.2009 at 11:00 AM
lucid’s comment is:
What happen to the days when you just kept your mouth shut and stood behind the client through thick and thin, they accepted the terms and knew what they were getting into, things turned sour and now... Lets also consider that this is a MAJOR client... NBC UNIVERSAL, this is not like some local small town branding effort.
In some cases blogs and twitter do not belong to the professional realm, this is a good case for keeping your thoughts to yourself. Why does everyone feel the need to speak all the time?
On Mar.31.2009 at 11:11 AM
Bakari’s comment is:
Rafal:
I believe that if a client doesn't see the wisdom in a designer's protests to their idea, then it's the designer's job to make that bad decision look as good as possible. Clearly, Landor didn't fail in that regard. The new branding, for all its criticisms, is professionally executed to what I think are the best of their abilities.
Bottom line is if you execute the project, you deserve to get paid, regardless of who messed it up. Saying who's fault the mis-step is is not truly necessary, but there's not a designer out there who wishes they had the balls to do what Landor just did.
The only fault I draw with the way Landor went about it is that they made it public. It comes off as rude. They could have just as easily made that point while showing their portfolio to new clients. I've done the same in job interviews, showing my version next to the client's and explaining why my approach was stronger. At least then you don't come out looking arrogant.
In short, I agree with what they said, but not the venue they chose to do it in.
On Mar.31.2009 at 12:52 PM
Bakari’s comment is:
Saying who's fault the mis-step is is not truly necessary, *but most designers out there wish they had the balls to do what Landor just did.*
Made a typo!
BJN’s comment is:
What did Landor really do on this project? It seems that they mostly served to put a stamp of credibility on the SciFi renaming.
"However, Syfy was a name generated internally and pre-tested at the channel before our involvement." I wonder what that means. Pre-tested by marketing execs for acceptance by the rest of management?
On Mar.31.2009 at 01:00 PM
Josh’s comment is:
How is it NOT appropriate for Landor to point out that the name was chosen before their involvement? It seems completely appropriate to set an otherwise wildly confusing record straight.
It doesn't strike me as inappropriate to say "I wasn't hired to debate the name, I was hired to make a visual brand for it".
On Mar.31.2009 at 01:19 PM
Kevin Tucker’s comment is:
Sorry, but if Landor felt so strongly against it, they should have turned down the project. We all have client input into projects that we don't agree with, but we don't present our work with disclaimers like "this would have been better if the stupid client hadn't insisted on..."
As somebody else said, it was their job to make this look as good under the circumstances as possible. That's universally true... and to come out and make excuses now really doesn't do them any favors.
That being said, I feel their pain, and would WANT to do the same thing if I were in their shoes. This is probably the worst rebranding I've ever seen.
On Mar.31.2009 at 01:21 PM
Josh’s comment is:
Scratch that second comment.
Replace it with "We were hired to consult on names, not to make the final decision".
On Mar.31.2009 at 01:32 PM
N.S.’s comment is:
@ MyCiti and @ Felix (
"A fast-track program was undertaken to reflect the new positioning for Citi's visual identity, advertising, and internal employee engagement. Research showed that the red umbrella icon, a legacy of the merger with Travelers and used with numerous Citigroup logos, was still primarily associated with Travelers insurance, even though the insurance business had spun off." - Landor
I have to say that the language here should make it obvious to a good reader exactly what Landor's role was with Citi. I can understand that a person without a command of design/marketing vocab/jargon might have a problem getting through some of the rest of the article, but a good reader will discover the truth after a thorough read-through. What they DO try to do is to play up the fact that Paula Scher's logo was no enough, in and of itself, to properly brand Citi. They play up the importance of their involvement. But, seriously, wouldn't we all?
On Mar.31.2009 at 02:35 PM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
...Syfy was a name generated internally and pre-tested at the channel before our involvement. Once Landor was involved, we explored new names as part of the process, but it was the Channel's call to go with Syfy.
- Ken Runkel (Landor)
If this statement is accurate, I don't see anything wrong with Landor clarifying it in lieu of recent negative press and response.
Susan Hare’s comment is:
I'm with John McCollum on this one. Having sat on the client side of the table, Landor's statement makes me feel very uncomfortable. I'd be wary of hiring a company who'd ditch me publically if we didn't see eye to eye. From the consultant side of the table, I say, "Landor, you're playing into the consultant as egotist stereotype. Bad form."
On Mar.31.2009 at 04:08 PM
Scott Lerman’s comment is:
The Landor statement is unfortunate. Their blogsperson, Mr. Runkel, could have come out and said, "we'd love to take credit for the new Syfy name..." but he did not. He said they were involved, but that Landor did not come up with the name. What is UNSAID makes me uncomfortable. Maybe Ken meant that the new name is great, but we did not come up with it. Fair enough. Is that the case?
If the blog entry was, as it sounds, a way to distance Landor from a "mistake", I think that was a mistake. My opinion. Once hired, we should be absolutely dedicated to our client's success. Problems, setbacks, poor client choices are no excuse. We are paid, well, to make it all work out great in the end. I bet this statement, however it was intended, makes Syfy's job of generating internal support much harder.
On Mar.31.2009 at 04:39 PM
Chip’s comment is:
I'm an independent freelancer and longtime SciFi Channel viewer. I had zero to do with the renaming, but the choice to go with SyFy is so abhorrent, that I am considering putting a similar denial on my blog! (and no, I do not live in my parent's basement).
On Mar.31.2009 at 04:50 PM
JonSel’s comment is:
"We turned Citi's blue to silver" should be the headline. Truth. Done.
Yes, that's about right. It's the below paragraph that I believe causes the confusion. The first and second sentences are right. The third suggests something more.
"Landor created a master brand strategy around the idea of one unified Citi. The new visual identity affixed "Citi" to the names of the majority of its offers and used different-colored text to distinguish retail from institutional businesses. In the Citi logo, the umbrella was replaced with a red arc—a clean, modern symbol connecting clients' desires and aspirations to the financial solutions that address their needs.On Mar.31.2009 at 05:37 PM
Kiran Chetry’s comment is:
Obviously many of you have never been part of a naming exercise before, to put it bluntly they are more often than not, a total cluster fu**.
Naming, no matter how hard you try is not a scientific process, clients always end up evaluating names on a subjective level, I like, or I dislike. If the decision making is subjective then 'everyone is an expert', which means everyone, from the designer, to legal, to the CEOs husband shovel in feedback, and name ideas. It's a horrid process that can easily spiral into weeks of pointless repetitive naming exercises.
Bottom line, when a name is finally chosen, if it's good, everyone own it, if it's crap, then no one owns it.
I sympathize with Landor.
On Mar.31.2009 at 05:39 PM
JonSel’s comment is:
"However, Syfy was a name generated internally and pre-tested at the channel before our involvement." I wonder what that means. Pre-tested by marketing execs for acceptance by the rest of management?
This means SciFi came to Landor with this name and said, "Hey, we like the name SyFy. We've even done some focus group testing and it worked out real swell. What do you think?" Likely, Landor responded, "Eh, how about we come up with some of our own?" Net result, SciFi didn't like Landor's options so went with what they came with. I have no idea who did the actual design work of the logo.
On Mar.31.2009 at 05:43 PM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
I think that some commenters are continuing to understand why Landor is distancing itself from The Syphilis Channel branding.
It sounds to me like Landor was asked to consult on naming, then shown the door when SciFi (or NBC Universal) decided to go with an awful internal name instead. If I had been given the big "F You" from a client, then a final result that I wholeheartedly disagreed with was credited to me, I'd distance myself too.
If Landor's involvement continued through the development and launch of the brand, then this is bad form, no doubt, but that's not how it sounds right now.
On Mar.31.2009 at 05:48 PM
drewdraws2’s comment is:
that's continuing to misunderstand...
On Mar.31.2009 at 05:49 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Smart move, it seems the move to go with Syfy was so stupid that even Landor can't take credit for it!
wow Sci Fi really did do a dumb thing. Gone with the worst misspelling in the entire universe.
For this I actually respect Landor.
Maybe this will mean this bad misspelled name won't last for long *crosses fingers*
On Mar.31.2009 at 06:57 PM
Holger Kappenstein’s comment is:
When I read the article in the NY Times, I did not believe for a second that Landor was involved in the renaming project. Having worked at Landor, I knew that this name could not have been a recommendation.
Naming is as much an art as a science, and as far as I have been involved in the process (as a designer at Landor’s New York office), it’s being treated as that.
The obvious question here is: should Landor have declined to take on the engagement to begin with?
If this unfortunate name was already on the table, then I think yes.
But what if Landor was initially charged with the renaming, but the client chose to go with their own conception?
The ‘easy’ answer to this one: once you are no longer able to finish the job to the client's success, you should end the engagement. Fire the client.
This, of course, takes courage. You need to have “the balls” to do that, especially in the current economy. And in big firms like Landor, with multiple decision makers involved, it gets very difficult — if not impossible — to do this.
I can see Landor’s (or Ken’s) decision to take an official stance in this matter as much a reaction to the public displeasure about the new name as an internal sign to do better next time.
Too late? Maybe.
On Apr.01.2009 at 12:27 AM
Davidoff’s comment is:
1st April isn't it? \o/
On Apr.01.2009 at 03:46 AM
Chuck Spidell’s comment is:
Something smells a little syfy here.
On Apr.01.2009 at 05:56 AM
Chuck Spidell’s comment is:
By the way Armin, nice work on the Syfy/Klamath header.
On Apr.01.2009 at 05:58 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Chuck, thanks! Glad someone acknowledged my mad Photoshop skills.
On Apr.01.2009 at 06:08 AM
Janet G’s comment is:
I feel Landor's pain. On a much smaller scale, I've been in the situation of being involved in a naming only to have the client choose her husband's uncle's suggestion.
Was there was a comment sent directly to the NYTimes as a clarification? If so, I missed it. By posting on the blog, it feels like an insider's note and the tone feels distancing instead of explanatory. Perhaps if the circumstances were written in a different way, I wouldn't have winced so much.
It's a tough call. Landor is a powerhouse and you can't blame them for wanting to protect their name from the "SyFys" of the world.
On Apr.01.2009 at 10:47 AM
Basil’s comment is:
Landor was called in at the end of the project to essentially just rubberstamp the name. SciFi had done their own testing, and guess what, the SyFy name did poorly even in their own research. At the risk of offending a new client, Landor wouldn't support it and created a detailed argument against it. And it worked, almost. SciFi came back and asked them to present a half a dozen alternative names, several of which very nearly won them over.
But in the end, being already so far along with SyFy, the client ignored the advice. That happens more often than you know. As far as damage control or helping them forward, they didn't think they'd need it and weren't interested.
On Apr.01.2009 at 12:53 PM
chris’s comment is:
I immediately pronounced it "siffy", until I was informed by the website it is still "phonetically the same". But this runs against English usage.
A wrong turn IMHO.
On Apr.01.2009 at 02:12 PM
Janet G’s comment is:
There's not a doubt in my mind that Landor argued against the new name.
I just question the blog post.
On Apr.01.2009 at 02:14 PM
John McCollum’s comment is:
On principle, I refuse to pronounce the name correctly.
On Apr.01.2009 at 07:51 PM
Jedd’s comment is:
If they really had to change the name they could've gone with 'the Xi-fi channel'. At least X connotes the unknown, and it visually rhymes with wi-fi, hi-fi giving people a clue to how it's pronounced.
On Apr.01.2009 at 09:53 PM
Anthony Shore’s comment is:
Landor made a neutral, factual statement that they did not create the name Syfy. Their comment wasn't disparaging. It just stated the facts for the record. I don't see what the big deal is. In fact, they really had to correct the misappropriation. (Disclosure: I used to work at Landor but don't now.)
On Apr.02.2009 at 01:10 AM
Scott Lerman’s comment is:
Fair point Anthony. I suggested to Ken Runkel (on the Landor blog) that he might want to "wade back in and clarify" since many have viewed his post as a slightly veiled attack on the name. No response yet...
On Apr.02.2009 at 12:13 PM
Ivan’s comment is:
I wonder what sort of Utopian world some of you live in that you would suggest Landor should've turned down the project if they didn't like the name? I can understand turning down work shilling cigarettes to kiddies on moral grounds, but if I turned down every project I didn't absolutely love I wouldn't have any work. Landor may be huge, but they still need clients to pay the bills. I think they were absolutely within their right to clarify a factual inaccuracy printed in a national newspaper.
On Apr.03.2009 at 03:14 PM
Paul’s comment is:
absolutely. again the big guns can't seem to do any right.
nothing wrong with setting the record straight.
On Apr.06.2009 at 07:14 PM
Michael O'Connell’s comment is:
Landor wimped out.
They should have turned down the work if they didn't want to be associated with it. How does the client feel when their agency says, "The client made the stupid decision. Not us!" If I were the client or any client considering Landor as an agency I would turn tail and run.
If they couldn't stand up to their client they should have at the very least stood behind their client, done the work and kept their mouths shut.
In general though, Landor is a solid company and they are entitled to a boneheaded decision of their own.
On Apr.13.2009 at 04:27 PM
Jessica Fey’s comment is:
Did nobody read the second paragraph of the blog post? As reported in last week's New York Times... This blog was in response to the New York Times' mistake. When working with a company who simply won't listen to you, even if you've proven yourself as well as Landor has, it is usually best to just shut your mouth and stand behind your client when their idea blows up in their face. However, if the media screws up and gets information wrong that can discredit your authority, that is your prerogative to set the record straight. I have a feeling that if the New York Times had not screwed up, Landor would have never made that post.
On Apr.27.2009 at 09:02 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
