NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Jerry Kuyper (of recent Cisco redesign fame), alongwith brand strategy firm Group 1066, has created a new graphic identity for LodgeNet Interactive Corp. — best for you to read what they do as it’s impossible to condense in a simple sentence. As this is an example of an effective corporate redesign by one of the field’s most talented designers, I asked Jerry if he would share some of his first-hand insights into the project and its respective process — and he kindly accepted.
CHRISTIAN PALINO: Thanks for this opportunity Jerry. Could you start off by telling me about how this project began?
JERRY KUYPER: Group 1066, a strategic branding firm based in New York, recommended Jerry Kuyper Partners to LodgeNet. We competed against several other firms and won the project which consisted of creating a new graphic identity, visualizing the brand architecture and establishing the identity standards.
In 2007, LodgeNet Entertainment Corporation bought OnCommand, formerly its biggest competitor and the number-two supplier of video-on-demand services to the hospitality industry. LodgeNet also had acquired StayOnline, a provider of hotel Internet services. The brand needed to reflect this new reality.
CP: Was there a formal brief to begin the project?
JK: The creative brief was provided by LodgeNet, based on the strategic work from Group 1066, and included the following:
Name
LodgeNet Interactive Corporation
Positioning
LodgeNet envisions and delivers engaging interactive experiences that keep customers of guest-basd businesses connected, informed and entertained.
Image attributes
Innovative, exciting, friendly, fun, savvy
Tagline
connect | inform | entertain
CP: Could you tell me a bit about how your design process began?
JK: I was pleased to see there was no interest in maintaining any visual equities in the existing symbol. The “football”, as the symbol had not so affectionately been nicknamed, was an early expression of the shiny chrome approach that many designers despise today.
From the creative exploration I selected the five directions that were most promising in meeting the image criteria. I discussed the work with Group 1066 and they identified one direction they felt was most effective. They also cautioned me that direction might be too much of a stretch for our client. Each direction was demonstrated on a series of prototypes and in the context of the competitive set.
The following week I presented the five directions to the Chief Marketing Officer and his marketing and communications team. The direction that Group 1066 and I preferred was quickly selected. This direction was based on the digital pipeline that is the vehicle by which their products and services are delivered. The design had many inspirations, from fiber optics to fireworks. My thought at the time was “that was easy”. Over the next several weeks I refined the logo.
CP: Sounds like one of those exceptional cases where everyone wants the same creative solution! On the client side, who worked with you on the project?
JK: The team that I worked closely with at LodgeNet included the Chief Marketing Officer, Senior Director of Marketing Communications, Creative Director and Senior Designer. I found the LodgeNet team to be smart, receptive and fully engaged in the project.
CP: How did you structure your creative exploration and refinement?
JK: My approach is not typical in that I entertain all suggestions from the client. I have found this process to be very engaging and productive. While many of the requests may not have appeared sound, they all led to further exploration and discoveries that influenced the final direction. My openness to listen to concerns and suggestions also increases my credibility when I tell my clients a direction doesn’t work. At one point I was asked to add a swoosh. I winced, I did it and I proceeded to talk them out of that direction.
CP: I’m glad to hear the swoosh was quickly dispatched!
JK: I joked with my client that it isn’t what we create as much as what I talk you out of that has real value.
CP: And the cycle of revisions?
JK: The revisions included which name to use as part of the visual identity: LodgeNet or LodgeNet Interactive. I strongly recommended that LodgeNet should be the communicative name and used with the symbol. LodgeNet Interactive Corporation would be used as the legal name. Shorter is always better in a name.
We also explored the color, font, and the structure of the logo (including the number of elements, direction of the movement, different overall shapes). Over 300 variations of the logo were created and evaluated over the course of that month. The additional exploration led to a result the client team and I agreed was a distinct improvement over the initial recommendation. My thought at the time was “that wasn’t easy”.
CP: You noted that there was also a brand architecture component that was developed — could you tell me about how that evolved?
JK: Group 1066 had recommended a masterbrand strategy to leverage the LodgeNet brand and facilitate the addition of their acquisitions. I worked closely with LodgeNet to create and evaluate a number of brand architecture models. We recommended the four major businesses, Hospitality, Healthcare, Education and Travel, have signatures that used the LodgeNet name and symbol. Several minor exceptions were made but the overall brand architecture of the company become much more unified and easier to understand.
CP: As the final logo and respective lock-up exists in various on-line and off-line contexts and sizes, were there any media-specific versions developed?
JK: Joe Finocchiaro created the final artwork for the graphic identity. I believe there should be as few variations of a graphic identity as possible. The logo is intended for use at all sizes and across all media with one exception. A special use version was developed to used as a stamp into leather folders.
CP: Thanks for sharing so much behind the scenes information. The resulting identity is a great accomplishment — especially given the “football” that kicked it all off!
JK: I found working relationship with Group 1066 to be very productive and enjoyable. In addition to their strategy work they provided me with several key insights during my creative work. I’m proud of the result of the collaboration between LodgeNet, Group 1066 and Jerry Kuyper Partners.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Arnold P’s comment is:
Beautifully done. Energetic, iconic, memorable.
The type is sort of pedestrian and clunky
Aloke Pillai’s comment is:
Wow, the new logo looks amazing. Looks like bytes flying in a computer dimension. =)
Keep Rocking!
Aloke Pillai
On Feb.12.2008 at 10:34 PM
Joachim’s comment is:
It looks fantastic! The logo and overall identity is very well executed, so huge props. One criticism is that I feel the typeface (modified Frutiger) feels a bit generic, although it still does pairs well with the logo.
On Feb.12.2008 at 10:54 PM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
I immediately saw this as Jerry's (reminded me a bit of his Special Village mark... hey Jerry, that thing die?)
Great movement and clarity. He makes it look easy folks!
On Feb.12.2008 at 11:11 PM
Paul C’s comment is:
Goodness, this is a spot on look; which is made all the more fantastic by seeing that awful "I work with Computers in 1993" mark previous.
On Feb.13.2008 at 05:13 AM
Soundwave’s comment is:
Does anyone else here feel that we are presenting the "oohs" and "aahs" because there is the presence of designer feedback?
The mark is appropriate, without a doubt. But to jump up and down going its fantastic. What separates this from other logos on this site that get torn apart?
On Feb.13.2008 at 08:58 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
i agree, somewhat. the logo is spot-on, but the typography is garden variety. the colors work, though i find them a little too bright and cheery. but hey, seeing what it was, this is a VAST improvement.
On Feb.13.2008 at 09:09 AM
exigent’s comment is:
The typography is nothing special. The mark is nice, but at the same time it is nothing to get excited about. Does anyone think the mark resembles "Pin Head" from Hellraiser? Anyone? This looks very generic and doesn't stand apart at all. To me it is somewhat forgettable and looks very "now" if the sense it follows the old fads of web 1.0.
On Feb.13.2008 at 10:00 AM
Domo’s comment is:
Great improvement on the logo! I've been in places where Lodgenet is on the tv and that leads me to my next observation..this logo was obviously designed for print...odd considering how many hotel tv's this logo could be on!
On Feb.13.2008 at 10:57 AM
Daniel Bertalotto’s comment is:
I don't see any resemblances of creatures, etc.
I think any trendiness that you could derive from this is heavily trumped by its appropriateness. I've enjoyed this mark since I first viewed it on Tony Spaeth's site.
I'm especially envious of the process. I always appreciate when all parties can collaborate so well.
On Feb.13.2008 at 11:02 AM
Doug F’s comment is:
A lot of the comments seem to stress that this design is nothing "special." I think that misses the point. Not all identities need to be "look at me" attention-getting. Often, an appropriate, well-crafted mark is what's needed -- and what's sorely missing from many identities these days.
From what I can tell, LodgeNet isn't about being cutting edge, but being a solid company providing useful, reliable products to their customers. I think this identity is totally appropriate to this company and to the design brief.
On Feb.13.2008 at 11:41 AM
John McCollum’s comment is:
Strong, solid mark. The type is functional. A huge improvement.
On Feb.13.2008 at 12:01 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
I like the colors, they have an almost 'pop' quality, which is refreshing and energetic.
I don't mind the type, I appreciate the simplicity and directness, I feel so many logotypes are overworked these days with forced ligatures etc.
For me the symbol follows another current trend in identity design; "diagrammatic complexity", attempting to explain all that the company does with the logo. Experian fell victim to this a few month back.
Looks great large, but is way too complex and lacks symbolic strength in the diminutive.
Kim Siever’s comment is:
I love the mark. I love how it seems to represent fibre optics, TV electron beams, moving pixels, and light. I'm not sure if the complementary colours were done for a specific reason.
On Feb.13.2008 at 12:25 PM
Chad K’s comment is:
While in a way I find the logo slightly forgetable, the mark is down right fascinating. If you really take it apart and look at how it was constructed, it is very delicate and relies on slight variations.
The dots are actually a perfect square with four dots displaced slightly from the formation.
The addition of the yellow 'burst' shapes make the dot form really dynamic. Although the dots are basically aligned with each other, the slightly varying yellow trails make them look like they are one different planes. They also give it a dimensionality as they point to a single point of origin–a focal point. It makes a great dimension without any unnecessary bevels or techy highlights.
Fascinating.
On Feb.13.2008 at 01:11 PM
Rett’s comment is:
The most important take away for me is Jerry's comment about entertaining all suggestions from a client and how these explorations eventually influence the direction it takes. Hidden in between the "make this bigger" and "add a swoosh" suggestions, there's often a really good idea. Plus like he said, it's a lot easier to talk someone out of something if you can show them why it's not a good idea. Thanks for the great interview!
On Feb.13.2008 at 01:39 PM
cee’s comment is:
Of the people who post comments what percentage are designers 5%? 10%?
Jerry Kuyper was kind enough to let people in on his design process and people leave comments like, "This looks very generic and doesn't stand apart at all." and "the typography is garden variety…"
For some reason people are not awed by the process and details that go into a design, but would rather see something beautiful with little or no substance. Mr. Kuyper explains the concept behind a very well thought out mark, uses a very appropriate typeface and lockup to reinforce that mark and people still don't see how this is a great logo? This logo is great and if you can't appreciate it, then something is wrong with you and not the logo.
On Feb.13.2008 at 02:08 PM
Glenn’s comment is:
Great mark! Enjoyed the story behind it.
On Feb.13.2008 at 02:10 PM
g’s comment is:
the story/interview was excellent (and the mark, too). i think sometimes we all provide a review without knowing the true evolution. nice work & thanks for incorporating the interview!
On Feb.13.2008 at 03:03 PM
patrick’s comment is:
cee, i think it's great to have the designer comment and offer insight into the project and the process.
but don't let it stop anyone from offering criticism. where would we be if our classmates and instructors were only allowed to offer positive feedback when we were back in school?!
the harshest comment i have seen on this post is ". . . if you can't appreciate it, then something is wrong with you and not the logo."
On Feb.13.2008 at 03:38 PM
Tony’s comment is:
Great job, Brand New. Adding the planner/designer's story lifts you to a whole new level.
On Feb.13.2008 at 03:58 PM
Tony’s comment is:
On the other hand, not all designers write as well as the multi-talented Kuyper.
On Feb.13.2008 at 04:02 PM
Darrel’s comment is:
"What separates this from other logos on this site that get torn apart?"
context.
On Feb.13.2008 at 04:12 PM
Thomas Ordahl’s comment is:
We over at Group 1066 had a great collaborative experience with Jerry on this project. He really is a master of his craft. The client team was also highly collaborative and respectful of everyone's expertise while staying true to their own responsibilities.
On Feb.13.2008 at 04:49 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
Trend styles 2007:
Link
DG3’s comment is:
B - O - R - I - N - G
Totally interchangeable with every other new logo out there.
On Feb.13.2008 at 05:48 PM
Audrée Lapierre’s comment is:
Congrats! very pretty
On Feb.13.2008 at 07:27 PM
Char Alfonzo’s comment is:
Impeccable
On Feb.13.2008 at 08:04 PM
Mark’s comment is:
logo is well done. :)
On Feb.13.2008 at 08:48 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
I'd like to see it implemented across different media and usages. Alone, the logo is a bit of a yawn; I'm hoping it fits into some larger visual style — kinda like the NYC block letters.
Obviously, a massive improvement over their previous logo.
On Feb.14.2008 at 01:09 AM
marnie’s comment is:
I, too, love the mark. It doesn't stand out so much on the small iteration at the top of the page, but when I scrolled down to the large version of the mark alone, and understood what was going on, I was smitten.
I'm not so fond of how the registration mark looks like a period, even if you can interpret it as a dot, which would be more appropriate.
I really appreciate the context and background info, too
On Feb.14.2008 at 01:48 PM
L.Vazquez’s comment is:
I also love the mark.
Maybe I love it a little too much?
I have these tingily feelings.
Maybe this mark will be my valentine?
On Feb.14.2008 at 02:43 PM
Soundwave’s comment is:
Darrel mentioned the text as what separates this logo from the rest, in response to my earlier question. And in no way was my statement meant to insult the designer or their hard work. Its better than what i can do.
I am curious, as a forum, the context is wonderful and very educational. However, as a consumer, I guess I dont see this logo standing out from the multitude of other logos.
Am I completely off base here?
On Feb.14.2008 at 03:05 PM
Marcellus’s comment is:
San Fransisco Opera, anyone?
Anonymous’s comment is:
"Of the people who post comments what percentage are designers 5%? 10%?
Jerry Kuyper was kind enough to let people in on his design process and people leave comments like, "This looks very generic and doesn't stand apart at all." and "the typography is garden variety…"
For some reason people are not awed by the process and details that go into a design, but would rather see something beautiful with little or no substance. Mr. Kuyper explains the concept behind a very well thought out mark, uses a very appropriate typeface and lockup to reinforce that mark and people still don't see how this is a great logo? This logo is great and if you can't appreciate it, then something is wrong with you and not the logo."
---
I'm sorry, but this is the kind of arrogance that discredits our profession. "Appeal to authority" has always been and always will be a logical fallacy.
No one in the marketplace could possibly care less about who designed this, or what level of expertise its creator possesses. They'll respond if they think it works.
If, ceecee, you want to set up a website like Tony's that gives your reviews of identity systems, please do so, and please disable comments.
If, however, you're annoyed by people expressing their opinions about identity systems, you're obviously in the wrong place.
And yes, some people want to see something beautiful, and are not awed by process. I call those people 'clients.'
On Feb.14.2008 at 06:23 PM
Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:
Almost forgot about this:
Whoa.
On Feb.15.2008 at 01:15 AM
C-Lo’s comment is:
"JK: I was pleased to see there was no interest in maintaining any visual equities in the existing symbol. The "football", as the symbol had not so affectionately been nicknamed, was an early expression of the shiny chrome approach that many designers despise today."
So you ditch it for a web 2.0 esque logo?
On Feb.15.2008 at 11:30 AM
john smith’s comment is:
I don't like it. It doesn't make any impact on me, but for sure it's an improvement...
On Feb.15.2008 at 11:42 AM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
C-Lo,
Help me understand how I can avoid creating web 2.0 logos. What is you definition of web 2.0?
I've been already been cautioned here against using bright and cheery colors, pedestrian typography, dots, lines and the third dimension ;-)
On Feb.15.2008 at 04:46 PM
Josh’s comment is:
@C-Lo
Bustling around the web today i was directed to a logo contest on 99designs.com which is put on by Sitepoint(who is now my mortal enemy).
It featured many more what you would call web 2.0 logo as this adverts any and all hallmarks of the cliche. This mark features nothing that would make it 2.0. It has no reflection, no use of gradients(for 3D type effects), it's not shiny, uses drop shadow or has Frutiger(oh crap it is!) as its typeface.
One demerit Jerry. ;)
What is at issue is your ability to see past current trends and an obvious lack of history when it comes to identity design. Even if we were to adopt your opinion that it was 2.0, it was still a better direction than the previous mark.
@Soundwave
Well one could make the generic argument that it looks like every other mark, but many identities share characteristics that obviously work. The use of a circle as an enclosure. The use of pixels(squares)as saying "we're in technology".
What you and most can't begin to understand is the industry competition. If we step away from the execution of it for a second, what does the competition have for an identity. Is it memorable? Do they have a refined mark that ties concept and practice together?
I'm sure Jerry's work considered all of this before the final execution here. An identity job such as this doesn't always have to worry about whether it looks like its been done before as "everything" has been done before.
The job of an identity designer should be able to tie concept, purpose and the name together perfectly and regarding this I tip my cap to Jerry.
On Feb.15.2008 at 09:26 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
Thanks Josh,
You said it better than I could have.
For the record, the logotype is based on Myriad Pro Semibold. My rationale was that the symbol had so much movement that there was no need to round off corners or other in vogue customizations.
In graphic identity I always err toward timeless over trend. Rest assured I did look at dozens of serif and sans serif fonts paired up to the symbol.
On Feb.15.2008 at 10:03 PM
K. West’s comment is:
I'd love to see the print collateral that comes out of this. I'm curious to see what other elements might be pulled in to pair with the logo.
On Feb.16.2008 at 12:33 AM
Derrick’s comment is:
Bland and boring logo, but it's an improvement in quantum leaps and bounds from their gross-'80s old logo.
On Feb.16.2008 at 10:46 AM
DG3’s comment is:
It's a pretty good bet that 'Anonymous' is actually Kuyper. No one would be that upset about the comments in here.
On Feb.17.2008 at 04:34 PM
Jerry Kuyper’s comment is:
DG3
Before you place any bets, reread. Anonymous is referring to comments Cee made.
I find the bulk of the comments to be positive and/or insightful.
Why don't you post the latest non-boring logo that you designed and we'll have a better clue where you are coming from.
On Feb.17.2008 at 10:57 PM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
It's a pretty good bet that 'Anonymous' is actually Kuyper. No one would be that upset about the comments in here.
Insinuating that Jerry – after taking the time to provide all of us with insight into this project and his process – is somehow assuming an anonymous identity to support himself in some way is not only absurd but rude. Jerry has shown up and offered us transparency, accusing him of dishonesty in respect to representation only discourages future contributions like his.
On Feb.18.2008 at 01:33 AM
DG3’s comment is:
Then simply delete my comments. I didn't know this was supposed to be a love-fest.
On Feb.18.2008 at 03:23 AM
Tom W’s comment is:
First I would like to thank Christian and Jerry for one of the more interesting contributions to this forum (which, btw, I do find generally to be of high standard). It is always great to see this type of dialog with the designers here.
The quality of some criticism will always fall below the quality of the work it attempts to evaluate. (Some work is of such poor quality a simple: "sucks" or "boring" may be the appropriate response.) Fortunately much work illicits criticism that provides incite into the process of branding and design, which is one of the main reasons I read these forums.
I would hope that none of the critique here would prevent Jerry or other designers from participating in a similar manner the future. I doubt that it would as most designers are pretty used to accepting good critique as part of their process. Most are probably also used to dealing with some critique from less well schooled sources (read customers) as a part of their job.
Finally, my comments. I really like the mark, especially in the larger sizes. While it does use dots, which have been popular for a number of years, I think incorporates it's own dynamic which separates it from most previous iterations.
I am less certain about are lock ups presented here. I feel that the mark loses some of it's impact in the smaller sizes when combined with the text. This is a common dilemma with more intricate mark designs and relatively long brand names. Hopefully the logo will get exposure in contexts where the viewer receives the full impact of the mark in the larger sizes establishing a feel for the brand with the consumer that carries over to other smaller usages which can't deliver as much visual impact.
Very well conceived and executed. Nice work!
On Feb.18.2008 at 05:55 AM
John McCollum’s comment is:
Um, sorry.
I'm the 'anonymous' who wrote this comment:
"...I'm sorry, but this is the kind of arrogance that discredits our profession. "Appeal to authority" has always been and always will be a logical fallacy...."
I meant to post under my name, but something weird happened with the submission form.
What I was trying to communicate with my original comment is that there are plenty of valid criteria for evaluating a mark. "Appeal to authority" is not one of them.
I was reacting to CeeCees implications that a) non-designers (or designers that don't meet certain unspecified standards) are not qualified to judge the quality of design, and that b) anyone who disagrees with him on the merits of this design either disrespects Mr. Kuyper or has 'a problem.'
Attitudes like that both discredit the profession and degrade the usefulness of this forum.
For what it's worth, I think that Mr. Kuyper's design is really nice, and is a big improvement over the original. I suspect, though, that Mr. Kuyper would not be in business today if he had entered sales pitches, consultations and presentations demanding the kind of deference Ceecee seems willing to offer him on this forum. A forum which exists -- unless I'm missing something -- to offer people the opportunity to critique identity projects.
I agree with Tom W's observation that this forum elicits responses that provide valuable insights into the real world of design that many of us inhabit every day. All of us have faced unreasonable or unreasoned criticism of our work. Learning to navigate the complex politics of preference and subjective interpretation is nearly as important to one's success as a designer as learning about scale and color.
Anyway. Sorry about the 'anonymous' comment -- I wasn't trying to hide.
On Feb.18.2008 at 09:58 AM
Joe Seven’s comment is:
C'mon! Leave DG3 alone, he can't read!
This logo is nice, clean and light. A great improvement upon the previous one.
I'm curious as to why some people post other logos that bear a bit of resemblance to the new LodgeNet mark. Do you people really think that logo designs can look like nothing else that has ever been designed? Nothing can be original in form anymore, originality lies in how you contextualize and appropriate things. Pasting a link to the San Francisco Opera? Why, aren't you talented! You made a connection between two geometric shapes that seem to move in an outward direction! Bravo!
On Feb.19.2008 at 10:43 AM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
Well Joe, a logo does not live in a vacuum either,
though I agree it is damn hard in 2008 to design a logo that has no cultural or historical precedent. This is especially true of logo design as you are often simplifying form to an extreme.
This doesn't mean you should not try to find something new, it's not impossible.
Also, I DO NOT think the logo looks like the the SF Opera, that is just clutching at straws.
Darrel’s comment is:
"that is just clutching at straws."
Hmm...the logo DOES kind of look like a bunch of straws... ;o)
On Feb.19.2008 at 12:41 PM
Richard’s comment is:
It looks like a QAM constellation to me...
Yeah.
On Feb.29.2008 at 05:15 AM
monique’s comment is:
About as exciting as watching toast cool.
Why not a lodge cabin with nets shaped like double helixes shooting down from outerspace? And maybe even some sharks (sharks are cool, but not like cooling toast (that's uncool)).
On Apr.20.2008 at 03:33 AM
SkitShing’s comment is:
Hi
Bye
Haley’s comment is:
Reminds me of Walmart's new logo.
pu’s comment is:
it does nothing for me. typography is bad, bad colour choices. only got a good review coz the designer was probably a friend of the reviewer.
On Jan.14.2009 at 01:01 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
