NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Over the years I have emphasized to our authors (and myself) how important it is to tell the story of an identity, frame it in context (even if brief), form an opinion of the subject matter and to avoid pithy, sarcastic posts a la Gawker. So it is with a slap to my own wrist that I post this with no points of reference, no story, no press release links or otherwise relevant information. But I seriously have no idea what’s going on here nor do I feel compelled to expend more energy than necessary on this. This being the logo for No Child Left Behind, unveiled sometime in mid-January. Sigh.
Thanks to Delaina Biernstein for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Peter Marquardt’s comment is:
Wow, that is one logo left behind...
On Apr.01.2007 at 11:07 AM
benp’s comment is:
hmmm... kinda... creepy!
On Apr.01.2007 at 11:10 AM
Rich Lafferty’s comment is:
Bloody fingernail scratches along the sidewalk from the last child not left behind, I guess.
On Apr.01.2007 at 11:24 AM
Andrew’s comment is:
uh... Apr.01.2007?
On Apr.01.2007 at 11:41 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Andrew. I swear it's no April Fools joke. It's only coincidence that I would post such a thing on such a date. Sundays are when I have the most time for posting.
On Apr.01.2007 at 11:45 AM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
I have to say this mark is almost perfect. Execution issues aside, this identity perfectly represents that which it is supposed to.
With "No Child" being big and bold, it's a wonderfully subtle indication that no child, in fact, was considered in passing this legislation.
And the symbol is wonderful as it powerfully represents, as rich pointed out, of both an educator and childs grasp before descending down the morbid crevasse that currently stands for public education policy.
Couldn't have done any better!
On Apr.01.2007 at 11:55 AM
pendolino’s comment is:
what a shame the old logo was dropped. its much better designed and more thoughtful. did they just get bored with it? remember that every day there is someone who sees your logo for the first time as long as people have babies so if you're bored go skydiving..
On Apr.01.2007 at 12:12 PM
Christian Palino’s comment is:
NoChild is what I see – it took me a long time to make my way past the strange camelCase being used for "NoChild", then past the strange squiggles and down to find LeftBehind – which indeed, seemed to get left behind.
My first thought was that they mistakenly used the military's new raygun logo for this educational program – but then I realized it wasn't a mistake as I remembered the military has pretty much all but absorbed the education budget in the country.
The original logo had a reasonable visual concept that, while poorly executed, did try to comunicate the program. A sensible alternative would have been to redesign the old logo to make it stronger visually. The new logo seems to (I am guessing here) be using children's drawings as an inspiration…
Why not have the typography/wordmark written by a child – enforcing the idea that children can read/write – instead of these strangely wilting red stripes?
But to me, aside from the horrible logomark being used in the lock-up, I can't get over the fact that I can barely read the program name. How was this ever approved?
Apparently, the creator of this new logo is a designer left behind.
On Apr.01.2007 at 12:41 PM
R Berger’s comment is:
Maybe there were some instructions to the designer for changes to make the logo better, but they just crossed them out with a red marker?
On Apr.01.2007 at 02:37 PM
Janet’s comment is:
This reminds me of cut marks on a wrist of a suicidal person.
When did Nochild Leftbehind become two words?
God there is nothing improved about this new logo.
On Apr.01.2007 at 03:25 PM
Robert Spangler’s comment is:
umm seriously?
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
This should have never had a logo... ever.
On Apr.01.2007 at 06:06 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
It's clearly an attempt at a flag. What is not clear is how this god-awful rendition ever made it out of the designer's sketchbook.
I have fun going back through my roughs on logo projects, chuckling at some of the brainstorming sketches. This NCLB logo would have gotten a nice big belly laugh, had it remained in the sketchbook. But if that really is their actual logo, my powers of expression will be directed exclusively toward groans of disbelief.
Seriously, either it's the work of a first-semester art student, or it's the result of the dreaded napkin-sketch-by-excecutive.
On Apr.01.2007 at 06:48 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:
My Mom (65) is visiting for the weekend.
Just showed her the new logo and she said, "No Child? What, they don't want any children? And what are those grey squiggles?"
Gasp!!!!
Will show my younger lady friends (some who are mothers) tomorrow.
VR/
On Apr.01.2007 at 08:49 PM
Joe Moran’s comment is:
Meant to type "Red squiggles."
Dreadfully embarrassed. (Red face.)
On Apr.01.2007 at 09:01 PM
Paul D’s comment is:
That thing's just awful on every level, from the unbalanced magic-marker lines to the brainless type composing.
Okay, so we all know Bush's lowest-common-denominator education initiative is retarded at best. But if you at least take the name seriously for a moment, it's clear that the whole thing needs to be weighted equally as a phrase.
It's not "NO CHILD! …(left behind)" which is what the current division and emphasis reads as. This is one clear case where snazzy dot-com font and colour mixing doesn't accomplish a darn thing. Each word needs to be weighted equally and be portrayed in an appropriate typeface.
Ah well, this is from the folks who think "no fly zone" makes sense in English. What's that, a zone where flies are forbidden?
On Apr.01.2007 at 09:47 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
At least on the original, with all its problems, there is some positive symbolism with the child looking to the stars, and the red flag stripes climbing. I believe this concept, while heavy handed, could have been reworked and distilled into a simpler, more workable mark. Now they have the bloody scratches diving down...not a confidence-inspiring look IMO.
On Apr.01.2007 at 09:48 PM
Mark.S.’s comment is:
Is it my imagination or are the bloody fingernail marks starting to dry and go darker on their website?
A terrible logo and by terrible I mean extremely bad and frightful.
On Apr.01.2007 at 10:48 PM
Shazbat’s comment is:
You guys don't see? Bush not only designed it, he drew the logo himself. It's his pet legislation, after all. Why fund a revision of the existing lackluster logo for non-funded legislation when you can just draw it yourself for free in between secret tipples with Condi on Air Force One?
On Apr.01.2007 at 10:56 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
This logo touched me in my "no-no" place.
On Apr.02.2007 at 12:57 AM
deelaina’s comment is:
What I find interesting, as Armin pointed out, is that there isn't any hint of a press release or anything about this new logo. No BS story about what the wonderful new logo represents, or how it is so much better than the old logo.
I can just see the poor $8-an-hour entry-level designer (or intern) who was given this project.
OR, maybe it was a spec logo contest given to a bunch of 3rd graders (hence the red crayon look).
On Apr.02.2007 at 02:29 AM
Frank’s comment is:
I guess in the old logo the flag also symbolized an open book ?
Would have been a nice idea worth of exploring and improving.
But maybe the designer of the new logo thinks of kids as little monsters, hence the fingernail scratches ?
Horrible, meaningless corporate-wannabe logo.
On Apr.02.2007 at 07:28 AM
Blake’s comment is:
Anyone else find the "stripes" in the logo quite depressing, and rather aggressive? Not to mention the fact that they taper down, giving me an eve more solemn attitude. Ack.
On Apr.02.2007 at 09:06 AM
conspiracy theorist’s comment is:
My assumption is that the design funds were given to some friend of Bush or Halliburton who was paid huge $$$ for a piece of crap. "No Croney Left Behind" is what it should say. Our tax money at "work".
On Apr.02.2007 at 09:31 AM
Frank’s comment is:
Couldn't help it...)
Just a 5 minute exploration on the flag/book theme and of course only meant as such.
Frank’s comment is:
Or like this:
Ok i'll stop now. ;)
On Apr.02.2007 at 09:58 AM
nitin budhiraja’s comment is:
I also think that the Typography in the new logo (as we all know we are constantly forming tonality of the written word, in respect to how big is its scale, color, transparency) is kinda week. Its says NO CHILD… l e f t b e h i n d… so soft and muted and quiet in a gray which is only half visible and smaller in scale. Whoever designed the logo, surely missed the point and needs to go back to Type 101.
On Apr.02.2007 at 10:41 AM
felix sockwell’s comment is:
love it.
the first thing i noticed, or, read into it, was the down sloping squiggle type. As a hand-writing analyst (novice) I can tell you that down sloping type indicatives suicidal tendancies. (hopefully, this was designed in-white house)
the kerning: you could drive a truck load of explosives thru it and no one would notice. its that good.
On Apr.02.2007 at 11:28 AM
DC1974’s comment is:
See this is what DC is about -- and why I'm working so hard to leave (again), but I can unfortunately tell you pretty much exactly how this all happened.
First; this went to the lowest bidder. Heck it might have even been by a freelancer whose only design training is having read the QuickStart guide to Quark in 1996. And who probably never picks up a pencil.
Second; I assume that this is one 20 (or more) different concepts presented. And then it was sent through the chain at the DOE. Where it languished for months of internal routing.
Third; a choice came back, but there was 13 different ideas about how this all should come together. So it was: "We like option 2, but we want to font from option 10, and we want more emphasis on the No Child and can we make this look even MORE like a flag. Here I did this version in powerpoint, can we go with that?"
Fourth; The designer not happy to have the work torn apart tries to meet the DOE half way and comes up with another response. To which the DOE responds: "But what happened to my design from the PowerPoint presentation. We really want it like that." And so the designer just translates it.
See Washingtonians (especially those within the government, but it really happens everywhere) with all their law degrees and MBAs hate the fact that anyone would suggest they know more than them. Especially a freelancer who should now their place in terms of seniority. And the lowest common denominator gets approved again.
It's an a city that doesn't understand taste. Or aesthetics. This is why it clings to a 19th century vision of itself.
It's depressing. Really.
On Apr.02.2007 at 12:41 PM
C-lo’s comment is:
Spangler's comment is the best. Looks like a horror movie tear. Of course the whole system is a scare within itself. Maybe that's it; they want to illustrate how scarry the educational system is. Most of my friends are teachers so i've heard some stories.
On Apr.02.2007 at 02:21 PM
Reno’s comment is:
Is it just me, or is that "Lef t" spaced really poorly?
On Apr.02.2007 at 06:01 PM
felix’s comment is:
DC1974,
we feel your pain. I got a call from one of those large anonnymous design firms to illustrate the centenial logo for a large wildlife org. "great, I'd love to participate" I said. "How much and when do you need it by". you know - the usual.
Then came the punch: "we only have $150.00." phone drops. "huh? did you say $150?".
Come to find out the government had hired the one design firm who was agreeable to outsource it to 13 illustrators @ $150. I would imagine logoworks is of the same mentality. Next year local high schools will have a logo design sign up sheets in the busars office for kids who tired of paper routes.
On Apr.02.2007 at 08:27 PM
Gael’s comment is:
Maybe it is because part of the old logo looks like a rip off?
On Apr.03.2007 at 08:01 AM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
what is our child learning? obviously not how to set type or design logos.
On Apr.03.2007 at 01:03 PM
apple pie’s comment is:
How about this:
Paul Riehle’s comment is:
Yeah, what is with the f t spacing, I think anyone would see that, even people outside of the design community. Yikes, the type really throws the entire piece off.
On Apr.03.2007 at 03:53 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
D.I.Y. Design never looks good.
Exigent’s comment is:
Terrible. I like the gif Von. It all makes sense now.
On Apr.04.2007 at 12:18 PM
Jeff Fisher LogoMotives’s comment is:
I thought those red welts were the scratches left on Dubya's wrist as those who really care tried to wrestle the necessary Federal funds away from him.
On Apr.04.2007 at 06:00 PM
Matt Wade’s comment is:
Yep. They got it all wrong. How about:
OR
Mynock’s comment is:
How about this?
Ned’s comment is:
The typography is better (the old one had terrible typography), but what the heck is the concept behind the mark!? Why not just leave the old mark, and update the typography, if not creating a new logo with a concept.
On Apr.05.2007 at 02:31 PM
ToddTodd’s comment is:
I like the older logo better, the newer one looks like it is from the 90's.
On Apr.06.2007 at 01:41 PM
Marilyn’s comment is:
Wow. That logo is just awful. Maybe it was outsourced to India for $5 or something? (HA HA like a lot of American jobs!)
To me it almost looks like a 3 finger hand with a middle finger sticking out...
On Apr.06.2007 at 08:45 PM
sfumato6’s comment is:
The logo looks like it was designed for a bumper sticker. Those claw marks will really sing on the rear bumper of a soccer mom's Land Rover.
On Apr.09.2007 at 03:55 PM
Scott’s comment is:
If you like practicing design don't move to DC.
On Apr.20.2007 at 02:06 PM
Mark’s comment is:
ha ha ha PERFECT!
perhaps it a metaphor for the how dismal the program turned out to be...a FAILURE!
On May.01.2007 at 08:21 PM
cheetahboy’s comment is:
@Frank: with regard to your five minute logo.
No matter how bad the NCLB logo is I feel your quick fix only undermines the whole identity development process that we as designers all work hard to make potential clients understand. If the client knew that logo took five minutes you think they will want to pay more than 50 bucks!
Your logo is no better than the one they selected and your starry faced kid looks a little too cheery for such a serious topic.
On Jun.15.2007 at 01:39 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Well.....at least it's memorable, I guess.
On Jun.16.2007 at 06:57 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
