NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Last week Creative Review reported on what I think is one of the biggest brand stories of the year: The new look for MTV International headed by Universal Everything. It would be bigger than big had this new look also applied to MTV in the U.S. but, unless I got my 60-plus MTV channels confused, this change only applies to the MTV International Network, which is still a hell of a lot of channels for a hell of a lot of people. What makes this big, and at the core of this identity change, is that the MTV logo will no longer mutate to the whims of every and any designer and animator that gets his or her hands on it. No, the logo will now only appear in its original, black and white wordmark designed back in 1981. What’s funny though is that the designers never really intended for the MTV logo to be used as is, from the beginning it was seen as point of departure rather than a destination.
Working with John Lack, the executive vice president of Warner Satellite Entertainment Company (WASEC), Robert Pittman, a successful radio programmer, helped establish a groundbreaking cable television channel: MTV, the music channel. Fred Seibert, a former jazz record producer and radio station promotion coordinator, was hired by Pittman to oversee the identity of the channel. Seibert turned to his lifelong friend Frank Olinsky, who had just established Manhattan Design with two partners, Pat Gorman and Patty Rogoff, to create the logo. The process was remarkably collaborative: Rogoff first drew the big M and worked with Gorman to determine its perspective; then Gorman suggested a pointy TV to its side, which Olinsky took and spray-painted it. Meanwhile, the M was subjected to productive tomfoolery, with the partners rendering it in bricks, polka dots, and zebra stripes, and suggesting the logo could be all these things.
Seibert presented the mutating logo to Pittman and Lack, and met resistance to both the solution and the firm behind it. Seibert was asked to hire a big-name designer like Push Pin Studios or Lou Dorfsman to do the logo. He did, but as the process extended and time became a problem, Manhattan Design’s was approved. Seibert next focused on the station identifications for broadcast, which Pittman equaled to radio jingles, instantly recognizable and memorable. The first pool of collaborators comprised production houses like Broadcast Arts, Colossal Pictures, and Perpetual Motion Pictures, who created surreal ten-second animations that gave life to the MTV logo. For MTV’s top-of-the-hour identification, illustrator Candy Kugel at Perpetual took the still images of Neil Armstrong’s moon landing (available in the public domain) and colorized the MTV logo on top of the American flag. On August 1, 1981, at 12:01 a.m., to the unmistakable sound of MTV’s guitar riff, this image launched a new generation of viewers, artists, designers, and citizens.
— From our own Graphic Design, Referenced
The new look can certainly be seen as more of a philosophical change than an actual redesign, since the design elements remain the same: MTV logo plus of-the-moment-cool imagery and animation around it. But as CR logo reports, the logo is now “sacred” according to MTV International’s Vicepresident of Creative. What has been fun about the MTV identity over the years has been the complete opposite, the lack of sacredness of a logo that without its creative skins is really not that great. We assume it’s great because of its association with a revolutionary brand — regardless of what you think of MTV’s programming at the moment — but if this logo had been introduced for the first time today, it would get butchered. Why does the TV not match the dimensional angle of the M? Why the thin strokes to define the dimension? Why the droopy TV treatment? Etc.
Turning the logo into something sacred just seems unnecessary but when a brand is reaching nearly 30 years of reproduction, drastic measures must be taken to breath new life into it and, despite all of my previous reservations about the change, I do feel this is the punch-in-the-groin change the MTV brand needed, simply to try and take it into a new direction.
Below are a few images of the new design but I highly recommend that for the full details, more images and a few spanky animations you visit Creative Review.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Nisio’s comment is:
I remember when MTV used to play music. Maybe it's time to drop 'music television' from under the icon, it wouldn't effect the logos recognition, and would make for a cleaner logo to boot.
On Jul.06.2009 at 08:43 AM
Ryan’s comment is:
Here- I've made a few subtle tweaks to make the logo more relevant nowadays.
JBIII’s comment is:
So true, original MTV has lost its luster. But now there is the HD mashup of
Palladia music channel. Great programming....
On Jul.06.2009 at 08:58 AM
Stephen Doran’s comment is:
I have to say they've invented a dog of a DOG, with the grey/blue progress bar with the show name on it. I've always found these a wee bit redundant considering most digi-boxes do exactly the same thing, only they, er, disappear after three seconds so you can see the show you're watching.
Remember when on screen graphics were unobtrusive, or in the uk analogue world not there at all.
On Jul.06.2009 at 09:12 AM
Luke S’s comment is:
I must say, it seems the logo is acting it's age, shedding the raucousness of it's 20's and showing a more mature image, much like most of it's original viewing audience.
But to get back to reality, how is this "let-down of a staid network's" logo news worthy? Must be a slow news day in the world of branding. Over the holiday weekend I saw various products in the store that suddenly had a brand redesign. Sadly, my camera phone was busted :(
Armin’s comment is:
> But to get back to reality, how is this "let-down of a staid network's" logo news worthy? Over the holiday weekend I saw various products in the store that suddenly had a brand redesign.
Luke, seriously?
On Jul.06.2009 at 09:34 AM
josh’s comment is:
i'm less impressed after reading that it was only the int. channel, why don't they just apply it to them all?
On Jul.06.2009 at 09:59 AM
Julian’s comment is:
What is the international channel? I know many countries that have their own, even small ones...
On Jul.06.2009 at 10:02 AM
Nathan McKinney’s comment is:
I guess I had always accepted the mutation of the MTV logo as part of the brand. From the early days, I always watched MTV's intros and outros as signs of continuously evolving style and cultural statements.
This homogeneous approach to their dated logo is just another step away from what the brand originally stood for. The music is all gone now. It's all about youth culture and whatever keeps the A.D.D. attention span for smallest buck. (Funny, you would've thought that a barrage 3 minute music videos might've still managed that, I guess not.)
The saddest part of MTV's change is that it's yet another institution that could benefit the youth with exposure to the arts down the drain. I know that seems a stretch, but how many artists, musicians and designers grew up watching MTV and were inspired by what they saw there? Not a week went by in college where I didn't stay up on a Sunday night starting at 10PM to watch 120 minutes and Amp on MTV just to get a taste of creativity in the music video world (because that odd time slot was the only place MTV saw fit to cram it.) Now even that is long since hit the road.
So yeah, it's a BLAH brand now. Maybe today's youth would disagree. After all, the target market for MTV doesn't even remember the days that when MTV just played videos. That's us old fogeys now.
Anyways, yeah. I think the old logo looks dated. I always have. The ability to screw around with it was the only thing keeping it interesting. While I'm sure that MTV will still have intros and outros that are worth keeping tabs on, that are cutting edge, the logo won't be a part of that any more.
The fact that MTV could have done this long ago and we wouldn't have even noticed might be the real story here. There's no since in complaining that MTV doesn't sell music anymore. I'm too old to want to waste my time there. I get my inspiration in other places now. MTV should cater to a younger set, which is what they have been doing for years.
On Jul.06.2009 at 10:17 AM
Tony Nguyen’s comment is:
This has nothing to do with the logo in this article but please bare with my gripe.
MTV has lost its ways. MUSIC TELEVISION is the name of the channel. When was the last time you saw a full music video on MTV? They had to create a new station (MTV2) to broadcast its original purposed content, which is music video. STOP with the realty shows and showcase music video!!!
On Jul.06.2009 at 10:49 AM
john’s comment is:
What? People are demanding some sort of return to music videos? As if soft-core porn reality TV shows aren't enough for you people? Pray tell, what kind of brand strategy is that?
On Jul.06.2009 at 11:10 AM
Nisio’s comment is:
Just on that note, the genius of MTV was it's back to back videos, it was the first time you would watch a channel rather than a programme, people would say 'I was watching MTV last night...", it was a branding master stroke (either by accident or design).
Now nobody says that because the statement is too vague. Instead you'd have to say 'I was watching Paris Hilton: My New BBF last night...
(and if you ever do say that, kill yourself, you're dead inside anyway).
Armin’s comment is:
Re: MTV International
Sorry if that wasn't clear. The change applies to ALL the channels under the MTV International Network. I'll clarify the main post.
On Jul.06.2009 at 11:18 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
I agree with Nisio. MTV used to be a sort of mainstream rebellion, with music videos as its ammunition. Now, I have no idea what's on, and unfortunately, I don't care. When I heard MTV was rebranding, I got excited. After reading this article, I'm underwhelmed. The different font choices for different effects is a nice idea, but isn't that in contrast to the don't-touch-it-because-now-it's-sacred use of the MTV logo?
On Jul.06.2009 at 11:25 AM
Ragu’s comment is:
people should stop calling for a television channel with music videos; this business framework will not work in this century
you can watch music videos whenever you want on YouTube
On Jul.06.2009 at 11:31 AM
Viakenny’s comment is:
I believe many MTV channels (especially MTV Latin America and MTV Brazil – which, unlike many Latin American networks, are actually separately-operated networks, and MTV Brazil is only 30% owned by Viacom) will keep their current looks.
and MTV Brazil (which is a broadcast network, but also available on cable and satellite) also has its own modified version of the logo (which says only "MTV", and not "MTV: Music Television" and is just one "M" shape with "TV" on it. no lines, no breaks), as well as standard logos for all their original shows.
http://blogtelevisual.com/2009/03/30/identidade-visual-mtv-brasil-rebrand-2009/
Philip’s comment is:
MTV UK is aiming to have a 50/50 split between music and entertainment by next year.
Just as having too much entertainment on the channel makes it look cheap and against its name, too much music isn't profitable and could become boring after a while.
On Jul.06.2009 at 11:39 AM
Armando’s comment is:
I've seen this new image (on MTV LatinAmerica) and it looks pretty good.... The shows, on the other hand... they all suck big time. Didn't know The Real World was still on after what??? 100 years???
On Jul.06.2009 at 11:49 AM
Armando’s comment is:
Julian’s comment is:
What is the international channel? I know many countries that have their own, even small ones..
Julian-
The international channel = MTV channels outside the USA
Luke S’s comment is:
I apologize for my earlier harsh comments regarding the importance of this logo update, but you can blame my extreme bias against this stupid TV channel. I was burned and disillusioned. I think the last show I watched on there was Daria.
As for product redesigns I saw in the store.... definitely not news worthy... alcohol may have been a factor ;)
Scott’s comment is:
For everyone who keeps saying they "want more music videos" they should take a minute to think about that fact that...no one actually watches them on TV anymore (the drop off/channel change rate during videos is 5 seconds.)
Things have changed in the last 15 years, people can go online and watch any music video they want anytime they want without waiting for it to come on-air, and blaming MTV for not showing them during prime time is a bit of a tired gripe.
That said, MTV has made many efforts to bring music onto the channel in other ways that the old viewers may not recognize but the current audience does (see 52 weeks/52 bands).
Billy Dee’s comment is:
I'll give you a tired gripe...
There are many opportunities for MTV to show MUSIC PROGRAMMING, not just videos. People are complaining not just from the lack of videos (old and new viewers alike), but the fact there isn't anything musical about MTV hardly at all these days. It has more in common with FOX Reality channel than with music. Sure you can go online and watch videos, but let's be honest - that kinda sucks as well. Again, it's just not about videos. How about all those great music shows? 120 Minutes, Unplugged, Yo MTV Raps, hell, even the music-themed game shows and MTV News were somewhat enjoyable.
Also the claim that they (MTV) have made efforts to bring music back is dumb and incorrect. They really haven't - they have only expanded their in house reality programming over the last 10-15 years to dreadful effect. Shows like "52 weeks" and the VMA's are nothing more than hollow token bones to the record labels anyways.
The new "lifeless" logo echoes this perception by the way.
On Jul.06.2009 at 01:35 PM
MARKO’s comment is:
PEOPLE WILL WATCH MUSIC PROGRAMMING - if it is done well.
Think a Pitchfork TV meets Palladia. Two outlets that show concerts band interviews, music bios, review shows, music news bites, and yes actual videos)
the argument that no one will tune in - is stupid as hell. Just because MTV has constantly dropped the ball over the last 15 years doesn't mean people don't want to watch music related programming (or just watch it on damn youtube).
Music programming on TV can happen - unfortunately it won't be MTV making that move. MTV and their logo as it exists now, has been zapped of all it's creativity, kinda like their programming line up no?
On Jul.06.2009 at 01:43 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I guess it's an improvement, at least it looks lot less messy now. I guess.
I'll miss the creativity of the idents though.
It doesn't really matter to me cause I don't think I get this channel anyways.
On Jul.06.2009 at 02:22 PM
Bran Dougherty-Johnson’s comment is:
@Mark the idents will still be creative, but they won't be all ABOUT the logo now, it seems. Take a look at Universal Everything's Vimeo page to see the new IDs:
http://www.vimeo.com/universal/videos
Some of these are more successful, IMHO, than others but they will still be pushing in new and yes, trendy, design styles. So I think it's a bit premature to mourn the loss of interesting and creative MTV IDs just yet. Now they'll all be tagged with the same logo / animation at the end. A bit more corporate? Yes.
Bran Dougherty-Johnson’s comment is:
@Mark the idents will still be creative, but they won't be all ABOUT the logo now, it seems. Take a look at Universal Everything's Vimeo page to see the new IDs.
Some of these are more successful, IMHO, than others but they are still pushing forward in new and yes, trendy, design styles. So I think it's a bit premature to mourn the loss of interesting and creative MTV IDs just yet. Now they'll all be tagged with the same logo / animation at the end. A bit more corporate? Yes.
Mark’s comment is:
I just saw the idents that Universal Everything did they are amazing, well done use of computer animation.They put Syfy's idents to shame. I like the direction, I might watch MTV just to see them.
I'm not sure if I can get MTV International though,I know I get MTV.
the idents fit with MTV they just do.
On Jul.06.2009 at 02:37 PM
heather’s comment is:
I don't mind moving back to the original look--but why not update it? Keep it essentially the same and tweak the things Armin mentioned like the TV font, the dimension/angle. Also, if this is for the international stations, why not incorporate something international into it? I would think this return to the original logo would be for the states not abroad...
On Jul.06.2009 at 02:45 PM
SeeingI’s comment is:
"Now the logo is sacred," says Roberto Bagatti, Vice President of Creative for MTV Networks International and Creative Director of MTV's World Design Studio in Milan, who oversaw the project.
Odd that the best that can be achieved by the VP of "Creative" (love those vague adjectives masquerading as nouns) is to strip any interest from a 30 year old logo and pronounce it "sacred." Meanwhile he decides that computer-style progress bars will really resonate with kid these days, with their YouTubes and tweets. Genius!
On Jul.06.2009 at 04:28 PM
Proverbial Thought’s comment is:
Considering how disposable artists, on-air talent, sets, shows, and everything else related to MTV are that they would cling to this dated logo. When I see that b&w rendering of the logo all I can think about is "I want my MTV!". Not in a good product association way, but in an old, pre-hairplug Beastie Boys way. I think they made the wrong decision here.
Of course, they say Kazakhstan's pop-culture is 20 years behind America which would make this logo perfectly fresh for Borat!!! Otherwise, I think it is a step in the wrong direction. Their shows are all flashing lights and bikinis, and somehow this B&W "M" is supposed to tickle their fancy. Doubt it.
On Jul.06.2009 at 04:55 PM
Scott J’s comment is:
The thing that I've always enjoyed about this identity was that it was the un-identity. You could mash it, hang Spock ears from it, make it a hotdog with a splash of 'tv' mustard and it was fun. The sacred part of the mark was that it wasn't sacred, the more ridiculous the better. Kind of more like a template that you could mess with. Whether or not the mark is aesthetically pleasing or not was never the issue with me. I liked the constant change. Now, it's just a logo.
On Jul.06.2009 at 07:49 PM
Mike’s comment is:
MTV did try to "bring back the music video" with that terribly unpopular failure of a show that was hosted by Pete Wentz last summer.
On Jul.06.2009 at 11:35 PM
QBert’s comment is:
"Turning the logo into something sacred just seems unnecessary but when a brand is reaching nearly 30 years of reproduction, drastic measures must be taken to breath new life into it and, despite all of my previous reservations about the change, I do feel this is the punch-in-the-groin change the MTV brand needed, simply to try and take it into a new direction."
I totally agree, I think going with the B&W logo instead of a keeping for another year the ever changing logo might seem like a bold move but have you seen the hideous interpretations logos on MTV.com to mention a few?!
On Jul.07.2009 at 10:32 AM
Amanda’s comment is:
Ah, yet again, what was once old is new again.
I suppose going back to the original logo is a better move than to do another round of an "anything goes" refresh!
Personally, I liked the ability for some change in the old system, but in hindsight, strip away the eyeballs, the tongues, florescent color splashes, lighting bolts, etc., and the mark certainly has nothing to do with the present and future place of the network in television. It probably wasn't the best solution 20 years ago either. Honestly, I'm a little surprised there hasn't been a name change within the past 5-8 years. The only thing I ever really appreciated about it was the 1-page guidelines.
Will there be another attempt to return to music television in MTV's future? It's doubtful with their success of tween crap reality t.v. like the Hills. Maybe they'll reconsider and drop a nice image of Heidi Montag into the "M". I think this is more likely than a complete overhaul, but I remain hopeful for something new 5 months from now when they realize this wasn't the appropriate route to take.
Damn. I watched MTV today and all I learned was not to become 16 and Pregnant. I guess it wasn't a complete loss! :p
On Jul.07.2009 at 10:20 PM
1515’s comment is:
It's Patti Rogoff with an "i" not a "y".
On Jul.07.2009 at 10:48 PM
Loren Shumaker-Chupp’s comment is:
"The logo is now sacred.”
I'd like to hear that kind of talk from more company execs. I just hope this goes well enough to make the change in the US too. The website drives me nuts with it's furiously changing background that bleeds out of the logo.
On Jul.08.2009 at 01:14 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> It's Patti Rogoff with an "i" not a "y".
Snap. You know, two of the books we had consulted had it with a y (I just checked again), and I see that online it's half way with each. And I also see that now she has LinkedIn page, which wasn't there when we were looking. Oh well, thanks for pointing it out, we'll be sure to change it in a reprint. Thanks for pointing it out.
On Jul.08.2009 at 07:05 AM
Raphael’s comment is:
This is worth complaining about?
On Jul.09.2009 at 06:58 PM
barry’s comment is:
Seems like a content shift than a 'design' shift. Much like Absolute they have chosen to stop making the identity central to the content. The mark is now kept in a fixed location, like a logo on a website and then having all of the other content move around it.
If you are going to have that much content happening external to the mark, it makes sense that the mark stays consistent. So now the logo is operating like a standard logo and it will be judged like one, and this mark is not a great mark when you remove the liquid nature of the logo.
On Jul.13.2009 at 12:41 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
