NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
“Two of the most powerful names in wealth management,” begins the About Us page on the newly formed entity that is Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, “have joined forces to create a new industry leader.” It continues, “In a financial world that’s being remade, Morgan Stanley’s global wealth management business and Smith Barney have joined forces to offer you thinking and resources to fit the times.” How about we tell it like it is: “Things have gone horribly wrong and this is the best we can come up with.” As challenging as it may be to run an organization of this complexity is designing a logo that consists of 24 characters making up two names that both need equal attention. The new wordmark derives mostly from Morgan Stanley’s old logo with a subtle evolution and the result is surprisingly decent and even adventurous: Notice the right tapering of the “h, m, n” giving the wordmark a gentle fluidity. There is also something nice about the double “ey” ending, like a happy rhyme. Certainly, by today’s visual standards this is as boring a logo as one can get, but for the industry and the need to appear conservative this is, actually, as exciting as it gets.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Tre’s comment is:
The name sounds like one from a local lawyer. "Morgan, Stanley, Smith & Barney" I presume?
Anyway, the logo could have used a bit more color. Perhaps using the Smith Barney red for the capitals.
On Jun.09.2009 at 07:33 AM
Josh’s comment is:
It should read "Glenngary Glenn Ross"...
On Jun.09.2009 at 07:44 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
At least this one retains some indication of the four distinct names - rather than say MorganstanleySmithbarney. *Shudder*.
(PricewaterhouseCoopers, anyone?)
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:03 AM
adzski’s comment is:
They missed an opportunity to do something playful (and slightly more interesting) with the 'ey' in Stanley and Barney.
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:04 AM
Sebastiaan’s comment is:
Have you seen the differences in size of the letter S in Stanley and Smith? I wouldn't be happy if I was SmithBarney ;)
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:04 AM
Alex’s comment is:
Really nice of them to spend tax payer bail out money on a new identity.
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:32 AM
emily’s comment is:
its really boring. but.. it probably won't be used for too long before another merger happens.
based on their website i am not sure if i trust this company, but what bank can you really trust nowadays.
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:33 AM
Jacob’s comment is:
They didn't keep citi? Aww. Morganstanleycitismithbarney would have been awesome.
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:45 AM
Daniel’s comment is:
Sebastiaan; I thought the same, so I did a quick test, the size of the two S' is in fact identical, though it optically looks bigger in Stanley.
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:46 AM
Plamen’s comment is:
Hey, why did the leave Harry, Fred, Robbie, Richard and Donald out?
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:51 AM
josh’s comment is:
Stickingwordstogethercreatesvisualinterest. No it doesn't.
On Jun.09.2009 at 08:54 AM
obse.’s comment is:
I love it.
On Jun.09.2009 at 09:23 AM
Don Kelly’s comment is:
Missed opportunity to tell it like it is.
On Jun.09.2009 at 09:26 AM
Sand’s comment is:
Another color to separate the words would be more definitive. Even 70-80% would be nice to see.
What was the reason behind staggering the two lines of type anyway? So 'SmithB' would sit between the descending g & y?
Flush Left/Rag Right can't get no love :(
On Jun.09.2009 at 09:41 AM
Nice’s comment is:
I like it, very appropriate look.
Adding colors would add too much meaning. This logo shows they're equal. And the staggered lines shows movement, like they're getting somewhere now.
On Jun.09.2009 at 09:47 AM
Nathan McKinney’s comment is:
Captain Kirk of the MSSB 1701 woulda been proud.
Seriously, why not just stick with Citi. It might be in the dumpster, but at least it doesn't sound like a group of prosecuting attorneys.
As for the logo design, yawn... but what are you gonna do?
On Jun.09.2009 at 09:48 AM
JonSel’s comment is:
The bigger picture is really what is this logo telling us about this company. And, to me, it's telling us something confusing. The press release is actually clearer – it's a joint venture between Morgan Stanley's wealth management business and Smith Barney, not a total merger of the two companies. But by giving it this name, they make it seem like it's a full-on merger. Now, I'm not a client here, but I have to think there's great potential for confusion on their part as well. So, regardless of the wordmark design, the naming choice alone is incredibly poor in communicative value.
On Jun.09.2009 at 10:21 AM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
... oh, what? Ah, yes. Ahem. Nice logo, er, whatever. Now, if you'll please excuse me, I was yawning there...
On Jun.09.2009 at 10:48 AM
Proverbial Thought’s comment is:
Oh, we're using MS Publisher to make logos now?
On Jun.09.2009 at 10:49 AM
Armin’s comment is:
C'mon people, you can do better than yawning comments or saying this can be done in MS Publisher (because, seriously, you can't. No, you can't.)
On Jun.09.2009 at 11:18 AM
jRod’s comment is:
well, i do like that they stuck with Morgan Stanley's font (anybody know what that is?), but making it bold kinda killed it for me. and why not black and blue? that would be a good representative of the bruised and battered financial sector.
Anonymous’s comment is:
another quickie idea to maybe spice it up.
yeah I know it looks like the MSNBC..
On Jun.09.2009 at 11:59 AM
Proverbial Thought’s comment is:
@Armin
I can, and I will. Seriously, are there guidelines on how we can respond? I wasn't disrespectful, no name calling. Looks like something I would've don in Publisher if I just wanted to get paid. What is there to critique? Whether we like the font or color. No and Yes.
I'm not about to get all academic over a typeface logo, the kind that is utterly ubiquitous. Publisher, Word, Works, not notePad. All of these can be used to glue monochromatic typeface together. I didn't think it appropriate to say the logo sucks, lacks character, lacks any individual identity, and is flat out boring.
I won't get specific but I do this kind of work for a federal financial organization; and their option is a snooze fest. I think my original comment was a lot more polite and appropriate; but there... There's a more "academic" critique.
On Jun.09.2009 at 12:00 PM
Gene’s comment is:
This reminds me of when publishers tell me "the articles all should have the same weight" when considering the design of their homepage. As a result, everything tends to merge together to form a big blob of grey (or in this case, blue).
Why not just hack off Smith Barney? Although the logo tends to look like a blue blob, there is a slight visual hierarchy in favor of Morgan Stanley. After glancing at the logo, I can honestly say that I would probably never say "Morgan Stanley Smith Barney", but instead, just "Morgan Stanley".
Taking a step back, I wonder if the merging of two logos will be a grim reminder to customers that “Things have gone horribly wrong...".
On Jun.09.2009 at 12:01 PM
Armin’s comment is:
> Seriously, are there guidelines on how we can respond? I wasn't disrespectful,
Yup. And it's not so much about being disrespectful but being aware that this logo simply can not be done in Publisher, because this is a custom lettering job, and as far as I know Publisher does not have the capabilities to properly design letters. So, it's not disrespectful but it just propagates myths that because it's a simple logo it can be done in Publisher, which equals to it being of poor quality and done in 5 minutes. Without knowing the full story, I can guarantee you this took much longer through a much more complex design process than whatever Publisher might allow.
On Jun.09.2009 at 12:07 PM
author’s comment is:
wow. Tre's comment sums it up. It looks exactly like a local attorney firm's logo.
On Jun.09.2009 at 12:13 PM
Proverbial Thought’s comment is:
@Armin:
I am quick to say a logo looks rushed and so on. That is a valid critique, but wasn't my critique in this case. "I" can create and import fonts for use in MS programs. Thus "I" can do this in Publisher. But, this isn't about me here.
I am the consumer here, one with a good deal of knowledge about a market I share with them. To me the type face looks very similar to Arial with slight modifications, and several other san-serif fonts. Albeit, I like the hooks on the letters (mostly due to my understnading of fonts, and not due to me being an average consumer in the marketplace), but the logo is still bland and completely devoid of charachter.
As a consumer; words like "custom-font" mean nothing to me. Thus, as a consumer my gut reaction is, "Oh, we're making logos in MS Publisher now". As a designer my gut reaction is, "I wonder why they would go through the trouble of creating such a ubiquitous-looking custom font?".
Regardless of wither, which do you think the client here is trying to attract; egg-head designers like you and I, or average consumers who have no idea what a serif is? Hence, my original, non-academic, gut reaction critique.
No beef man; I understand your frustration with the comments. That's the way I feel about all the quick, research-less mockups people post here to "show" they could've done a better job then the firm in question. I think THAT is rude. It's like showing up to a clasroom critique with your OWN work instead of focusing on the student that is being critiqued. Rude and distracting IMO, not that it matters.
On Jun.09.2009 at 12:17 PM
Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:
@Armin
Your sandbox. Your rules. I got your back.
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:09 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
@Gene:
The "visual hierarchy" favors Morgan Stanley because they are, in fact, superior:
"Morgan Stanley Smith Barney... is owned jointly by Morgan Stanley (51%) and Citi (49%)."
Also, as for not hacking off Smith Barney:
"What if I have an account at each institution? Will they be combined in the new entity?
There will be no changes to existing accounts at this time. Each account will be serviced as they are today and you will continue to receive separate account statements."
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:09 PM
Chris Rugen’s comment is:
I'm with Armin. It is what it is, which is just fine. It's formal but not overly so, and the type is set well. I like the visual carriage return created by the diagonally-related cap 'S'es.*
Also, I'd bet money that no one believes this logo will have to last more than a few years.
*How do you pluralize an S?
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:12 PM
Brandy’s comment is:
Thanks Armin…Brilliantly stated!
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:13 PM
Don Kelly’s comment is:
"That's the way I feel about all the quick, research-less mockups people post here to "show" they could've done a better job then the firm in question. I think THAT is rude. It's like showing up to a clasroom critique with your OWN work instead of focusing on the student that is being critiqued. Rude and distracting IMO, not that it matters."
Sorry, the first "mock up" was a "trying to be funny" gesture. The second was a quickie idea that popped into my head..so I used pictures instead of words.
I'm not an "egghead" designer I guess.. and IF I were to do this logo..YES I would research the company, etc etc to do the best job for a customer. My intention wasn't to be rude.. but to offer a little humor (sorry if that's a foreign concept to you.) and a visual comment that was by no means meant to "show up" anyone's work.
jed mackellar’s comment is:
can you imaging working for them and every time you pick up the phone saying, "good morning morganstanleysmithbarney?" why don't they just come up with a new name? there's a new post over at onthebutton about how to name a company or product. worth a look: http://onthebutton.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/10-ways-name-your-company-product/
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:17 PM
Anderson Wilson’s comment is:
This is likely a placeholder until things settle down a little. This mark has an expiration date of somewhere between 2 and 5 years.
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:22 PM
Bill Dawson (XK9)’s comment is:
OK. Some cogent thoughts on the subject at hand.
In comedy, as in life, timing is everything. The fact that any "wealth management" business would claim expertise a this moment, seems like a mistake. Combining these two fairly respected names would appear to me to be less a strategic decision than a financial one.
The logotype seems to illustrate two institutions combining into an unruly mess.
I respectfully disagree about the success of the tapered ends of the n's and h. This is a Roman font. These characters customarily terminate on the downstroke. It makes the letters finite and distinct. In my opinion, these flourishes seem distracting and make it feel unstable. Probably not a good idea for a first impression.
If you visit their website, notice the favicon. MSSB in a square. IMO, a better, more solid mark.
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:23 PM
Brandy’s comment is:
The "Smith Barney" in this lockup is the equivalent of break-away pants. It'll be gone in a years time. (or whenever the legal mumbo-jumbo time-clock is up)
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:27 PM
Matt’s comment is:
Considering the "smith barney" will mostly likely eventually be dropped it does the job it is intended, identifying smith barney with it's new owners.
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:27 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
@Anonymous
I agree. Maybe hacking the latter half of the logo after a couple of years would be a better idea and a better transition for their customers.
On Jun.09.2009 at 01:31 PM
Andy’s comment is:
I agree that this will be temporary. Remember when it was Morgan Stanley Dean Witter? As for the logo, I actually liked the old thinner Morgan Stanley type without the little hook serifs on the h and n.
On Jun.09.2009 at 02:03 PM
John Mindiola III’s comment is:
Okay, Armin, you're right. Can you delete my yawning post?
On Jun.09.2009 at 02:24 PM
David’s comment is:
Just a point of clarification - these aren't consumer banks, in the strictest sense of the word. They're more like brokerage houses or investment banks. They don't (or haven't) offered the kind of traditional banking services you would find at a Citibank or Chase.
Also worth mentioning is that this isn't the first time SmithBarney has been around the block either. They have at various points in their history been owned by financial firms "Primerica Corp", "Commercial Credit Group", been merged with other financial firms like Shearson Lehman Brothers, to form "Smith Barney Shearson Inc" and so forth until we find ourselves today with Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.
@Alex:
Really nice of them to spend tax payer bail out money on a new identity.
I'm just curious - a few months ago there was a posting on this blog about the identity for the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act," which effectively is a form of a government bailout. Do you feel the same way about taxpayer funding when it applies to those kinds of logo initiatives? If not - why?
On Jun.09.2009 at 02:29 PM
Nathan McKinney’s comment is:
@Armin
Ok, so I had a yawn in my comment too. I guess I'll elaborate.
I agree, this couldn't have been done in publisher. In fact, I think it's a pretty elegant solution for a tricky problem: a four worded name. Four names isn't a best case scenario for the name of a company, but for a bank, it works. It does by it's own nature make you think of self-important law firms, legal eagles, and therefore it hints at being a "smart" choice.
I think the yawns are simply focused on the fact that it's oh-so-boring. Especially when it looks like it's replacing a division of Citi, which for all it's recent faults, has always been a very cleverly concepted and design-savvy brand. This, while clean/simple/straight forward and has many things going for it, is far from clever.
But in my mind, maybe clever isn't the right hand to play here. Clever is what got banks like this in trouble in the first place. Clever doesn't necessarily equal smart. It certainly doesn't equal safe. These banks need a leg to stand on, and the design needed to reflect that they aren't monkeying around any more. You can trust them with your money. This bank is safe.
And for that reason, I think the solution, is not only well designed, it's well thought out. It just isn't probably the kind of design that wins the hearts and minds of designers who tend to think good design always has to be "clever". Sometimes, it just needs to communicate.
On Jun.09.2009 at 02:37 PM
David Sanchez’s comment is:
For me this might be just a transitional brand, as clearly indicated whom ever did their brand valuation assessment, the long semi-concatenate business name might evoke togetherness, as you said, to rethink the business, one my hope.
Obviously Morgan Stanley has higher brand equity than Smith Barney, or is just nonsense, or it might be just phonetics, it seems ok vise versa.
MSSB, SBMS, what ever.
Wait a few years, the last name will be drooped after integration and then maybe a new company will emerge or will still be Morgan Stanley.
On Jun.09.2009 at 04:29 PM
Carlo’s comment is:
I thought Morgan Stanley had a triangle mark in their logo? A triangle would be a great element to help couple the two separate names.
On Jun.09.2009 at 04:34 PM
Jason Laughlin’s comment is:
I think JonSel's question up near the top is a good one. If this isn't a true merger, what kind of entity is this? Why is it branded as though it is a true merger? I suppose those in the industry might understand what's happening here, but I don't see how this is helpful to the Morgan Stanley or SmithBarney brands.
On Jun.09.2009 at 04:56 PM
Kate Robins’s comment is:
This is Smith Barney's what number marriage?
On Jun.09.2009 at 05:14 PM
Blue Buddha’s comment is:
Although I know it's not right, I can't help but put my personal feelings towards Citi (old citibank) into this logo. If I get one more sales call from them I'm gonna flip! Seriously, I understand your company is failing, but 6 sales calls a day? No thank you. And your snazzy new logo isn't going to improve your odds.
…eh… the logo? About as fun as non-buttered toast, which I suppose is exactly where it needs to be.
On Jun.09.2009 at 09:10 PM
Dwight’s comment is:
If what the commentary says is true, then this is a very well-executed logo. The whole mark is balanced and the type choice is honest! ALthough the colors might need some improvement... :)
Conservative, but very very friendly and accomodating! Cheers!
On Jun.10.2009 at 11:10 AM
Daniel’s comment is:
This branding is about merging and taking the former strength and equities that each have built over the years. There isn't anything new in terms of this type of entity, but it is quite more complicated than what appears here. (You can refer back when they were Morgan Stanley Dean Witter.)
As for those quipping about MSSB making money or being capitalistic - THAT'S their job. To make money. And this kind of typography works in the financial sector, especially with the true stakeholders.
On Jun.10.2009 at 12:30 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
It isn't a merger but an acquisition of smith barney by Morgan Stanley. This was largely done so MS could spin off it's brokerage as MS is now a Bank Holding Company and subject to Federal regulation. Morgan Stanley is still Morgan Stanley but now they own a brokerage named Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.
On Jun.10.2009 at 12:56 PM
Kellie Schroeder’s comment is:
Nice type.
I'm worried more about the shifting ownership (revolving door) than I am over the logo design.
Crap...my SEP is in it. Oh well...it's not worth much right now anyway.
LOL
On Jun.10.2009 at 04:22 PM
V as in Victor’s comment is:
I have to agree with the "placeholder" feel of this logo. I do like the font and the mods to it, it helps make it its "own", but I don't feel like they own anything with the redesign.
It's a typeset logo that I'm willing to bet was a matter of timing legally to get a new name out there and a committee of financial heads that were comfortable stepping only an inch or so outside the box.
To me it's like the billboard I'm sure a lot of us have had to design where the client wanted two too many pieces of information on it. It says what you need it to say, but isn't going to do much to sink in at 65 miles per hour.
On Jun.11.2009 at 02:28 AM
Daniel’s comment is:
Thanks, Anonymous. That is important to differentiate.
On Jun.11.2009 at 09:44 AM
James Re’s comment is:
First: I love Publisher... its my favorite
Second: logo looks ok but the non-distinct names could have been handled better. Why not stack them so that the new company has a new identity that is made up of the old pieces.
On Jun.11.2009 at 11:11 AM
Witness Protection’s comment is:
I'd like to assure everyone here that the logo exists as an outlined Illustrator EPS file, among other formats... No Publisher files! And as Armin said, this is a customized typeface... Trade Gothic, if I'm not mistaken.
On Jun.11.2009 at 02:21 PM
Shill’s comment is:
Aggressively mediocre.
On Jun.11.2009 at 05:51 PM
Tez’s comment is:
*YAWN*
Although I think the reason for the name sounding like a bunch of lawyers is that they want it to be known that anyone who has borrowed from them and can't pay their debt back is going to be sued to the full extent of their excruciatingly long boring and ridiculous name. Although I do agree that it was a nice way to spend your govt bail out money.
On Jun.11.2009 at 07:28 PM
jb’s comment is:
Looks like two companies who don't want to share.
On Jun.11.2009 at 09:01 PM
that guy’s comment is:
The lowercase n's on the merger logo look stupid and unnecessary.
On Jun.11.2009 at 10:31 PM
That guy's’s comment is:
I am referring to the little annoying tail outs on the n's.
On Jun.12.2009 at 02:46 AM
Kelly Brown’s comment is:
Hi, interest post. I'll write you later about few questions!
On Jun.12.2009 at 01:28 PM
Joachim’s comment is:
I don't understand the "boring" and "yawn" comments here. If the point of the brand is to communicate then it succeeds on all levels. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney (terrible name) deals with business in the financial sector and I'm sure they go into complex, yawning-inducing detail that goes over the heads of the general public.
The unique typeface used appears conservative yet friendly, and the use of color and restraint is very appropriate for a company that takes itself and their audience seriously. There's no point in adding anything else that could potentially miss the mark or make it redundant.
This one is a winner.
On Jun.12.2009 at 02:33 PM
Mark ’s comment is:
The name is a bit of a hash job but the logo is acceptable, I'm torn.
On Jun.17.2009 at 07:57 PM
14k’s comment is:
Closer, closer. That's right, boys. A bit closer. That's perfect, one shot takes out both banks.
On Jun.20.2009 at 12:01 AM
Brian’s comment is:
Are you serious? This ain't no logo—looks like someone typing in Microsoft Word. What a drag.
On Jun.20.2009 at 03:24 PM
Haro!’s comment is:
I'm a bit sad that they are not using the "citi smith barney" font, as I actually grew to like that logo. (Disclaimer: this comment comes from a Citi employee) However I can see why they'd use the Morgan Stanley font, and the long name looks better as a result. The "tails" at the end of many of the letters annoys me a little bit, I will admit.
On Jun.22.2009 at 01:19 AM
Mark’s comment is:
Sorry I mean hack job,NOT hash job.
It's not one of the best pairing of names, but hopefully it will be temporary and a better name will take it's place. It helps that the color is the same on both names.
I could do without the wierd tails of the h's, m's and n's though they're really unnecessary.
On Jun.22.2009 at 12:45 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
