NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Those nine little dots have impaired any and all constructive blognalism™ that I could have mustered, so let’s just get a few facts out of the way: The VNU Group, a very large media group based in the Netherlands, has changed its name to The Nielsen Company and rolled out a new identity designed by Landor. The change is a response to “Nielsen [being] one of the great names in the information-services industry,” as CEO David L. Calhoun states and, indeed it is. When TV networks throw around rating numbers they are usually referring to Nielsen Ratings, a system developed by Nielsen Research Media. Other well known enterprises under the Nielsen umbrella include: Adweek, Brandweek, Billboard, Claritas, The Hollywood Reporter and dozens of others. One thing is clear, The Nielsen Company is a leading, powerful, important, global conglomerate. So…
How can a company with these credentials adopt and endorse such a weak and unfocused identity that is a direct reflection of not only The Nielsen Company, but of all the other stones in the pyramid? Other than a nice choice of blue (100% Cyan if I’m not mistaken) the new logo falls apart, literally, at every letter with its completely inappropriate stencil styling of, what I think is, Times Roman — someone please correct me or shoot me out of my mysery because these wispy letterforms don’t stand a chance in this big, bold world we live in today, plus the fact that Times Roman a) should never be used as the main typeface for an identity and b) it should not be tampered with because it only lets out toxic fumes**. Oh, and, yes, there are nine dots underneath the wordmark. Surprisingly… no, extremely surprising, there is no press-releasing on what those nine dots mean. In just five minutes I can come up with some asinine reasoning: They represent the nine tulips in the lobby of their headquarters, they are the sum of the letters of all the companies divided by the number of letters in the new company name, they are the decorative element in their CEO’s office, they stand for the number of hours it took to slice those poor lowercase n’s from their stems. But, no, nothing is offered, other than inflicted despair courtesy of yet another example of paltry design execution — plus, what’s worse, a gross misrepresentation of the company as expressed through this particular identity. The Nielsen Company, how do I pity thee? Let me count the ways: One dot, two dot, three dot, four dot, five dot, six dot, seven dot, eight dot, nine dot.
** Update: Whew, it’s not Times Roman, it’s Big Caslon.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
stock_illustration’s comment is:
Congratulations to Landor...with their stencil cut and font choice they have achieved the look we used to see when type was taken several generations from original on a stat camera. I'd love to hear the sales pitch on this train wreck.
On Jan.25.2007 at 09:36 AM
Bone’s comment is:
God, I love Landor.
Their press release is little more than buzz words. (Nielsen's is written with more care.)
enterprise-wide
reinvigorate
global scale
customer-focused enterprise (how does this do that?)
uniquely positioned
leverage (wasn't that word banned a few years ago?)
provides us with a platform to continue to lead our category with innovation (can you count all of them in that half-sentence?)
No real discussion about strategy.
Without it I already get why the name change makes sense. With it I am not sure what the REAL reasons are for the change and I am completely in the dark about the strategy behind identity itself.
Great work. How can you not love Landor?
On Jan.25.2007 at 09:47 AM
Joe’s comment is:
Mergers and acquisitions aside, this is a regression from the prior Nielsen mark--which for better or worse was big, legible, and semi-attractive. The former was modern and spoke directly to the actions of the company "information services."
Big Caslon has never looked so small, and so blue.
andrewmartin’s comment is:
Nielsen is the data giant, the thought leader and industry-mind swinger when it comes to all things analysis. Their numbers are behind practically every ROI calculation in corporate America. Which makes this compromised, inept identity (a misstep from traditionally-excellent Landor) a depressing metaphor for the relationship between design and business.
How many consumers, and which ones, will pay an aesthetic premium? How can a subjective, intuitive skill be pie-charted in financial reporting? Can the value of design be quantified?
Read: is design worth paying for?
Lots of people (ie: HBR Dec.06 / Innovating Through Design; current Fast Company has a page on Whirlpool Inc.) are asking this question, and with a lot of money at stake. Bummer that Nielsen, a company with such ability to shape the answers, just voted no.
Blame the focus groups, eh? You can bet there were a few of those.
On Jan.25.2007 at 12:30 PM
Paul Riehle’s comment is:
It is very disappointing that with all the creative minds at Landor, this is what was the "best". Well, maybe not the best but the one the client wanted. We all know how that goes... It lacks strength and direction. The cyan n almost feels as if it was a mistake in illustrator, It has a huge disconnect to the rest of the letters and the logo itself, and not in a way they probably intended it to be.
It gives me the impression that they didn't have a 3rd option to show the client and had to come up with something quick, and well the client totally dug it... whooops.
On Jan.25.2007 at 01:20 PM
Bill Kerr’s comment is:
Let me just say first off that I love this forum and the discussions that it initiates.
As for this mark, I really wish that someone involved with Landor (particularly this project) would explain what the thought process was on this one.
I can't decide whether to file this under "How did they sell this?" or "How could they show this?".
Maybe both.
On Jan.25.2007 at 02:50 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Looks like Big Caslon on the South Beach diet. I thought that emaciated look went out with Kate Moss....
Paul,
I hate it when that happens. You frame the design you would like the client to choose between two obviously less than ideal solutions and they go ahead and pick worst one of the bunch...
As for selling it, Landor managed to do it and at the very least props to them for that.
On Jan.25.2007 at 04:05 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
I have to assume this mark has to be a Frankenstien, derived from more than one concept. I mean, the logo just doesn't make any sense. Client inspired or imposed maybe? I hope. Take the head from one body, the torso from another, and the legs from one more, sew them together, add alittle electricity and BAM...a whole new creature emerges. It may be an abomination, but damn, it's alive...
hyun’s comment is:
I feel for those poor folks at landor. I can only imagine the hell they went through to arrive at this.
On Jan.25.2007 at 09:08 PM
Ty Wilkins’s comment is:
I wouldn't imagine that the green Nielsen Media Research logo is going away. Since Nielsen Media Research is under the umbrella of The Nielsen Company, I would assume that both brands will coexist. It is interesting that Nielsen chose a parent company logo that does not visually relate to the famous sub-brand at all, other than in name. The Coca-Cola Company for instance, utilizes the famous Coca-Cola script, while muting the type to grey and adding a multi-colored symbol. Perhaps a similar approach would have made more sense for Nielsen; keep the Nielsen Media Research type treatment and change the color and (perhaps) symbol. The VNU Group was wise to capitalize on the recognition of the "Nielsen" name.
The decision to thin-out the letterforms is peculiar. This treatment seems more appropriate for fashion oriented brands. Designer Margo Chase has been known to thin, sever and reconstruct type with beautiful results. Check out her font Edit.
Apparently VNU was purchased in a takeover in May '06 by a group of private equity investors. Perhaps the main reason for the new name and look.
Renaming the parent company after the star brand is something that Binney & Smith, makers of Crayola, recently did as well.
On Jan.25.2007 at 09:16 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I for one think this crappy-esque logo is perfect for an industry that is basically ratings-driven.
This rebranding looks definately like a publicity stunt,and it's genius that it lacks any meaning or strategy especially in a era highly dominated by (unscripted) reality shows.
Nielsen=highly hyped programming that brings in most viewers no matter how rediculous/bad it is.
Believe me, I know there are still some great TV programs out there it's just some of it is, well you know, 'crap'!
On Jan.26.2007 at 09:44 AM
AL’s comment is:
Hey, why would such big fish like Landor show more than one option for that logo? It's obvious 99% of choices made by clients are bad...
Anyway, this logo is nothing special in general and big mistake for such powerful company.
Mark’s comment is:
Identityworks (proffesionals in succesful logo design), a site that praised Northwestern Airline's and Kodak's rebrandings, disapproves of the execution of Nielsen's logo:
http://www.identityworks.com/reviews/2007/Nielsen.htm
If they arn't buying it, then Nielsen is in deep trouble.
On Jan.26.2007 at 10:30 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
I disagree completely with this assessment. I love the delicate nature of this logo, and it's nice to see a TYPE-driven logo for once. The dots are obviously a secondary element, and no, I don't know what they are either, but one could easily associate them with some sort of download (how are the nielson ratings collected?) Armin states that "these wispy letterforms don't stand a chance in this big, bold world we live in today..." but he of all people should know that the best way to attract attention in a room full of screaming people is to be the one who's only whispering.
I think it's important to realize what's being advertised here - Nielson's not hawking burgers or trying to get people to fly their airline. This is a logo created for a parent company; the individual brands will sell the products with their individual logos. The parent brand SHOULDN'T be bolder or stronger than the aggregate brands. So with that in mind I think it's a great logo.
On Jan.26.2007 at 10:37 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
pardon me for misspelling "Nielsen" twice in my previous post; though it's a great argument for letting us see the logo as we type our comments rather than scrolling up and down.
On Jan.26.2007 at 10:43 AM
Sean’s comment is:
"The dots below the Nielsen wordmark suggest data points and the movement of information. The colors communicate dynamism and energy. The "n" is a different color, signifying the ability to identify and focus on the customer's opportunity" There you have it.
On Jan.26.2007 at 11:01 AM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Sean, my sarcast-i-meter is busted so I'll bite. I have to disagree with you almost entirely on those assertions (provided you are serious with those statements.)
While the dots can be construed as data points, that notwithstanding they in no way convey "movement of information." Not that they couldn't through a simple Kandinskian (???) treatment of color progression or a different composition but solid dots on a line just don't do it, no matter how you spin it.
Blue and grey, is cold and corporate and are traditionally used to communicate strength and solidity, rather than dynamism and energy.
The "n" being a different color...not sure what follows that statement but focus & opportunity don't mean much. Sounds like a abstract justification for "We need to look like we've done something..."
But then again you are probably just being snarky so feel free to disregard this entire post
:)
On Jan.26.2007 at 12:11 PM
Ed’s comment is:
my understanding is that this isn't the Nielson Media Research re-brand... it's the VDN re-brand. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
I don't like the logo, why must companies use gray type like this? it's low contrast on dark and light pages.
On Jan.26.2007 at 12:14 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
I think VDN has changed its name to Nielson with the Media-Research being a sub-brand. Makes a whole lot more sense in the bigger picture.
On Jan.26.2007 at 03:53 PM
SBG’s comment is:
I like it. way better than the old one. Logos don't make companies more customer focused, etc., so why would they explain that in the press release? Your talking about changes to the brand which is more than a logo (despite the name of this site).
On Jan.26.2007 at 05:27 PM
Joe’s comment is:
Brands are built in the mind, but logos should be built at Landor.
Or in this case logoworks. Why not? It's cheaper, and better.
All the layers of elements here could potentially make an interesting logo, with a bit of insight and craft.
-circles
-caslon
-cyan
-a name with heritage
Here, they've all been combined and used in the wrong way. Wrong scale, wrong case, wrong amount of color, wrong modifications, just wrong.
It's like an unattended five year old making a sandwich with ingredients he stole out of the fridge. All in the wrong ingredients and combinations: ham, turkey, donuts for bread, ketchup, and chocolate sauce.
There's also-the fly...
http://toysinaction.nl/oscommerce/catalog/images/mm3_fly_photo_03_dp.jpg
On Jan.26.2007 at 08:27 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Elegant yet strong.
I could see this being blind embossed nicely.
On Jan.27.2007 at 04:58 PM
TC’s comment is:
Thank you all for bringing some levity into my evening. VNU's new owners recently eliminated my position as an editorial Design Director. The comments here-all well crafted-provided a break from the career opportunity search. Plus they reminded me what REAL designers talk about...
On Jan.28.2007 at 02:14 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> so why would they explain that in the press release?
Because most press releases about new identities explain such things.
> Elegant yet strong.
Von, I rarely question people's taste, but, seriously?
On Jan.28.2007 at 04:35 PM
Shahla’s comment is:
Where’s Maven?
On Jan.28.2007 at 05:15 PM
Bart’s comment is:
Am I the only one that sees a bad imitation of the T-Mobile logo:
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
I still don't get it. What's really wrong with this logo? All I've gotten so far is "I don't like it" with some various put-downs. Is it the best logo I've ever seen? No. But I still don't get why all the hate. Maybe it's not cool to like Landor. Maybe it's not cool to go against Armin's assertions about taste and what is and is not questionable about it. Someone explain, since apparently I need a "taste adjustment."
On Jan.29.2007 at 10:26 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Greg, my initial and biggest opposition to the logo is the extreme disconnect between it and the company it represents. Where the company seems to be a big, leading enterprise with a big, fat thumb on technology, media, publishing and other industries this logo is a shy, fragile interpretation of the company. It fails to demostrate, leadership and dominance.
In terms of execution... The nine dots look like old-fashioned typesetting. They are simply unengaging and distracting. The customization of Big Caslon by cutting it up makes the logo look even more fragile than it already is. The letterforms look unfinished and crude and childish. The color combination in principle, is okay, but the gray is too light.
All in all, it's a sum of poor execution based on bad design decisions: Big Caslon for a 21st Century Media conglomerate? Please.
On Jan.29.2007 at 10:42 AM
Greg Scraper’s comment is:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. Where you see fragility I see delicacy and subtlety. Where you see old-fashioned typesetting I see a download in progress (though they might have pushed that further by reintroducing the cyan). Where you see the bastardization of a classic font I see a new direction on an old style. Maybe it's just a difference in semantics.
I disagree about the direction and motive of the company, as well. First of all, we're talking about a parent company. It doesn't sell anything. Secondly this company isn't really all that new. How long have the Nielsen ratings been around? Well before internet downloads, before cable TV, and even before regular TV broadcast. We're talking about a company that started with measurement of radio audiences in the 40's. It's not a name I associate with the latest technology.
I could understand the reaction here if it was beveled, rounded, shiny red comic sans on a purple background. But it's a logo that doesn't have that many problems. I guess that's the beauty of taste. Everyone's is different.
On Jan.29.2007 at 12:13 PM
Loren’s comment is:
I think Armin wants the logo to be a "big, fat thumb".
But I think the point of the logo is to be understated. They don't want to look like an enormous, empire of a company.
Look at Google's attempt at not looking like a huge, evil company:
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Greg-
One important thing to consider is that Nielson (VNU) even as a parent company does sell something. In actuality they sell everything. Much like Viacom or Yum!, parent companies are in the position of having to represent every single one of their products/sevices that fall under their corporate umbrella.
There is also a very fine line between fragility and delicacy. But its that fine line that makes the difference between a Bentley and a Mercedes or Ford for that matter. I would agree with armin that the font is fragile rather than delicate and heres why:
Due to the slight breaks in the letterforms combined with a fairly large difference between the thicks and thins of the strokes creates what is basically an uneven distribution of visual continuity within the letterforms.
I think your delicacy could be achieved by nixing the breaks and just nursingthe thick/thin differentiation, or go with the terminal stroke breaks, but not the two together.
Using both adjustments reinforces the complete breaking of the letterform characteristics, leading to the appearance of fragility which Armin was referring to.
On his other points see Joes comment on the combination of graphic elements as they pertain to logotypes/wordmarks and you will see that this is more than a subjective matter of taste.
On Jan.29.2007 at 04:26 PM
Kevin M. Scarbrough’s comment is:
>>Look at Google's attempt at not looking like a huge, evil company: -- Loren
Very amusing reference!
During the presentation of the Google logo:
"We added a drop shadow to acclimate users to the idea of our logo floating in front of their point of view, which we hope to achieve via brain implants by 2015."
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
Ok. Ok. Ok.
Pretty much everyone is in some sort of agreement. Pretty much.
Sides aside, I'm gunna say it. It is an improvement over the old VNU logo, which, I feel I could see fitting in just fine on a something from the mid 90's, say my cord-tethered home phone or something.
Granted VNU was designed in 98', so the dating is fitting, but REALLY... I mean, really? So what, I get it, the new logo's not so hot. I don't want to rub up against it and smile.
BUT...distilling this to a relatively, and the word relatively is relative, simple...wordmark, without, or what at least seems to be an attempt to avoid bells and whistles, makes sense, especially with the name change.
Is the final outcome happy happy joy joy? No. But lets face it, do you really think there was a team of dedicated, devoted designers working on this, with the freedom to craft whatever they felt and knew would work best relating to aesthetics, the new name, and the overall strategy at hand? Probably not.
Most likely there were a few designers working on it, a few business people, a few bosses, and a few clients who wouldn't let things be. This is reality people.
It's another thing out there.
Could it have been better?
Yes. Of course.
But it is an improvement over the old.
If my kid raises his grades in a class, I reward him.
I don't spank him for not raising them "high enough."
stock_illustration’s comment is:
You're right...it is better. But, in the same way it would be easy to pick a font and improve on the Google logo, this is just seems a little too pedestrian coming from a top-drawer firm. If I can't tell a substantive difference between a logo designed by Landor and one by a logo factory (or by me :) ), I just question whether the client was well-served.
If they paid, and are happy, then good on them and good on Landor. That's business. I'd love to deliver the same level of design for the same price tag to my clients. But business aside, the result still looks weak to me.
On Jan.29.2007 at 09:42 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Yeah but Danny,
If you paid 15 grand for your kid to go to a private tutor and he went from a solid C to a weak C+ then wouldn't you be a bit ticked? I know I would.
But like stock says, if the client is happy with it...
On Jan.30.2007 at 01:11 AM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
I'd argue that with the name change, it was a much further leap than from a solid C to a weak C+.
Just because a firm like landor is a big fish, it doesn't mean the water is any different.
On Jan.30.2007 at 09:48 AM
Jeff Stevens’s comment is:
We're solely concerned with the visual here. And a weak visual can always be bolstered by a top-notch marketing and positioning plan and presentation - at least to the corporate board.
On Jan.30.2007 at 10:28 AM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
Jeff, if there we some sort of new, overpowering, symbol that nielsen were using as opposed to a wordmark, I would whole heartedly agree. The symbol would be what resonate and be remembered. However here, we have a wordmark with dots. It's not too exciting, but the majority will remember is not trying to interpret or understand some abstract symbol, but simply the word nielsen with dots. Thats it, simple and recognizable.
And as far as saying "We're solely concerned with the visual here," when something so glaring and apparent like a name change happens is ridicules. Don't tell me that if there had been a poor name change, it wouldn't have ben commented on extensively.
Design has not just to do with aesthetic but also function. I could make a beautiful chair out of thumbtacks, but if I couldn't sit on it, what good is it?
This site is called "Brand New," and as stated, is a discussion and critique of brand and corporate identity work in all its manifestations.
And this is where I'm going to leave on this issue permanently.
On Jan.30.2007 at 11:46 AM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Danny-
You are absolutely correct in regards to nomenclature being an important part of the branding process. I don't think you'll find anyone disagrees that the name change is an important and positive step here.
While we aren't solely concerned with the visual, execution is also an important aspect of the branding/identity process. When that does not come across as strong it possibly could then it takes away from the overall impact of the final mark.
I also think many posters here take a pretty subjective view on the things we discuss, regardless of the firm that produced it, and that discourse (both positive and critical) ultimately makes us all better and more knowledgeable designers, and that's really the point isn't it?
On Jan.30.2007 at 12:27 PM
Chris Dixon’s comment is:
If I can clarify/expand Danny’s “big fish” metaphor, Landor could be considred a big fish in a small pond – high paying, relatively well informed or trusting clients, really big assignments, generally high standard of work, etc. Whereas I would be considered a small fish in a big pond – lots of tightwad and/or ignorant clients, fewer opportunities for “nice” work. I am pretty sure the water is very different...
Anyway, I would love to know how this developed from the original brief, and precisely when/how it went off the rails.
On Jan.30.2007 at 06:35 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Conspiracy Alert:
I think they are all "one big fish..."
Hmmmmm......
On Jan.31.2007 at 08:43 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Forgot this one:
Armin’s comment is:
FatK, duly noted.
On Jan.31.2007 at 08:59 PM
Mr. One-Hundred’s comment is:
Conspiracy Alert
Yeah, OK, I wouldn’t go that far, and it wasn’t really my point. My point was that these organisations are simply in different ballpark to mine. The nielson mark looks like something I would have come up with after being cajoled and commiteed into submission by a client who, despite what they say in the initial meeting, doesn’t trust us to come up with the solution without any committee/board/my-wife-who-is-an-interior-designer interference.
I am just curious as to how it happens “at the top level” where guys like Landor, Pentagram et al would seemingly have enough reputation to avoid it. Don’t get me wrong – I’m sure it happens, I would just like to understand it.
...or maybe you know something I don’t.
On Feb.01.2007 at 12:57 AM
Joe’s comment is:
Per Fatknuckle's Logo comparison.
Landor differentiates itself with mucky kerning in the hue of dried blood.
On Feb.02.2007 at 12:07 AM
greatergood’s comment is:
Wow, such harsh comments directed toward an indentity. It makes me think there is more going on here than just an evaluaton of a brandmark. I'm not saying it's great, nor bad. This seems a nice departure from the norm (for a large company). Atleast the mark feels nimble.
On Mar.01.2007 at 10:07 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
