NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Sunglass Hut International, a purveyor of fashionable sunglasses and eyewear, is in the midst of rolling out a new brand identity to its 1,500 retail stores located in malls and other high-density retail areas around the globe. The new identity, developed by everyone’s favorite, Wolff Olins and retail specialist FRCH Cincinnati, has already been unveiled in Europe, and is only now just starting to make its public debut here in the United States, replacing an interim identity plaguing some applications, like the web site. The result has been a confusing image for an iconic sunglass retailer — one that is not nearly as distinctive as the one that it replaces.
Interim logo… Designed by who knows.
One simply needs to visit the retailer’s European website and then the North American version, to see how confusing the Sunglass Hut identity has become. When Sunglass Hut was acquired by the Italian company Luxottica, which owns and licenses several premium and luxury sunglass brands, the identity underwent an overhaul, perhaps to match the other brands within the company’s portfolio. The result was a poorly executed, confusing logotype that baffled not only customers, but employees of the company as well. Sunglass Hut International became “SGH,” set in some custom Eurostile Extended-like lettering, with “sunglass hut” set in lowercase in a geometric sans underneath — definitely nothing to write home about.
The final redesigned identity is composed of a simple, silvery circle mark that resembles a tinted optical lens, with all lowercase letters set in a unique, albeit very trendy typeface — that actually looks an awful lot like Kate Moss’ typeface. While the silver and black color scheme connotes premium quality and is representative of the luxury sunglass brands the store sells, what appears to be missing is reference to sunlight, which is something that the old mark communicated very well.
The original Sunglass Hut International logo was not a complete travesty — after all, it helped catapult the retail chain into an icon within the industry. The yellow and blue mark, with an abstract sun and ultra condensed typeface, simply and effectively communicated the essence of the brand: selling protective eyewear. When the company decided to sell watches within some of its retail stores and at stand-alone kiosks, it adapted its successful identity to the Watch Station brand by simply changing the sun to a watch face, and replacing the name in the same typeface. In this way, the old identity became a victim of its own success.
What makes the “new” new identity for Sunglass Hut (a la Wolff Olins) so bad is that it doesn’t retain any of the quirky or personable characteristics that made the original one so successful. In their quest to create a luxury, premium brand, the designers instead created one that appears cold, lifeless, and very trendy. Add in the fact that the new brand is being rolled out at separate times and in different geographic areas, this is one brand update that needs some definite clarity.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
John McCollum’s comment is:
They both suck.
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:22 AM
ray’s comment is:
the new logo almost looks like the "before". looks like something your local phonebook company may think up for your ad in the yellow pages. sorry wolff :(
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:23 AM
Chad K’s comment is:
Easily forgettable. Wait what did it look like again? Oh yeah, a circle. The wordmark definitely reminded of the Kate Moss typeface.
"In this way, the old identity became a victim of its own success."...What makes the “new” new identity for Sunglass Hut (a la Wolff Olins) so bad is that it doesn’t retain any of the quirky or personable characteristics that made the original one so successful.
The nostalgia of the old one, reminds me of a post a while back about Payless (Suckmore), whose nostalgic previous logo was stripped of all its distinctive characteristics and replaced with a circular mark. Lame.
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:40 AM
corbu’s comment is:
Kate Moss wants her "s" back.
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:41 AM
Eric Strohl’s comment is:
I passed by a store a few days ago and thought the counterform had fallen out of the icon... my mistake!
Its just a circle!
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:41 AM
Ryan’s comment is:
My god. The old logo wasn't brilliant by any means, but at the very least everybody recognized it and was familiar with it. It had equity, which was completely thrown away. I think the most simple solution would've been to make that pointless circle contain the colors of the old logo.
And if the circle is supposed to be a lens, it also fails. I don't know anybody who has perfectly round lenses. All lenses have, at the very least, some artistic edging to them.
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:50 AM
Madphill’s comment is:
Oi. I am increasingly becoming more confused by the work Wolff Olins are doing.
Seems like this would have been a great opportunity to use the mark as an eclipse especially with the backlighting in their instore signage.
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:53 AM
pocketwookie’s comment is:
This is so amazingly weak.
It's a sad, sad day for design.
However, I'm amazed this idea was let out of the gate. I really want to meet the person that sold SGH on this idea. That's where Wolff's brilliance shows.
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:57 AM
CJ’s comment is:
Is part of the problem the name? They are trying the upgrade the brand with a name using the word "hut"? Seems like a very steep, uphill battle. I think the last logo was more forgiving with that word because of its playful, more kiosk nature.
On Dec.11.2007 at 11:58 AM
Doug’s comment is:
Ugh. The original logo was much better. The new one implies a Rodeo Drive clothing boutique, not a mall sunglasses retailer. I don't see this being attractive to male audiences that buy Oakley, Nike and Ray-Ban lines.
On Dec.11.2007 at 12:35 PM
cee’s comment is:
I am not a fan of the new logo (or the old one), but I can see what they were trying to accomplish. They wanted to move away from the old identity and be seen as a higher end brand. The new mark doesn't seem finished, it still feels like a sketch.
On Dec.11.2007 at 12:35 PM
Bendy’s comment is:
I really like the logotype, but hate the circle... Apparently this is Wolff's strong suit (think of new Wacom logotype versus logomark). Agreeing with ryan, the logomark completely misses on retaining any aspect of the old brand. Frankly, the execution of the circle looks totally incomplete, and like a mistake.
The logotype is fashion-ey, but fun and quirky at the same time... it's a very lifting typeface that does draw strong connections to the sun peeking around an object. Really like it. But overall, the whole setup is too flat - lost all vibrancy and fun that the previous logo had. Too bad... such poitential.
On Dec.11.2007 at 12:42 PM
Chad K’s comment is:
"And if the circle is supposed to be a lens, it also fails. I don't know anybody who has perfectly round lenses. All lenses have, at the very least, some artistic edging to them."
Ah, but this is where our myopic criticism has left us blind to the fact that the ultimate goal could be to obtain an established spokesperson:
JonSel’s comment is:
Is part of the problem the name?
I think this is the true issue they face. Sunglass Hut used to be a typical mall store, with a mass, average-demo audience. But, the market for glasses in general has changed from one of functionality ("ooh, it's bright, need some shades!") to one of fashion ("ooh, it's dark, need some shades!"). Witness the redesign of Lenscrafters, another glasses retailer that went from talking about glasses-in-an-hour to how-good-you-can-look. They dropped their time-clock symbol and switched to the standard small-caps humanist sans logotype. Sunglass Hut clearly attempted this transformation once, and now they're doing it again.
Both Sunglass Hut and Lenscrafters are stuck with the same problem: functional names in a fashionable industry. So, for now, they're doing the best they can with what they've got. In this vein, I don't find the new Sunglass Hut logo all that bad. If you view it through a fashion lens, it fits right in. The quirkiness of their typography should prove to be memorable, even if it does seem a little too close to Peter Saville's Kate Moss logotype. If Wolff Olins has taught us anything, that lens symbol will prove much more effective and interesting in advertising and store design than it does simply as a logo lockup.
What's the biggest hope for a re-brand? Obviously, a change in customer perception. While I never went into a Sunglass Hut before, with this new logo, I may. If I can get past that name, of course.
On Dec.11.2007 at 01:21 PM
Bendy’s comment is:
So true doug, so true.
On Dec.11.2007 at 01:44 PM
Audrée Lapierre’s comment is:
it doesnt even look like a logo!
The cercle, like said previously, doesn't represent well a lense. The font looks weak next to it
Ty’s comment is:
What a shame. They retained no brand equity whatsoever from the old one.
On Dec.11.2007 at 02:16 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
If logos resembled people?
On Dec.11.2007 at 02:25 PM
Joseph Szala’s comment is:
Good Lord.
Maybe they should have tried a blue square or an ellipse. Maybe some gradients.
Disappointing to say the least.
On Dec.11.2007 at 03:40 PM
ravenone’s comment is:
The new logo bores me. It doesn't catch my eye. It says nothing to me about the product (other than the name). It looks dull and bland. I like Von's take on it, however.
On Dec.11.2007 at 03:40 PM
Andi’s comment is:
Yawn. What a boring logo.
On Dec.11.2007 at 05:46 PM
Hibryd’s comment is:
It's biggest problem is the luxury look versus the name. I mean, it's called Sunglass Hut. HUT. I'm sorry you've spent a lot of money on this company, Italian luxury brand, but the name is Sunglass Hut, which means you should probably stick to something funky and energetic.
On Dec.11.2007 at 06:28 PM
BWJ’s comment is:
I love how anything Wolff Olins touches, is burned at the stake on this site.
I don't think the original logo had as much to do with the Sunglass Hut's success as the fact that they are placed as frequently in shopping centers as Starbucks are in NYC.
The new logo reflects luxury and fits well into the high fashion realm. Fashion plays a much larger role in marketing sunglasses than protection from the sun does. I think this will be successful in attracting more of the brand snobs who would otherwise buy the same sunglasses from Neiman Marcus or Sacs.
Wolff Olins continues to impress me.
On Dec.11.2007 at 06:40 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Sunglass Hut, home to light gray err....circles.
Seriously thats it?
That's all they could come up with?
talk about empty!
f**k! a few seconds on Powerpoint could generate an almost identical looking circle!
Look at the bottom typeface of the interim logo(not the "SGH" on the top the "sunglass hut" on the bottom) , talk about a lost opportunity they could have been better!
On Dec.11.2007 at 07:27 PM
Whaleroot’s comment is:
I like Wolff Olins. I don't know why because I hate this logo and I pretty much hate all of their other ones too.
The mystery of the human spirit...
On Dec.11.2007 at 08:17 PM
Andrew Pollak’s comment is:
yikes!!!!!!!
On Dec.11.2007 at 08:26 PM
Ray Marrero’s comment is:
Ok, the logo is pretty terrible. But it certainly connotes luxury better than the older one.
I think the interiors are really well done, very nice finishes, that also speak to luxury. If your paying more than 100 bucks for your sunglasses, you should expect at least some class.
Brand New got some hate in their blood for Wolff Olins. I mean, they did give us the Tate logo —that gotta count for something?
On Dec.11.2007 at 10:37 PM
Dale H.’s comment is:
Whoa, that's bad. And somehow going all lower-case has made the words look foreign and incredibly insignificant. This looks like a homemade business card for some obscure Norwegian glass artist named "mr. sunglass hut."
On Dec.11.2007 at 10:55 PM
Nubloo’s comment is:
The old logo placed the stores in a cost-leading environment. It looks very 80ies and I understand why there was need for a new logo. But... this? So cold and unpersonal. It looks very stand-offish.
On Dec.12.2007 at 06:24 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> Brand New got some hate in their blood for Wolff Olins.
Ray, I like to take it on a case by case basis. May I point you to my ode to the NYC logo?
As far as this logo, I think it's too ambitious: They are trying to own the circle as theirs. And as a brand with limited power and influence this is impossible, so they appear as trying too hard. However, as some have mentioned, it's more likely that I would spend $100+ on a pair of glasses with this new identity than with the old. I remember stopping by a Sunglass Hut many years ago and being bewildered by the prices, being that I was looking at glasses in a pushcart in the middle of a mall in San Antonio. The disconnect was just too much. This logo bridges that gap a little.
On Dec.12.2007 at 08:23 AM
Chris Brown’s comment is:
Remember that whole fracas last year with Logoworks and all these designer forums especiallY HOW upset about how so called 'real designers' were getting trampled by undercut pricing and so called inferior results?
Well here you go. Full price crap.
On Dec.12.2007 at 09:43 AM
Nathan’s comment is:
The logo strikes me as a lot more feminine than the old logo. I don't know what Sunglass Hut is like internationally, but here in Australia, they're pretty well split equally with glasses for men and women, with no bias to one or the other - which is pretty rare. So it surprises me that they would go with something that reminds me of something a skin care company would come up with (and the store facade supports that)
A definite miss.
On Dec.12.2007 at 10:46 AM
diane zerr’s comment is:
I read into this as the circle being a muted sun. The effect you would feel after buying the sunglasses and relief from that bright ball of light in the sky. I have no idea what their intentions are for this circle, but I'm certainly not impressed and no WOW factor.
I would walk by and say, "Oh, Sunglass Hut has a new logo." and that would be the end of that.
On Dec.12.2007 at 10:52 AM
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
Thank god. I was in one of the local malls the other day, and I probably spent 10 minutes standing in the doorway to Sunglass Hut, staring at the "GH" ligature in the interim logo and thinking, "They rebranded with THAT?"
Not to mention the very clear line of text immediately below the logo stating that "sunglass" is in fact one word, and therefore the acroynm above should be "SH" rather than "SGH."
Say what you will about the coldness of the new mark, but at least it's not that dreadful interim logo.
On Dec.12.2007 at 01:04 PM
Jennifer’s comment is:
Interesting...
It's a little more appealing on signage than on paper. But it's still rather dull and lifeless. It's amazing how even in it's simplicity, it still seems overdone. In my opinion, while the old logo was cheesy, at least it was approachable. The new one just seems to scream over-priced and pretentious.
TheUprock!’s comment is:
Neither that typeface, nor that logomark say "luxury" or "sunglasses" to me. Last I checked, glasses have two lenses.
On Dec.12.2007 at 01:18 PM
C-Lo’s comment is:
Ugh I was asleep. What did I miss?
Oh that..... Yes Your trying to be sunglass lens, and it looks like one that popped out of the frame. And Corbu was right. I think he just slapped teh kate moss font to the side of it. You know the more I look at the logo I can easily see it at floating (yawn) kiosks manned by teenager kids trying to sell ....
ZZZ....
On Dec.12.2007 at 01:52 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
sick-o, another win for wo!!!! glad they are banking on shitastic design these days. the new packaging for sunchips was more exciting than this.
On Dec.12.2007 at 02:18 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
I would have happily done this logo for half what they paid. Really.
On Dec.12.2007 at 02:59 PM
John McCollum’s comment is:
I would have happily done this logo for half what stock_illustration would have charged for it.
On Dec.12.2007 at 03:58 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
John McCollum's undercutting is ruining this industry.
On Dec.12.2007 at 04:15 PM
Jw’s comment is:
I will pay them $10 to do this logo.
On Dec.12.2007 at 05:29 PM
Andrea’s comment is:
moonglass hut
On Dec.12.2007 at 08:39 PM
Cam’s comment is:
I'm quite a fan of the New Zealand identity for Sunglass Hut. It takes the existing logo and ad's a bit of youth to it which relates to the brands audience. http://www.sunglasshut.co.nz/
On Dec.12.2007 at 10:09 PM
Stu’s comment is:
I almost see it as sunglass but!!
On Dec.13.2007 at 05:06 AM
Loren Klein’s comment is:
The type isn't bad, and the storefronts with the backlighting are kind of nice, and definitely elevate the brand.
But the empty circle seems like a huge wasted opportunity.
On Dec.13.2007 at 10:06 AM
TheUprock!’s comment is:
The environmental signage is actually not bad. I saw one last night on the bus heading home after work. They have a nice halftone pattern across the lens, and it's very nicely back-lit. The halftone really helps convey the sunglasses symbology.
I still don't get why there's only one lens though.
On Dec.13.2007 at 12:19 PM
K. West’s comment is:
sunglas shut.
On Dec.13.2007 at 10:24 PM
Joe’s comment is:
I'm with corbu.... I see AlBro type and I see Kate Moss.
Too soon, Wolfie. Stick to making Trapper-Keeper-cover logos in Corel Draw (cough)londonwacom(cough) :-P
On Dec.14.2007 at 10:30 AM
Derrick’s comment is:
Yawn....
On Dec.14.2007 at 07:45 PM
Jay’s comment is:
As somebody said before, a major part of the problem is in the name. No hut is that trendy.
I'll hope my mall doesn't get the update (it happens a lot)
JasonP ’s comment is:
If this logo was edible its taste would be of church holy wafers. Bland and forgettable.
Wolff Olins missed the mark on this one, but he is a brilliant graphic designer and will surely be back with something spectacular.
On Dec.17.2007 at 02:40 PM
Mark’s comment is:
maybe they should take the "hut" part of the name out and leave "sunglass"
well it's a start, anyone else got any other ideas?
On Dec.17.2007 at 08:17 PM
agrayspace’s comment is:
it looks like a fake ironic logo in a fake mall in a indie film that is lampooning american consumerism. Like something you's see in Mallrats or Idiocrisy.
On Dec.20.2007 at 12:23 PM
natobasso’s comment is:
When will Wolff Olin stop doing crappy work? See the London 2012 logo if you don't agree with me.
On Dec.20.2007 at 03:22 PM
ken’s comment is:
the "Interim logo… Designed by who knows." was designed by landor associates in cincinnati
Ken
On Jan.01.2008 at 09:18 PM
Char Alfonzo’s comment is:
Bad, bad, bad, bad.
On Jan.09.2008 at 01:34 PM
Joe Schramm’s comment is:
As usual, dummies change logos for all the wrong reasons and make a new one worse than the original. Shouldn't the round thing in the logo be the color of the sun?
On Jan.10.2008 at 05:16 PM
Glenn’s comment is:
Saw the new Sunglass Hut retail store. It actually looked pretty good. No longer selling Oakley blades but luxury brands such as Prada – the redesign makes a lot of sense.
On Mar.17.2008 at 01:44 AM
SGH Fan’s comment is:
Regardless of what the logo looks like or the fact that they still use "Hut" in the name of a luxury retailer, everyone will always recognize Sunglass Hut as THE place to buy sunglasses, whether for functionality or fashion. For those of you who don't know, SGH and Lenscrafters are both under the Luxottica umbrella, hence the similarities in change of logo.
On Oct.04.2008 at 11:19 AM
LJ’s comment is:
Actually the circle is supposed to represent the silver sun
On Jan.06.2009 at 02:19 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
