NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
With title apologies to R.E.M..
Yes, you are correct, there is not much new to this logo, and it’s quite likely that you didn’t even notice the change if you happen to be a DIRECTV subscriber. But I find this to be an excellent example of how much identity design has changed and how ubiquitous 3Dimensionalization has become that, now, 3D logos are being revisited and getting redrawn to be more shiny, voluptuous and realistic. One of my favorite designers, typographers and letterers is Jim Parkinson, who, among other talents, has made an art form of redrawing logos that needed more cohesiveness or kick-assedness — i.e. 01, 02, 03, 04 — through a detailed exercise of typographic perfection and nuance. The work of Joe Fino also comes to mind, as someone that can refine letterforms to reveal uniqueness. These, and other designers, are the masters of the nip and tuck. This new iteration of DIRECTV represents the new form of identity nip and tuck: Less about typographic or icon refinement, and more about highlight and shadow enhancement. While it’s easy and expected to cringe at this as a gut reaction, it may be time to accept that this is the new standard, and someone might as well do it right. The old DIRECTV logo was crudely Photoshop’d, and is more reminiscent of early, beveled web graphics. The new one is much more intentional, purposeful and rationalized in the effect, plus it’s probably done with the more powerful and scalable mesh and gradient tools in Illustrator. So I may not find conceptual beauty in these glossy logos, but I can acknowledge when something is better crafted and judge it within the context of current day identity work. The new logo has been redrawn by Capacity.
Thanks to Ed Hall for the tip.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Mondayne’s comment is:
Much nicer execution.
On May.30.2008 at 10:40 AM
Matheus Stortz’s comment is:
another 2.0 using all photoshop filters at once
ps: the youtube video is not avaible
check the url or if it hasn't been deleted yet
arnoldp’s comment is:
It does look better, but I don't feel ready to accept the idea that computer filters and gradients are now more important than strong concepts. I hope that never becomes the standard.
On May.30.2008 at 10:42 AM
Armin’s comment is:
Matheus, that's odd, it works when I click on it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbGSDkvh8B0
Maybe your internet service provider has an anti-REM policy.
On May.30.2008 at 10:51 AM
conkyfilms’s comment is:
The shapes of the highlight/bevel areas detract from the form of the logo itself, which otherwise is quite good. How long before reflection backlash kicks in and we start seeing actual line-art style logos again?
On May.30.2008 at 10:53 AM
Adam’s comment is:
They're dishonest--trying to convince us that we are looking at little glass (or, more likely, plastic) pendants instead of a two-dimensional surface. I'm most saddened when I see internally illuminated plastic signs using these effects--two-dimensional signs featuring graphics that represent three-dimensional signs.
On May.30.2008 at 11:13 AM
SBG’s comment is:
I think the key here is that DirecTVs customers interact with DirecTV primarily through a TV. They needed a logo that works well on TV. TV is a pretty low resolution medium where you can't guarantee what the colors will look like, so you don't have very many devices to work with reliably. That's why you see the 3D logo treatments on TV all the time. There was no great leap of thinking in this one, just a decently executed clean-up done by a company that specializes in design for television.
I've been on the client side of trying to work with big identity/branding agencies to come up with a logo for a product that people experience through a TV. Although you might look down upon it, it's not easy. We gave up after 3 months of looking at things that would work well in print but suck on TV, we gave up and went to a place that specialized in "broadcast design".
I'd agree that the 3D-ness of the UPS logo was unnecessary, but for DirecTV, I think this works.
On May.30.2008 at 11:24 AM
Daniel Campos’s comment is:
Very good post.
I love logos and posted in my blog THE BEST EUROPEAN LOGOS 2007! Go there, enjoy!
Best Wishes
Daniel
orangetiki’s comment is:
so someone polished up a turd for a logo. Shine it up all you want.
On May.30.2008 at 11:52 AM
JBIII’s comment is:
I know Armin is dieing for one of these.....I had a couple minutes so I took a quick stab at it 4 ya....enjoy, lol
Armin’s comment is:
Now all I need is a press release.
On May.30.2008 at 12:57 PM
Joachim’s comment is:
It's more than web 2.0. It's web 2.1.
On May.30.2008 at 01:01 PM
Stan Grabowski’s comment is:
I think that Apple needs to be notified. They may want to protect their shininess....
It's weird that a industry that uses products with such shiny logos would be so opposed to them.
On May.30.2008 at 01:14 PM
JBIII’s comment is:
Stan,
I believe Steve took care of protecting their shininess a while ago......
Andrew’s comment is:
While I agree with a lot of the statements made about having a solid concept driven logo, I can't help but be disgusted at how close-minded a lot you are.
Print may live long and prosper, but it's baby-brother video is narrowing the lead. With both computer and television vying for attention, a flat 2D logo just ain't gonna cut it anymore. The y-gen kids don't understand the concepts of solid long last logos... they're bored with things almost as fast as they see them. Like a baby, shiny things attract.
I applaud the efforts of Capacity, and am glad that they didn't just spend 2 minutes slapping on a gradient and embossing filter but actually took some time to add highlights and make a 2D image appear very realistically 3D.
The next evolution of design is coming, embrace it or become extinct designasaurs.
On May.30.2008 at 02:16 PM
nick’s comment is:
so the entire industry is supposed to change because "the kids" dont understand solid design principles and have the attention span of a goldfish? i dont think that holds up.
On May.30.2008 at 02:25 PM
Alfonso’s comment is:
Are we to presume that "the entire industry" doesn't include "the kids"?
But seriously, I don't see what part of Andrew's comment is incompatible with "solid design principles". Unless "2D" is a solid design principle in itself.
On May.30.2008 at 02:45 PM
Ben’s comment is:
It would be nice to be able to design only what we like, but when it comes to getting paid, sometimes these kids with short attention spans hold the coins. I think that as an upgrade it looks sharper & cleaner - nothing new or insightful, just clean.
On May.30.2008 at 03:02 PM
Joachim’s comment is:
Andrew, it is very difficult to create a successful flat logo, and I'd rather have time invested in optically tweaking a logo than add ornamentation. A well thought out flat logo is what makes a strong mark. If creating a crappy logo and then covering it up with ornamentation is the new wave, then it'll just breed more crappy work. I'm not a big fan of using cosmetics to cover up a flat solid logo, which ironically, stands out more than flashy ornamentation. Take a look at the ADVx3 Partners at the bottom of this page. Much more effective visually than "shiny" things. At least, for this gen-y kid in me.
On May.30.2008 at 03:47 PM
Pat Broderick’s comment is:
From The Onion:
Wünderwoman’s comment is:
Maybe this is the "high-def" version of their mark?
I like it just fine either way.
ScottS’s comment is:
Slick, shiny, glossy, polished, reflective...these qualities may attract the eye and elicit an "oooh, aaahh" response, but this does not and should not trump the fundamentals of good logo design. Taking an otherwise perfectly functioning logo and running it through a complex series of mesh gradients and filters, to create a glassy 3D version may be considered an upgrade/update/redesign, but I ask: was it necessary? Was it the best way to address the needs of the new logo? How is it better?
I don't hate this glossification, I'm just not convinced it was necesary.
On May.30.2008 at 09:03 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Context. That's what should determine "Style." I like how Bill Gardner from Logo Lounge described it "We live in an RGB world." and the upgraded Direct TV mark fits perfect into that context. Namely an on-screen environment where it makes perfect sense to "Shine" it up a bit rather then having a flat mark.
The problem however with this style is too many people think it's appropriate for any branding context and thus you have a mix of both good and bad examples.
One thing for sure, this style demands precision execution. It's easy to say "Oh they just used a bunch of Photoshop filters." Really? Look a little closer, this marks detailing is fine tuned and worked out really well. You want to see an example of a true filter driven mark then look no further then thisglorified pull-down menu solution.
The latter is fast-food design, the prior is a nice upgrade to a current brand.
On May.31.2008 at 01:29 AM
Matheus Stortz’s comment is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqJAhQJdPeg
this is the url that works for me
On May.31.2008 at 02:19 AM
Kosal Sen’s comment is:
If we accept glossification as an inevitable standard, what's next? Accepting the swoosh? Oh wait, that's exactly what the logo is and nobody even mentioned it. It's a "better" glossed up swoosh logo. That's all it is.
We shouldn't settle for ubiquity. It's the exact reason that the appreciation and execution of finely-tuned forms are dying.
On May.31.2008 at 05:08 AM
oscar’s comment is:
At least they got rid of the stupid drop shadow.
On May.31.2008 at 11:00 AM
pedro’s comment is:
there is no such thing as a bad color, a bad font, or even a bad 3D direction. Its all about how you use it and in what context. So designers stop hating and just use them correctly, execute them well and have a solid concept behind the identity. In regards to the refresh DirectTV logo, its better executed and it appears sharper compare to the previous "fuzziness" of the old. Probably a very important aspect in the TV industry.
On May.31.2008 at 11:09 AM
Tom Cox’s comment is:
This is not a redesign. It is a reillustration. The flat one color version of this logo would be the same.
On May.31.2008 at 12:47 PM
ZedZedEye’s comment is:
While TV may be they #1 outlet of interaction, I can recall their service trucks with HUGE logos on the side. They look sharp. This new look will fit nicely.
Beth’s comment is:
Sure faux-glossy is overdone, but it was faux-glossy already, and this is a much better execution. Much sharper and less fuzzy, as others have noticed. I also have the tendency to knee-jerk dismiss things that are just "trendy," but I do think that context is everything. A well executed flat logo is great, but I'm not convinced that it's always going to be the best way to to go. Were the 3D effects completely necessary in this case? I don't know, and it's certainly not the most groundbreaking logo in the world, but given that it's a tv brand, I think you could make the case that it might pop better on screen.
Do we really need to worry that computer graphics are going to replace having a solid concept? I mean, there will always be badly executed logos aping the trend of the day, whether or not fancy photoshop filters exist. And any decent designer is going to know the difference.
On May.31.2008 at 03:57 PM
Mr Posen’s comment is:
This look is over, the kids have moved on and the dial is moving back to 2-D.
Tushar Gupte’s comment is:
For an identity as boring as the Direct TV one, what they did to it, was perhaps the best thing one could do with it. Actually I think it can't get better than this. A job well done!
Next time, change it.
On May.31.2008 at 08:40 PM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
I realize this is going to sound so trite and bitter, but the truth is... there's good reason logo marks have historically been rendered as simple iconic forms.
No matter how well a logo's shine, glitter or 3Dness may be executed, it's only a matter of a couple years before a new technique or software comes out the makes the old rendering look dated.
I'm not bashing technological advancements in logo work, but Corporate Identity really needs to be treated with far more sensitivity and restraint than this current trend promotes.
On Jun.01.2008 at 06:28 AM
Matt Klaman’s comment is:
I think the most important thing andrew said was:
The next evolution of design is coming, embrace it or become extinct designasaurs.
Design is changing, and it is extremely sad to see the masses who can not accept it.
I am a young designer and was taught by very well known designers in college(vcu). You must realize that these design professors are the SAME ones that taught designers of the last generation or two. Their principles remain the same and they teach the same exact stuff. It is the individual style that changes and the design community must react and adapt.
On Jun.01.2008 at 10:07 AM
Mark’s comment is:
This shininess trend is nothing new, I've been digging through oodles and oodles of archived video of television on the net and ever since the 80's this fascination with shiny logos has been around.
Hell even HBO got into the shininess thing, search for "1983" with "HBO in Space" on Youtube and see what I mean, since then nothing has seemed to beat the shininess of that giant silver HBO.
This new Direct TV logo it looks okay, I guess.
On Jun.01.2008 at 03:55 PM
Kit Grose’s comment is:
Am I the only one who looks at this and sees a treatment update for a logo, not a logo update at all.
DirecTV still use flat colour for their logo in some situations (like on the van signage above; light blue in front of the "D" and darker behind it).
DirecTV have a working, good logo, and it's in their own interest (as a company with significant broadcast branding) to maintain a healthy library of working treatments to their logo.
How is this even contentious? It's like freeze-framing a 3D animated ident and calling it a terrible logo; you're not critiquing a logo, just a single treatment of the logo out of context.
Three’s comment is:
" may be time to accept that this is the new standard, and someone might as well do it right. "
This was disappointing to read from you guys. This is a stylistic trend, nothing more.
On Jun.01.2008 at 08:29 PM
designer lover’s comment is:
i enjoy the new logo because it reflects that DirectTV is all about HD channels and it shows a more advance digital company over their competitors Comcast. The logo was given a more fullness since HD channels have higher resolution than regular channels.
On Jun.01.2008 at 10:04 PM
BWJ’s comment is:
There is no such thing as a bad color, a bad font, or even a bad 3D direction.
Papyrus is a bad font.
On Jun.02.2008 at 05:23 PM
Jw’s comment is:
The logo on the Direct TV menus/user interface, as well as all of their boxes and such, is a two dimensional, two-color solid logo (blue and slightly lighter blue). This hasn't changed since I've been a subscriber (three years).
On Jun.02.2008 at 10:20 PM
Stuart McCoy’s comment is:
I don't understand the outcry over the use of 3D execution in logo design. This logo is one of the few done right. There are times when the glossier logo will present a better front for Direct TV but when full color is not possible the flat one color version works perfectly without losing any of what makes the Direct TV logo work. I'm all for criticizing things like the new xerox logo but not all 3D executions are bad and designers should not shy away from the approach if it works or is warranted.
On Jun.03.2008 at 10:27 AM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
Good point Stuart.
other examples of successful 3D marks are (even though popularly criticized) the new AT&T and UPS logos. Neither look too cheap in 3D and both transfer to black & white very nicely.
Context
On Jun.03.2008 at 05:13 PM
agrayspace’s comment is:
Anyone who says that the new logo is just a bunch of photoshop filters has no idea what goes into making something like that look as good as it does. It's definitely a skill. How valuable remains to be seen.
Robb
On Jun.06.2008 at 09:11 AM
Cc’s comment is:
You should judge the technical structure of the mark and it's conceptual
symbolism separately from the 3D rendering of it. There is a trend with
purists to reject anything that has been rendered. You start to sound like
artists who decry that photography can not be considered art.
It's not that it has been rendered, but how it has been rendered.
Besides, satellite tv is:
1. All about having more dumb shows and mindless entertainment.
Why wouldn't it be glossy and superficial?
2. Coming from a SATELLITE! Why can't the mark look sci fi?
If a mark is not drawn properly, then it's not drawn properly.
The fact that it has been rendered did not cause that.
brandon’s comment is:
I couldn't agree more - having worked as a designer for DTV a lot in the past, I was kinda excited to see the new treatment. Cheesy? sure. But among all the shiny web2.0 type treatments out there, this one actually seems to fit the brand nicely. Good post :)
On Aug.28.2008 at 02:42 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I want to....touch it...
On Aug.29.2008 at 01:01 AM
PULSE ’s comment is:
ID LIKE TO SET THIS LOGO ALL OVER SOUTH AMERICA .
On Jan.14.2009 at 10:11 PM
biggity’s comment is:
Sorry, the bevel looks retarded...like some who just recently discovered photoshop has such effects. What's next...Lens Flare? Crosshatch?...c'mon...Why is this article praising mediocrity? He used Bevel and a gradient mask. Like giving the kid in a wheelchair a high five for swinging a bat and missing the ball. Granted there is a place for that sort of kind action, but for "professionals"?
On Apr.27.2009 at 04:36 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
