NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
Guest Editorial by Christian Palino
While the U.S. Congress and the President go to the mats over child health care, the Shriners Hospitals for Children has steadily been treating children, free of charge, for almost 85 years. With over 850,000 patients cared for and nearly $10 billion spent, the Shriners Hospitals for Children also recently found some time and resources to initiate a much needed re-branding.
Run by the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (whose logo is a whole other history-soaked discussion), the Shriners Hospitals for Children is a non-profit organization with 22 hospitals that focus on pediatric care and research in the areas of orthopaedic conditions, burn injuries of all degrees, spinal cord injuries and cleft lip and palate.
Developed by Colorado-based Monigle Associates, with the support of Shriners Hospitals for Children’s Board of Directors, Board of Trustees and employees, the new brand makes a huge step toward developing an image for the organization that is professional and timeless. In the organization’s words:
The Shriners Hospitals for Children brand is embodied in its new logo and a graphic element. The new look celebrates the 85-year legacy of providing help and hope to children and their families with forward-facing, refreshed images, symbolizing Shriners Hospitals as a progressive, but still warm and caring, organization.
The previous logo was an illustration that replicated the preeminent photograph of a Shriner — carrying a girl and a pair of crutches, walking away… which meant that the Shriner had his back turned to the viewer. With the relationship of the viewer and the Shriner having obvious negative connotations in the previous logo, the new logo takes an updated and more positive approach to this same iconic image. We now have the encircled image of a Shriner holding a child, facing the viewer.
Generally, this is a well done re-branding. While it wasn’t hard to improve over the previous logo, the new mark wisely skips over current trendy styles in branding to deliver a much more timeless and efficient logo. Gone is the four-color illustration, now replaced with a smart two-color scheme that can be easily reproduced in one-color. The red color avoids a generic hue opting to make a strong, own-able reference to the quintessential red fez. The new logo is well balanced, allowing it to sit easily with any alignment. Even the [partial] containing shape — which is so often used to try and create false visual impact — works to give us a sense of positive reinforcement (the individuals being held together by something, a sense of horizon, perhaps a religious halo?). In addition, the introduction of well restrained san serif wordmark replaces a terribly manipulated typographic mess. While the use of Univers could be seen as a bit cold for the new brand’s intention to remain “warm and caring” it seems an appropriately dignified choice here.
Mysterious “Graphic Element” of the new brand.
The new brand also makes use of a graphic element (seen above). From the brand launch announcement and the current Shriners Hospitals for Children website its difficult to get a sense of how this graphic is intended to be used and how flexible it is — time will have to tell.
One notable removal from the logo is the presence of the AAONMS logo including the saber, crescent and star. In the photograph of the original logo, it does not appear on the back of the Shriner’s shirt, but it was superimposed unto it nonetheless. While there is a lot of mixed symbolism in the AAONMS logo, it would be interesting to learn about the choice and motivation for removing this visual element.
The only criticism of this new logo is in the illustration itself. While there are certainly echoes of the work of someone like Malcolm Grear here, the quality of the illustration and its rendering isn’t nearly as well thought out and refined. The scale of the child and proportion is missing the mark, looking like some medieval painting where children were rendered as miniature adults. Assuming that the Shriner is holding the leg of the child above the knee, this child has a serious future as a long jumper or olympic hurdler. The extremely long legs, crooked hand and minute head of the child make the overall image seem a bit awkward and understudied.
As a kid I recall strange older men in miniature cars wearing red fezzes, gleefully zipping around the streets during parades and local festivals. I didn’t understand what they did or what peculiar male bond brought them together for synchronized go-kart escapades. With the introduction of the new Shriners Hospitals for Children brand sharing a single, consistent voice, chances are it will take the youth of today fewer years to figure it out.
Read more here and download a PDF about the logo.
Christian Palino is a graduate of
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Garretttttttttttt’s comment is:
I agree with the fact that the rendering of the illustration seems to be slightly off. Yet, what seems to get me more is how the logo is working on the larger scale; the torso of the Shriner, and the size of the head aren't in proportion with each other. The head is too small, creating a bizarre extension of his shoulders into a threatening, club "bouncer" sort of way.
On Nov.03.2007 at 11:16 AM
andrew miller’s comment is:
Quite an improvement, but it is off a bit. Specifically the proportions. But what also bothers me is the mixture between rounded and squared strokes.
But, overall a huge and welcome change.
On Nov.03.2007 at 02:28 PM
K. West’s comment is:
The thing is generally a bit stiff. However the unforced shape it creates is really nice. It's like a balloon or a vertical teardrop.
Following the link to Palino's other designs leads to some really gorgeous branding btw.
On Nov.03.2007 at 04:38 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
The stylistic direction of the mark is OK, a bit pedestrian perhaps but the execution of the art itself is wonky at best. They didn't refine it very well. I agree with the previous post in that the mix of rounded and squared off shapes isn't balanced well and the size of the both figures heads is way too small and the hand of the child looks like Shriners Hospital had to amputate the poor lad.
On Nov.03.2007 at 04:42 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
Okay, Von, that really got me. I was looking closely to see what you did to improve the design when BAM off came the head! You, sir, are twisted, (but really funny).
On Nov.03.2007 at 05:11 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
A major improvement on the previous.
On Nov.03.2007 at 08:26 PM
Gm’s comment is:
This should have been a typographical outcome. The graphic mark just isn't great, and I feel no need to see a pictogram representation of a mason holding a child even if it was executed perfectly.
On Nov.04.2007 at 02:55 AM
Jeunesse’s comment is:
I prefer the original, it has a naive honesy that is strangely appealing.
The new logo looks like a generic bathroom symbol.
On Nov.04.2007 at 08:14 AM
Mr. One-Hundred’s comment is:
I would love to see this as illustrated by Felix Sockwell.
On Nov.04.2007 at 08:34 PM
Daniel P. Johnston’s comment is:
Wow. I am stunned at the incredibly unnecessary and crass tastelessness of Von Glitschka's addition to this thread. Shriners Hospitals offer immeasurable dedication, expertise, and service to children with serious medical conditions (and their loved ones), no matter how well or poorly drawn their logo may be.
On Nov.04.2007 at 09:42 PM
Colin Williams’s comment is:
Welcome to the internet, Daniel J.
On Nov.04.2007 at 10:34 PM
Dave C.’s comment is:
Definitely an improvement, but far from being good. It still has that 1970's public service look to it.
On Nov.04.2007 at 11:09 PM
Jak’s comment is:
all I can see is some weird mini-me conjoined twin. I think it's the fact that both of them only have one arm in full view. kind of creepy to be honest. I think its a strong direction, but falls short in scale and overall narrative.
much better overall I suppose, but it didn't have to go far to improve.
On Nov.05.2007 at 09:13 AM
altoption’s comment is:
Yes, creepy and disturbing. My eye keeps landing on the hand, and I find myself wondering what that Shriner is really doing to that oddly-shaped kid in his arms.
While the old logo needed updating, not sure how this can be seen as an improvement.
On Nov.05.2007 at 10:04 AM
fierybely’s comment is:
Both mark are terrible in my opinion.
On Nov.05.2007 at 01:36 PM
jnl’s comment is:
While the new logo is professional, clean and more refined, it has lost the warmth of the previous version. A story of compassion can be read from the first mark that has been lost. If I was a parent or child, I would prefer to be in the care of the original shriner...
On Nov.05.2007 at 01:53 PM
Ben Leivian’s comment is:
Silly Vonster, a company cannot have an animated gif for their logo. How would it print? You must be new at this..
On Nov.05.2007 at 03:06 PM
rynot’s comment is:
i get creeped-out shivers from the redesign too, it almost feels cultish. agreed that the humanity and warmth are seriously lacking. i would have liked to see an update of the old image but from a front view with the figures coming towards the viewer instead of walking away...or no figures at all – something purely symbolic vs. representational.
On Nov.05.2007 at 03:08 PM
rynot’s comment is:
anyone else find it odd that they changed the race of the shriner in the original illo from that in the source image?
On Nov.05.2007 at 03:11 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Daniel,
I think you need to download a sense of humor.
On Nov.05.2007 at 03:42 PM
C-Lo’s comment is:
At least he's facing "stage front"
But overall I just give it the ol' "eh.."
On Nov.05.2007 at 03:44 PM
Asen Tsvyatkov’s comment is:
I apologize about the tone of my comment, but I feel I need to address the nature of another one.
I agree with Dave on this one - Von's visual commentary is, apart from pointless, quite unnecessary.
Obviously a sense of humour that has been the product of a download.
On Nov.05.2007 at 04:23 PM
Ty’s comment is:
In a world where Jesus is depicted as an imaginary character on South Park, Mohammed is decried in Danish cartoons and Borat is an international hit, are we really busting our balls to call an obviously-joking GIF from the Vonster tasteless and unnecessary?
On Nov.05.2007 at 05:46 PM
Daniel P. Johnston’s comment is:
I just knew someone was going to tell me to get a sense of humor after my comment (and straight from the man, himself)! I get that you're trying to be funny, and that you probably don't hate Shriners or disabled kids, but perhaps you would have a different perspective on this brand of "humor" if you knew one, or their family. You may as well create a cute little GIF of a puppy being shot in the head for the Humane Society logo review while you're at it. If this is the length that one has to go to get a laugh, that is ironically sad.
And, yes, I know about the Danish political cartoons and South Park and Borat (each of which are dramatically different from each other and from the contribution of "the Vonster" in their respective cultural contexts). But the basic argument that something is fine because something sort of like it is popular is sketchy at best.
Feluxe’s comment is:
love the new direction but agree with CP and most of the criticism; coulda used more flavor/ acurate detaliing.
heres a few spent minutes hacking it up...
also, i know logos dont have to work in b/w these days but is the black tassle really neccessary? c'mon.
On Nov.05.2007 at 10:29 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Dan said "perhaps you would have a different perspective on this brand of "humor" if you knew one, or their family."
No, because it had nothing to do with any of their families. It's just a nebulous animated gif that you deem worthy of lamenting.
I suppose you can get all offended when a gif violates your sensibilities and expect others to adhere to your own rules of graphic engagement but you're reading into it far more then I ever intended.
On Nov.06.2007 at 12:12 AM
Daniel P. Johnston’s comment is:
Von,
I'm not trying to censor you or anyone else. I understand that this is a relatively public forum, and you can do what you like. I certainly don't expect anyone to adhere to anything that I say just because I say it. I'm merely expressing my opinion. You posted a provocative piece; this is the result. I could debate the piece's relevance to the families of Shriners' patients ad-nauseam, but perhaps we can just agree to disagree on this one. Feel free to contact me personally if you would like to discuss further.
On Nov.06.2007 at 08:23 AM
darrel’s comment is:
Definitely an improvement, though I agree with all the comments that the illustration could have been pushed a tad further ala Von and Felix's example.
Though maybe not QUITE as far as the decapitation, though I have to say that was well executed (no pun intended).
On Nov.06.2007 at 10:05 AM
Rich’s comment is:
I'm surprised no-one's come out and said it: in the current climate I'm not surprised at all that the essentially-Arabic shriners' symbol is gone from the logo. The fez is enough to separate out a Shriner these days, though, and that might not have been the case long ago -- and the fez, outside of Morocco, is about as harmlessly Arabic as it gets.
That said, the naivete of the original logo always sort of went straight to the heart whenever I drove past the Shriners' Hospital in Montreal and I can't see the new one doing that.
On Nov.06.2007 at 10:39 AM
krys’s comment is:
The child's leg is as wide as the torso.
The entire mark is disproportionate. If the time was invested to create a new mark... why not go all the way? Why stop at the thumbnail stage?
On Nov.06.2007 at 02:41 PM
Peter Whitley’s comment is:
I liked the original logo. Not for its naivete but for it's absurdity. It basically says (to me) "Hey, come back with my crippled child!"
The new mark works on a few fronts and fails on a few. What's up with the black fez tassle? It's so small and lacks contrast with the dark red...I thought my eyes were playing tricks. It's a wasted second color.
The illustration is trying to say "guy in funny hat safely holding child." It has about twice as many contours as it needs to do this effectively. There's an inefficiency in the rendering that should have been reduced. (Are Shriners always men?)
The telling characteristic of a kid's physique when relative scale isn't an option is that the head is disproportionately larger then the body. A child's cranium basically stops growing when they're like super young (5 or something)...so the two figure's heads should be about the same size.
The rounded ends are friendly. I like soft shapes because that's how I roll. What's up with the sharp jaggies at the ends of that preposterous halo? (As if we already didn't get it that they were saints.)
On Nov.06.2007 at 08:04 PM
Shriner’s comment is:
Yep, I'm one of those darn Shriners. Perhaps I can shed a teeny bit of light. The red fez with the black tassel is probably one of the most recognizable items about a Shriner. Hence the two colors. Yes, we have subdued the scimitar and tiger claws as it has caused us a bit of grief of late in airport security, etc. by well meaning but uninformed people. And yes, Shriners are ALL MEN. It is after all a men's organization. To rynot, the shriner in the original photograph is a white male, albeit tanned. To Von, I didn't find it particularly funny, but we would treat your kid anyway (and I've been a medic for 30+ years). To Dan J, thanks, but we typically ignore the negative and just quietly go on taking care of kids. That said, I agree that some of the elements are disproportionate, it does remind me of a stylized madonna, and it doesn't "get" me like the original, but I think it will work.
And yes, before I was a Shriner, my daughter was a long time Shriner's kid.
Char Alfonzo’s comment is:
The way the word "for" was stretched out in the first logo makes me wanna slam my head against a wall. Also how every line of text is oddly stretched-to-fit.
Congrats on the new logo! Anything is better than the first logo.
Charles E. Martin’s comment is:
Bogus. I prefer the old logo, it spoke for itself. Carrying the child into the future.
On Jan.14.2008 at 02:00 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I like Feluxe's version better, it's a bit more human like, and the girl hasn't all of a sudden gone bald.
What so wrong about having hair in a logo?
On Jan.15.2008 at 09:47 AM
Taylor Burton’s comment is:
I understand both sides of the black tassel critique, but agree that if the other 95% of the piece are going to remain 1-color, then it's a little silly (in my opinion) to make it a 2-color logo just for the sake of the tassel.
On Feb.01.2008 at 03:16 PM
Dennis Sharp’s comment is:
I prefer the original photo! It gave a warm feeling of the Shriner stepping toward a brighter future for the child (which, in actuality, happened)! The new logo is stiff, cold, and lacks imagination!
On Mar.17.2008 at 03:12 PM
Arthur Allison’s comment is:
As a 40 year old shriner that's been in the organization a mear 20 years, I don't like the new logo. It is not a "classic" design. It looks goofy. Sorry, but this is one logo I can't support. Not on a shirt, a hat, nothing. Dennis Sharp's comment hit the nail on the head.
On Mar.23.2008 at 04:13 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
