NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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 John Feldhouse
The new Fujifilm identity was released on October 1st and carries a major update from the 1980s Landor design. The highly recognizable “film box” has been replaced with a stark typographic treatment with one minimal element of color. One should ask, “Is less really more?” Fujifim was founded in 1934 as Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. From 1962 to 1990 Fujifilm established a number of divisions worldwide. It was in 1960 that Fujifilm updated their logo to the now familiar red and abandoning their original mark. In 1980 Fujifilm again changed their logo to the recognizable film box logo created by Landor. As Fujifilm continued to grow and become a juggernaut in the film industry, they decided to update their logo in 1992 with adding text to the film box. And in 2006, Fujifilm decided to abandon the Fuji Box and go with a pure typographic treatment.
It should be noted that after continued attempts to contact Fujifilm, they never responded back so the designer or firm still remains unknown.
With such a classic identity recently leaving the shelf with Kodak, Fujifilm wasted no time in updating theirs as well. With Kodak going to a typographic mark, one would think Fujifilm would steer in a different direction, however, this is not the case. Both marks are extremely similar: they are both geometric sans typefaces, both use red as a graphic element, they no longer use a symbol in the identity, and both draw from their predecessors. The ironic part about these identities is neither one is ground-breaking in an industry leading the way with ground-breaking products.
Fujifilm’s new mark uses a trendy typeface while creating a rough-looking box. When scaled to various sizes the mark works well large, but fails at a smaller size. The box is lost at the smaller size, as shown on their web site, but the typography seems to work very well. The attention to detail with the typeface proportions is remarkable. The kerning is nearly perfect and the weight ratio works very well. In the press release, Fujifilm states that they will continue to use the traditional green for its corporate color which may help with the branding aspect. Only time will tell how well the newly implemented logo will work.
So the once familiar identity landscape in the film industry has been turned upside down in a matter of months. It seemed inevitable as many major corporations are refreshing their look to keep up with the times. Whether we as designers like or dislike the new Fujifilm identity, one thing remains constant with it: change. It is this change that we as designers struggle with especially when our so-called “treasured identities” are touched. Fujifilm has gone through its own evolution with its identity and we should expect more changes in years to come. Rather than dismissing the new logo outright, we should embrace the changes and realize what we can take from the new identity. Each one of us will see something that can be improved, however, we can’t change it. The only thing we can do is keep challenging ourselves to design at the highest level possible.
John Feldhouse graduated from Auburn University in 2005 and is currently working at Radiant Systems, a technology company based in Atlanta, GA.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Kosal Sen’s comment is:
The tiny box concept, if at all intentional, fails horribly. Done for no obvious reason. Reminds me of the S in Microsoft. I couldn't even see that there was a box after a while. Maybe it's just me. Aside from that, the typography itself is a definite improvement. Similar to Kodak? Come on, just because they're simplified wordmarks using red as a color? The treatment of FUJIFILM is reminiscent of Peignot, more humanist than geometric. It's sorta old fashioned, and doesn't abandon the pre-established feel like Kodak does. Speaking of Kodak, did they rebrand the rebrand? Check out that initial K, i don't remember it being that bad!
On Nov.20.2006 at 10:31 AM
Von K’s comment is:
I think the "tiny box" is supposed to represent a mirror within a camera body? Or maybe a printed photo? It's a rectangle on an angle, that's for sure. It's so open--it could mean anything. The fact that it's so small and relatively hidden within the wordmark makes it seems like an afterthought. Unless there's some meaning behind doing it that way that I'm just not getting.
I like the type. It references the previous logo nicely, so nice job on not ditching the old feel completely. Kodak's ditching their previous mark in favor of the current (worse) one makes this rebranding the best in the category by deafult.
Kosal--You think the "K" is bad? Look at the "a"!
On Nov.20.2006 at 12:20 PM
Andrew Kopietz’s comment is:
I think Fuji's new mark is well adjusted and it seems like they got most of the mechcanics down pat in terms of kerning and size. I can't quite see how scaling the new logo down would cause it to loose some of it's key traits. Does anyone have a smaller version they could post as evidence?
On Nov.20.2006 at 01:11 PM
Yoram’s comment is:
The mount Fuji is still there: between right off the "i" in "FUJi" and the 2. "F" in "FILM".
On Nov.20.2006 at 01:21 PM
*** Dave’s comment is:
It occurs to me that Fuji actually has a gorgeous original logo (above) that could be easily used as-is today for some specialty products.
I never saw the Fuji "box" as a box of film, so this rebranding doesn't seem so much of an update as just a change for the sake of change.
On Nov.20.2006 at 02:51 PM
yi’s comment is:
Something about this logo is smells very, very Japanese to me. Were they attempting to bring back some traditional references to Japan's earlier foothold in this market? Black and red are dominant Japanese colors, and the J has a nice thick-to-thin, almost calligraphic brush-like, feel. As for the red accent, it does seem a bit cliched but overall it feels well balanced and nicely positioned. It's abstract which I like, rather than a logo that looks like something dealing with photography. As for that "I", I only see a white "F" in the negative space between the I and F, almost shadowing the path of the F progressing forward... either that or it's Beaker from the Muppets.
On Nov.20.2006 at 03:56 PM
Kosal Sen’s comment is:
Von, yes, the Kodak a is odd, but the capital K has been altered since its unveiling...
On Nov.20.2006 at 04:21 PM
Nick Z.’s comment is:
The new mark is a very successfull redrawing of the previous wordmark. Although I don't see a box at all. I only see a guillotine, and since it's red it looks like a bloody guillotine. I think it confuses the mark a bit.
I'm going to miss the old film box. I always thought it was a cool typographic treatment.
On Nov.20.2006 at 05:58 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
John:
Great Editorial and WELCOME to SPEAK UP, NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME PLAYERS.
You may not be Old Enough to remember the Origninal Saturday Night Live Cast with Belushi, Ackroyd, Chase, Murray, Radner, and Pauley. With frequent guest Richard Pryor, Fred Willard, and Steve Martin.
Commentary.
Landor's Original 1980 FujiFilm Identity was the Rolls Royce of all Film Identities. It was Hand Crafted, Poignant, and Superlative in the Sense the Hand Lettering Evoked Japanese Brush Handwriting.
Semiotically, Landor's Identity was Ingenious, it was both a Logotype and Symbol. The Right Corner behind the "i" was Right Angled to Correspond with the Fuji "F" to Evoke Film Packaging and/or a Framed Picture.
The ReDesigned FujiFilm Identity is suppose to Represent Clarity. Nevertheless in Concept, Development and Execution it is nothing short of Abominable, yet has more Verve than Kodak.
Neither the Redesigned FujiFilm or Kodak will have the Longevity of it's Predecessor.
Which speaks Volumes of the Disconnect and Lack of Vision Designers of today have with Solving Identity Problems.
DM
On Nov.20.2006 at 06:51 PM
stock_illustration’s comment is:
I think the previous logo was stronger, and much more memorable. With some updating, I think it could have been modernized successfully. Not a fan of the redesign.
On Nov.20.2006 at 09:31 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
Maven- I dont agree with your assumption that it is the lack of vision of today's designers that leads to the current crop of truly forgettable marks.
Let us not forget hat the client had something to do with it, so its completely off the mark to make such a broad claim.
I'm also having a bit of disconnect between your love of the new cisco logo and your comments concerning this fuji mark. Both are at best acceptable solutions, nothing truly noteworthy. Other than execution, with cisco the clear winner, why the love of that mark and the disgust at this one?
On Nov.20.2006 at 11:38 PM
DesignMaven’s comment is:
Fatknuckle:
Difference of Opinion is what make the World.
At the same time, we shouldn't love the same Basketball, Football, Baseball teams for the same REASON.
Neither SHOULD we have the same TASTE in Women.
Or have the same inclination to personalities,
mind, body, spirit, heart and soul when looking to make friends.
It's the same Inclination and Personal Taste that Govern my Intellect to Prefer, Impressionism over Expressionism, Jazz over Hip Hop, Sartorial Dress over Casual. Michael Bierut over David Carson. Notwithstanding ever Designer of his Generation except Paula Scher.
Corporate Identity over Branding.
Tan Le over Everybody Else Worldwide as as my Favorite Design Blog Author.
BTW, Where the HELL is TAN LE???
Anyway, Fatknuckle see how Adept I am at
NOT Directly answering your question. (wink)
GOD is in the Detail My Friend or Lack Thereof.
Need I say more???!!!
DM
swimp’s comment is:
It is this change that we as designers struggle with especially when our so-called "treasured identities" are touched.
Isn't this good for business though? :)
On Nov.21.2006 at 11:35 AM
h.a.’s comment is:
After seeing so many misguided (imo) rebrandings of favorite classics such as ATT and Kodak, this one really pissed me off. I can understand the need to "update" the look of their brand but getting rid of the logo all together? The frame logo is so ingenious and timeless that it really boggles my mind why they would get rid of it. Not only does it communicate the concept of framing a picture, it also echoes their heritage of japanese/asian culture by creating a traditional stamp-like impression. It really saddens me to see this and the old Kodak logo disappear... If a designer fails to see the beauty in those logos, that designer should not be allowed to design any logo. I can only hope that it was the idea of a bunch of misguided businessmen who were adamant in getting rid these logos.
I guess we have to give some credit to ATT and UPS for having the decency to only "update" theirs.
On Nov.21.2006 at 01:55 PM
fatknuckle’s comment is:
DM-
Absolutely not. I wholeheardetly agree with you on that it's the details that matter.
You've just shown to me in your wonderfully deft twirl around the outskirts of the answer floor, that its not vision or talent that precludes outstanding identity work, but rather that well honed ability to sell it to the client without them knowing it.
That is what the younger (-ish) designers are really lacking isnt it? That ability to trust our instincts, that unteachable gravitas to be confident our own choices/preferences and be able to walk into that meeting or DD's office and just own it.
I especially liked the Hillman Curtis interview with Ms. Scher and her rationale for that Citi logo on the napkin. What makes her phenomenal (and all the great identity/brand/design masters including you) is that she can sell that napkin to a billion dollar company.
On Nov.21.2006 at 02:16 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
I think the new marks kerning between the 'U' and 'J' in FUJI looks a bit hinky. I would have explored dropping the 'J' to give a nod towards the past. That would have allowed that awkward spacing to be adjusted then.
On Nov.21.2006 at 03:20 PM
Joel Skotak’s comment is:
This logo is BORING! Another logo hat looks nice, but means nothing. I'm definitely guilty of that myself, but please. GENERIC!!!!!!
On Nov.21.2006 at 11:42 PM
maria’s comment is:
I would use the 80's one to the fullests: incrising size and playing a little with the type. It has a very strongly charged cultural quality.
On Nov.25.2006 at 12:27 AM
DC1974’s comment is:
Huh. I never liked the old logo. It was years before I saw that it said "Fuji." It looks like a red blob until close inspection. I also would have never guessed that as a 1980s logo. I would have thought 1960s. It looks that dated to me.
On Nov.27.2006 at 10:25 AM
Erni’s comment is:
I still think the 1980s logo carries sentimental value (cos I was born in 1980s? tee hee) and has familiarised itself to the world. the new logo is as simple as it can get. but not as clever as Fedex
On Nov.30.2006 at 04:19 AM
Mark’s comment is:
What's the red "thing" above the "i" supposed to represent?
I don't get the meaning behind this logo.
If it's supposed to be the red box they replaced shouldn't it at least be more similar to the shape?
On Dec.19.2006 at 11:56 AM
Mark’s comment is:
This is pretty sad once you consider the clever usage that was used for the previous logo.
http://www.movieworld.com.au/db_images/corppartners_links/Fujifilm%20Logo%20GW160wide.jpg
why didn't they keep the same upper-left to lower- right angle?
They could do without that sharp brush stroke on the 'f' it's very uncessary.
WHY THE HELL did they completely suck out what made the logo great WHY?????? ;P
On Jan.04.2007 at 03:52 PM
Mark’s comment is:
It looks like they might keep the slash after all.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/ndt/img/techinfo.jpg
On Jan.04.2007 at 05:27 PM
pu’s comment is:
the old red box thing, it's like framing a shot with his index and thumb with both hands.
can't believe you guys didn't see it.
old mark is much better than the new one.
On Feb.13.2009 at 01:30 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
