NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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 Ryan Hembree
In April, Unum, a leading employee benefits provider in the United States and the United Kingdom, unveiled a new identity in an attempt to better communicate the company’s core competencies and focus. Formerly UnumProvident, the company’s new logo, designed by The Gate Worldwide, is visually superior to the old — while at one time the highly patriotic logo probably appealed to companies based largely in the United States who desired to “buy all things American” (and who doesn’t love the logo’s ode to “Ole’ Glory’s” stars and stripes?), the company’s products and services have expanded well beyond the borders of this country and into Europe. And in today’s geo-political climate, looking “American” might be considered a liability and unpopular with an international audience.
By adopting an identity that incorporates more of a European design aesthetic, Unum has distanced itself from its more American heritage. While the refreshed logo uses a contemporary, stylized typeface and simple shapes to communicate the company’s image, is it really effective at telling their story? To someone not in the insurance or benefits industry, this critic included, there are no visual clues as to what the company does. What is slightly more puzzling is the fact that a new tagline, “Better Benefits at Work,” was also adopted the same day as the new identity, yet is noticeably absence from the logo and company web site. This vital piece of information would have been incredibly helpful in communicating the company’s message.
According to the press release and Joseph Foley, senior vice president and chief marketing officer, “The new Unum brand represents a shift… from being an insurance company to being a true employee benefits partner.” Oh, well — why didn’t you just say so, perhaps by using a tagline in conjunction with the logo?
Once you realize what the company does, and the fact that they are supposedly “focused on people,” the logo begins to make much more sense. The rounded, lowercase letterforms are fun and whimsical (maybe too “fun”, resembling something more suitable for a toy company), and offer a refreshing change from the Palatino-like typeface used before. There are three business units within the company, represented by three circles; closer scrutiny reveals that these shapes also visually complete the bodies of three highly stylized figures, perhaps distant cousins of the ubiquitous Helvetica Man. However, these gender-neutral people look more politically correct than those adorning bathroom door signs, and therefore more appropriate for a professional office environment.
While a vast improvement over the old UnumProvident logo, one that is unique and memorable (perhaps for all the wrong reasons), the new identity fails in communicating the company’s core competencies. Perhaps the designers of this new brand assumed that everyone knew what Unum was, and the products and services it provides. Or perhaps the thought of “ruining” the European-inspired simplicity of the mark with something as mundane as a tagline was unbearable. Regardless of the reason, it leaves one to wonder how much more effective this identity could have been.
Ryan Hembree is principal/creative director of Indicia Design, a full service graphic design firm in Kansas City, Missouri that specializes in visual identity design. He is author of The Complete Graphic Designer, and “Re:Marks: Thoughts on Design”, a bi-monthly e-newsletter discussing design and visual identity trends.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Kaz’s comment is:
It's a nice change, but I agree that it doesn't says much about this company.
What really bothers me is the distance between the "heads", I think it would look better with the same kerning.
On Jun.21.2007 at 11:34 AM
drew kora’s comment is:
It's a good thing they changed their logo or they might have been confused with Astroturf.
On Jun.21.2007 at 11:59 AM
Tiffany’s comment is:
I disagree with Kaz, I think you might be missing the point.
The "heads" as Ryan pointed out, are completed by the "bodies" or letter forms. They are evenly spaced according to their "bodies", and if they were kerned to be of equal space apart the logo would lose the representation of people.
They would instead just become three circles on the top of the logo.
These "heads and bodies" are the basis of the companies focus on the people.
The logo should be more about the meaning and not so much about how it looks.
On Jun.21.2007 at 12:06 PM
Ricky’s comment is:
I tend to disagree that a company's mark should communicate what exactly the company does. Look at Apple's logo. Toyota, Honda, Ford, the Olympics, Walt Disney, Sony. Practically any good logo doesn't tell directly what the company does on it's own (when first introduced).
I remember Seth Godin saying something about this somewhere, that a logo doesn't really possess any meaning until associated with a product, service, people, etc.
I rather like this new logo.
On Jun.21.2007 at 12:40 PM
Kaz’s comment is:
@Tiffany: Oh, I got the point of the people, the bodies and the heads, but if you put the last "head" over the firs letter, then you got the three people anyway, and the same spacing. It's just that.
On Jun.21.2007 at 12:47 PM
Brian’s comment is:
this logo is on par in terrible-ness with the old one. it looks somewhat more european, but it's still ugly, it just switched targeted demographics... and Ricky, I dont think logos make sense until associated with a product or service, but is this company really large enough to do so? i've never heard of it (although i've heard of astroturf) and don't plan on being affected by it at all. so when introducing your new identity, shouldn't they have made it a priority to associate their brand with their service, thereby creating a mental link for consumers?
i give this redesign a C-.
On Jun.21.2007 at 01:27 PM
Mark’s comment is:
They are both greatly executed logos, however the only problem I have with the new logo is the middle circle because it doesn't match with the other two shapes which allude to person symbols.
In the middle on I don't see a head on a body like the other two.
On Jun.21.2007 at 01:38 PM
Michael’s comment is:
What is this business about looking 'European'? Sure the existing logo was wearing it's 'flag-waving' patriotism unapologetically on it's sleeve but I think you'll find the idea of creating a mark or logo type that consists of basic, simply read shapes and forms is pretty 'universal'. Let's not dip into that uniquely American paranoia that Europe is laughing behind it's back at any attempts at sophisticated communication... that and taglines suck... for all sorts of practical and aesthetic reasons.
On Jun.21.2007 at 02:38 PM
Splashman’s comment is:
Even without the tagline, my immediate interpretation of this logo was "people." In that sense, I think it's effective.
Personally, I don't like it much, but it is simple, somewhat memorable, and communicates something about the company. Good thing they stuck with blue-and-gray; with any less conservative colors, it would scream "PlaySkool."
It's funny that this post is just above the AstroTurf post. AstroTurf moves to a generic logo that says nothing about their company, while Unum moves away from same.
On Jun.21.2007 at 02:40 PM
David’s comment is:
So by the looks of it, Unum Provident broke off from their parent company AstroTurf and needed a new logo.
This is dull and poorly drawn. The curves on the letters should not be at the same level as the straight parts of the letters--it makes them look too small.
On Jun.21.2007 at 02:55 PM
felix’s comment is:
i got nuthin'... von?
marko savic’s comment is:
The "heads" as Ryan pointed out, are completed by the "bodies" or letter forms. They are evenly spaced according to their "bodies", and if they were kerned to be of equal space apart the logo would lose the representation of people.
Changing the width of the "m" would have made for a consistent spacing of the heads, its the first thing I noticed in the logo. Especially considering the "m" is not made up of two "n"s, it doesn't make much sense why it's so wide. Also, the baseline seems incorrect, the curve of the "u"s don't descend so they seem to be floating.
My first thought regarding the dots was also that it looks like umlauts, so I'm not sure why they didn't put them over the "u"s or over the first "u" as well.
I tend to disagree that a company's mark should communicate what exactly the company does. Look at Apple's logo. Toyota, Honda, Ford, the Olympics, Walt Disney, Sony. Practically any good logo doesn't tell directly what the company does on it's own (when first introduced).
It might not show what they do, but these are generally broad-reaching brands whose identities show more of their style or ideology than what they specifically do. The aesthetic represents the companies ideology.
Briefly-ish, Apple shows simplicity and a disregard for the norm (bite of the apple)
Toyota and Honda show efficiency and simplicity. Toyota is the everyman's Helvetica(ish) and Honda is fierce. Ford shows heritage and masculinity. They all fall in line with the typical image of automotive brands.
The Olympics are broad ranging and universal, how would you even represent all the sports and seasons and internationalism of it? The connected rings and colours (representative of flags of the world) show bringing the world together, and easily integrates with the local/bi-yearly applications.
Walt Disney Company is the Magic Kingdom, playful and childlike but also a huge conglomerate that owns pretty well everything.
Sony is the most abstract of the bunch, but its a simple, elegant typographic mark and those are also words to describe their products.
It would be different to look at more specific service-oriented identities (like this) rather than large, multi-national, multi-industry organizations whose brand needs to cross multiple applications, markets, products and what have you. How about florists? Other union organizations? School boards? Generally they are going to show what they do (or have vague-people-like-things). This could be one way to set them apart.
On Jun.21.2007 at 08:34 PM
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
I immediately saw people.
Put dots on top of any rounded letterform and you get a fisher-price little people person.
So...its happy...
It's people...
Benefits are happy... you can finally get that hip replacement & that cavity filled...
I get it.
This logo makes me happy too...
Paul McGuillicutty’s comment is:
MyUnum, a place for friends!
On Jun.22.2007 at 12:07 AM
Plamen’s comment is:
Well, what did the old logo tell - we're US American? The new one does communicate more on the company's activities and values.
On Jun.22.2007 at 09:16 AM
Tony Goff’s comment is:
I like it, clean modern far more generic and less American then the old one. Good job.
On Jun.22.2007 at 09:20 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
I personally hate it... It visually looks childish and reminds me of something a fledgling designer would come up with in High School. This design would work more as a blog community forum or something to that effect.
When it comes to insurance, I would rather have a more "stuffy" logo. This new logo makes me think that they will take my money to Chuck-E-Cheese and blow it on Skeeball and horrible-tasting pizza instead of investing in my well being.
I give this redesign a resounding D+ for a complete lack of vision.
On Jun.22.2007 at 11:54 AM
C-LO’s comment is:
Def. an upgrade. Reminds me of the Ditech logo that we reviewed earlier on. You can see the web 2.0 roots, but nice to take it away from that. Well anything was better then what they had before
On Jun.22.2007 at 12:04 PM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
Felix,
That made me laugh.
I am too lazy to read through all of Ryan's post so he may have covered this already? Unum is latin for 'One' (You know like 'E Pluribus Unum' on coins) so I am still trying to figure out what an 'm' person means as opposed to the 'u' and 'n' people standing next to him?
And how exactly did the other 'u' person loose their head?
On Jun.23.2007 at 04:28 AM
Von Glitschka’s comment is:
OK I figured it out. Graphic homicide.
Fever76’s comment is:
Tidbit of info: unum sounds very close to the french "un homme" which is "a man" or "one man".
On Jun.23.2007 at 11:53 AM
Splashman’s comment is:
Okay, Von, you're scaring me. LOL.
On Jun.23.2007 at 08:30 PM
Terry!’s comment is:
Personally I think they overkilled it a bit with the three heads. Wouldn't it have been more concise to just have the one head over the N? Especially after people here have pointed out that "unum" is apparently latin for "one"?
On Jun.23.2007 at 10:49 PM
Moriarty’s comment is:
I certainly think it's a vast improvement on the old one - little unsure how folk can think otherwise...
The old one looks like it was knocked out from one of those logo shops online where you get it for $100 or something. Particuarly like the really thick wedge-like undelining of the name - nice.
As some are saying the new logo doesn't exactly say what the company does, it has to be said that the old one doesn't either, if anything it says less than the new one.
Of course, I'm not saying the new one is perfect – as others have said, at the very least both the 'u' need to be tweaked a touch so the curves go below the baseline to stop them look like they're floating off. I might possibly have looked at making the 'm' from two 'u' / 'n' - see what that looked like (I'm sure they probably did and would like to think they didn't do it because it looked crap).
Colourwise I'm not sure, I think the blue is a touch too royal blue and could have done with being made darker, and picking a grey that didn't have a blue tone I think would have been better - but of course now were talking personal aesthetics - however I do think it'd have just taken the edge off it's 'cuteness' whilst still retaining the friendliness of it.
Overall, as they say they're trying to become more "focused on people" and less "American" (probably a very smart move if they're wanting to grow in any other territory than the States) I think the new logo works, it certainly looks more friendly and people focused to me.
Brief met, minor tweaking needed for my tastes, a solid straight B.
On Jun.25.2007 at 09:19 AM
Emily Brackett’s comment is:
I live in Portland, Maine, where Unum is headquartered. When they launched this new logo, there was quite a bit of press in the local paper. The Portland Press Herald even had a link to a PDF provided by the design firm with a TON of their initial sketches. The original link is no longer active, but I've posted it on my own web site.
http://www.visiblelogic.com/070406unumlogos.pdf
On Jun.26.2007 at 12:37 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Wow, after seeing that bunch of preliminary logos I'd have to say that this logo was really really really well thought out, in that client AND agency collaborated together instead of client taking over. :)
We don't have that much to complain about this logo in that case.
On Jun.26.2007 at 02:06 PM
disgruntled designer’s comment is:
i guess i'm the only one that keeps reading a frowny face with the first little guy. couldn't they have at least cleaned up the curves of those letterforms? no one likes pointy curves and having them makes the letters look totally weird and unrelated.
those sketches are so webby it isn't even funny. god bless illustrator and the same idea repeated 200 times in 200 slight variations.
On Jun.26.2007 at 08:50 PM
jack’s comment is:
oh lordy. this logo is nearly identical to a logo i did for a fruit-juice brand in college.
:(
On Jul.16.2007 at 07:45 PM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
