NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New.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.
“The world doesn’t need another bank, it needs a better bank,” reads the latest well-written press release touting the launch of Ally, “a new brand for a U.S. online bank designed to disrupt the status quo and challenge win-lose practices in the banking industry. We are launching a new brand with a new approach of treating customers with total transparency,” states Chief Executive Officer Al de Molina. Either Mr. de Molina is confused about the definition of the word transparency, or he is simply lying; either way consumers are being duped by this “launch.” The “groundbreaking, disruptive philosophy” at the heart of the new brand is the mastermind of GMAC Financial Services, the 90-year-old holding company that created Ally. The new bank states that they “will not bait and switch depositors;” in fact they are doing exactly that. Ally is simply a tactical, albeit clever, name change for the older, less reputable bank. The friendlier nomenclature is accompanied by a fairly sturdy, well-designed lowercase logo, with just the slightest hint of Web 2.0 peeking through. While the new identity is certainly an improvement, sadly, it seems the holding company’s values have remained intact. “Given the recent financial market turmoil, people are looking for a safe, honest and efficient place to save and grow their money.” Perhaps, in a truly concerted effort to be “honest,” GMAC should rethink the use of the word “honest.”
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Stephen Doran’s comment is:
D'ya think people are going to think Ally (Macbeal) rather than the singular of Allies. Don't know if that's intentional though to make it sound friendly can see the staff member with
Ally
Ally
on their badge.
Skythe’s comment is:
A considerable percentage of WoW players will hate their guts.
On Jun.04.2009 at 08:54 AM
Kurt L.’s comment is:
If you're going to spend so much time criticizing the company instead of talking about the brand, please back it up with some facts. Why are you so sure things won't be different with Ally?
On Jun.04.2009 at 09:01 AM
Nathan McKinney’s comment is:
@Kurt
I think that Debbie was talking about the brand. A brand is far more than a logo or set of graphics. In order to truely go through a branding overhaul, you have to change the perception your customers have of you. In the case of companies that are guilty of failing to please their customers in the past, a rebrand has to include more than a makeover, it has to show accountability to improve. Actions tend to speak louder than words, and when you are as far in the hole as some companies are, actions also speak louder than graphics.
I had the same thought about the blackwater rebranding. A pretty face just isn't enough to conceal past transgressions.
In the case of banks, it's far too easy to write a pretty press release, throwing around words like honesty and safe, but without anything to back it up, a new logo is like putting make up on boar.
Incidentally, this particular logo seems a little too aggressive looking for a bank to me. The return on that "a" comes across with a little more "bite" than I would like to see from someone who is managing my money.
On Jun.04.2009 at 09:17 AM
Sand’s comment is:
I like the new logo, I didn't immediately connect it to a brand of bank. Then the Citi logo came to mind and it's simplicity and style. Ally works.
On Jun.04.2009 at 09:17 AM
Andrew Klein’s comment is:
Re: Kurt L.
This is the home of "Opinions on corporate and brand identity work" I think editorial-style opinions are why people come here. The nature and character of the company is important to understanding the success of the design work presented, and a clue as to how honest it is.
Debbie brings up some good points... or perhaps she was burned at some point by GMAC ;)
On Jun.04.2009 at 09:19 AM
Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:
There are two schools of thought in branding. The one says that when you put on a mask you are being false. The other says that over time you take on the new features.
Even if the previous brand was disreputable the new branding demonstrates a pertinent self-awareness. It signals to the world that the problem has been identified and something has been done about it. The new brand looks credible. The name is evocative and appropriate and the brandmark looks distinctive and well handled.
Even if there's an additional layer of meaning in the brandmark the colour change looks unnecessary. However, the rest of the branding looks undernourished and way too functional. Ally should capitalise on such a strong start with a richer and more rewarding look and feel.
In a hyper-networked and reputation-driven world when a brand doesn't walk the talk returns diminish quickly. With such a reputation-savvy rebrand this insight shouldn't be lost on the new bank, or its customers.
In a troubled financial services industry we all need allies.
A.
Armin’s comment is:
For a bank logo, this is remarkably "edgy." And goes beyond citibank in terms of simplicity and boldness. The colors could have been pushed a little more to make them more contrasting but, having said that, the wordmark would work just as well, if not better, as a single color. The one thing that I like about the funky "a" is that it takes the ubiquitous circle-with-a-square-corner and adds something new to it with the notch to create the single-story "a." In the TV commercials the "a" also animates nicely.
It's also refreshing to NOT get another bubbly lowercase wordmark. This one still looks like a hard-nosed bank.
Nonetheless, a good logo does not a good brand perception make, as Debbie has noted.
On Jun.04.2009 at 09:50 AM
Charlie of Toronto’s comment is:
I like it. It's simple, solid, functional and the letter "a" gives it some character. I personally believe that originality does not exist and that it's the context that makes it feel somewhat unique, so the fact that this feels a little out of sorts in the financial landscape is actually refreshing. Especially when I'm so use to staring at the crappy Canadian bank identities like CIBC, BMO, RBC who basically copy each other and share the same solution...
On Jun.04.2009 at 09:55 AM
Ethan Allen Smith’s comment is:
Very good image for the new campaign, but I must say:
All-lower-case logos are today what the swoosh was in the late 90's. Ubiquitous, easy to accomplish, and a deliberate attempt to look "modern." While well designed, this logo is going to look very dated very soon.
On Jun.04.2009 at 10:29 AM
jRod’s comment is:
I agree with Kurt and Andrew... if we try to focus on the branding or re-branding of a company, then why are we allowing the writer of the article to appear so bias? It does appear that Deb has a real beef with GMAC.
As for the logo, I think I would have picked something other than dark purple and black as the colors for the logo. there's simply not enough contrast between the "a" and the "lly."
On Jun.04.2009 at 10:36 AM
David H’s comment is:
My work ISP blocks ally.com for "gambling".
I don't like the "y". The "all" look very neat and organized, all lining up together, and then "y", even though it does appear upon inspection to be kerned properly, doesn't seem to mesh with the rest of the letters.
On Jun.04.2009 at 10:43 AM
debbie millman’s comment is:
Hi everyone--
jRod stated: It does appear that Deb has a real beef with GMAC.
I am sorry I didn't put into more detail exactly where my beef was brewing; here are some recent headlines summarizing GMAC's wrongdoings with tax payer money, shady lending policies and overall greed:
Government now has 35.4 percent stake in GMAC
Take GMAC Down
GMAC receives $7.5B in new Treasury aid
Bankrupt GM Is Bankrupt; Don’t Forget GMAC, Either
GMAC Continues Sponsorship of Bowl Game Despite $5 Billion Taxpayer Bailout
Can You Say, “Moral Hazard?”
Hope this clarifies my position.
On Jun.04.2009 at 10:51 AM
oscar’s comment is:
You people are amazing. If this were Philip Morris becoming Altria, would you whine that Debbie's picking on poor ol' Philip Morris?
And I'm sure you guys will demand a fair shake for AIG when it finally rebrands itself, right?
On Jun.04.2009 at 10:57 AM
James Re’s comment is:
I like the logo. But as a brand it is dishonest. If they had redone the GMAC logo so that it was more welcoming and showed a attitude of change the brand might be more successful.
I really don't understand why companies think they can get away with just changing their name and losing the horrible identity they have created for themselves with their previous actions. The world is too small for this to be possible.
Personally i will tell as many people about this rename as i can (as i did about the blackwater rename) and i encourage you all to do the same.
On Jun.04.2009 at 11:11 AM
Dave Klonke’s comment is:
I agree...this is misleading on so many levels. You have to look high and low before you really see any reference that this was formerly GMAC. I wrote about this here a few weeks go. Interesting how they use the word "straightforward."
On Jun.04.2009 at 11:51 AM
Armin’s comment is:
> then why are we allowing the writer of the article to appear so bias? It does appear that Deb has a real beef with GMAC.
We all have biases, whether it's against the actions of a company or the serifs of a typeface. We encourage everyone here to share their own biases. And from all the thousands of comments we've had over the years, they are all bias-driven in one way or another.
On Jun.04.2009 at 12:10 PM
derrick’s comment is:
I like the logo, but it doesn't scream "reputable" or "long-standing" to me, which is the look banks should aspire to have. Also, I can't help but be reminded of the last time a major bank went for a "youthful" look.
jRod’s comment is:
@ debbie
thanks for clarifying. for people that don't deal with GMAC Bank very much, this is news to us. i do see your point and i do recognize that companies will try to hide their transgressions in a corporate redesign. i think my biggest concern is that this forum will eventually spend most of its time discussing its dislike of the company, rather than the brand itself.
On Jun.04.2009 at 12:37 PM
Nathan McKinney’s comment is:
@jRod
Personally I'm glad this the way the discussion is going. It's a great one. It's more revealing to look at all the angles of a rebrand, and not just the graphics. Ultimately, when we are doing our own rebrandings, we have to sometimes consider these details. The scope is as important as the design. By reading comments like the ones above, we will be better prepared when we have to deal with it ourselves.
If this forum was limited to a bunch of people bitching about a logo's finer points, it wouldn't be as engaging a discussion.
On Jun.04.2009 at 01:08 PM
Jason Laughlin’s comment is:
While I agree with Debbie on most fronts in regards to GMAC, I think Kurt L. is correct to point out that Debbie's post doesn't give us any context for why the move is "dishonest." I shouldn't have to wade through 13 comments to get the context. That has nothing to do with bias and everything to do with what makes a good post (or maybe it calls into question my laziness).
I think the aspirational feature of a re-brand is an interesting thing to discuss as Andrew brought up earlier. How many companies make a branding shift that helps to point them in the direction they want to go instead of where they are? Does anyone have thoughts on a redesign that actually helped moved the company towards it's new goal?
On Jun.04.2009 at 01:34 PM
Morgan Smail’s comment is:
jRod:
I can empathize with your concern...
However, THE VERY IDEA of separating a brand from the company's dealings is nothing more than malpractice in the branding profession - as prevalent as it may be.
so why should our critiques be any different?
On Jun.04.2009 at 01:35 PM
Rico’s comment is:
I immediately thought of the weight-loss pill Alli. Different spelling, but same pronunciation...
David’s comment is:
Hi Debbie -
I agree with the few previous posters critiques' of your review of the new identity.
Furthermore, your supporting articles defending what you claim is the dishonest behavior of GMAC only serve to support the dishonest behavior of the federal government.
The fact that GMAC is being propped up by taxpayer funds to the tune of $12.5 billion and on its way to majority ownership by the federal government is the fault of our current administration, not the behavior of the bank.
I don't mind reading material that might support your argument - even if its beyond the scope of the identity. However, your review reads like more of the same tired berating of the private sector rather than an articulate critique of the company or its new identity.
On Jun.04.2009 at 02:13 PM
rooney’s comment is:
they sure pulled a fast one on us with this rename/redesign. here's another good review on gmac's switcheroo. http://onthebutton.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/naming_gmac_ally/
On Jun.04.2009 at 02:47 PM
Matt’s comment is:
While I am no fan of the financial sector these days either, your critique takes the easy route and focuses almost exclusively on your opinion of the company, not the new identity. I can read that kind of opinion on hundreds of other blogs. That's not what I come here for.
On Jun.04.2009 at 04:31 PM
andyRespire’s comment is:
@Rico
Yes, it's just like Alli - because as a company, they need to a trim the fat.
On Jun.04.2009 at 04:53 PM
Joerg’s comment is:
To shift the debate a little. Here is a new bank that is promising to do good with your money. Growing not just the green in your or their pocket. I really don't know much about them, other than having met one of their representatives at the Green Festival in Chicago. They seem genuine though. So here it is, another new bank logo. Green Choice Bank
On Jun.04.2009 at 05:48 PM
Joerg’s comment is:
Sorry for the bad link here is a good one
On Jun.04.2009 at 05:50 PM
Joerg’s comment is:
Ok, looks like I am link challenged.
http://www.greenchoicebank.com
On Jun.04.2009 at 05:51 PM
Joseph Maguire’s comment is:
Not a fan personally, it's not a bad idea to rebrand a bank to quietly change the name I am shocked they reintroduced themselves with an ad campaign. Why not do it subtly so that people don't realize your bank's name is really the former gmac that was part of the implosion of the financial sector last fall.
I dunno just me but I think the mark also does remind me of the alli mark, and it comes off a bit feminine. Ally is not a bad name for a bank, I just wish the name had its own weight first before we could judge the rebrand.
On Jun.04.2009 at 06:25 PM
The Expert’s comment is:
How does Youseff feel about this?
On Jun.04.2009 at 08:35 PM
Panasit’s comment is:
I don't like the negative space between the second "l" and the "y" And that's the ugliest lower case "a" I have ever seen.
On Jun.04.2009 at 09:48 PM
Shelley Noble’s comment is:
Character is more than type.
Anyone with eyes can see that greed and lies have been at the heart of commercial commerce in this country for decades. Cynicism and bitterness is wholly appropriate and warranted in the bank's case above.
I support the author.
On Jun.04.2009 at 10:23 PM
Brian Pelsoh’s comment is:
they have an online savings account with a 2.25% interest rate and no minimum balance! that is a better bank! I am pretty sure that is the best interest rate on a regular savings account in america.
if someone knows of a better one I would love to know.
plus, they are using purple that is crazy for a bank.
On Jun.04.2009 at 11:18 PM
John’s comment is:
I get where the author is coming from.. Branding should be about communicating the company's values. This rebrand kinda just smacks of putting on a brand new coat of paint on a rotten old house.
On Jun.04.2009 at 11:35 PM
GB’s comment is:
"just the slightest hint of Web 2.0 peaking through"... Try "peeking," although I agree that the Web 2.0 aesthetic has peaked.
On Jun.05.2009 at 09:12 AM
Avi’s comment is:
flipped :-)
Anderson Wilson’s comment is:
@Debbie So if you inherited a business with a bad reputation would you try to distance yourself from it or promote it? When you introduce yourself to people you certainly don't promote the indiscretions of your past, you selectively showcase your strengths.
Obviously a visual identity will need to complement a new philosophy, but as a business strategy, this is not only a normal step, but an intelligent move.
Do you take the same cynical approach to former convicts as you do businesses, or are you willing to afford them the opportunity to start afresh?
On Jun.05.2009 at 11:11 AM
Tony Spaeth’s comment is:
It's purple/black only on the Web site, it seems; the print versions I have seen (and TV) are all-purple, which (as Armin suggested) is much better.
I have been trying without success to reach account director Evan Wolf at BBH, aka Bartle Bogle Hegarty, to confirm Ally's design credit attribution (and to provide a purple logo file). Silence can too easily be interpreted as lack of pride in the work, or perhaps as a statement that designers are not to be credited as professionals. That possibility angers me. I think it's excellent work, and I'd like to honor its maker.
As for the rebranding strategy, I suggest it is simply common sense, and completely legitimate. The GMAC name means "car loans." Ally Bank is in a different business, so the GMAC branding was actually misleading (for this unit) as well as limiting. Rebranding gives them the chance to refocus and reshape their culture, and perhaps to own their future. What can be wrong with that?
On Jun.05.2009 at 11:29 AM
debbie millman’s comment is:
Hey everyone--thank you for all of the comments and suggestions. I will spend more time analyzing and discussing the details and craft of actual logo redesign in my next post.
But I do want to make clear that, for me, the reputation and what a company stands for is as important to a critique of a redesign as the brand mark is in any launch, rebrand or repositioning.
My feelings about trying to transform a brand via the introduction of an entirely new company with dramatically different values ("transparency," "straight talk," etc) is tricky, and in this particular case, (to me) smacks of opportunism. I say this because though Ally is offering some good benefits for consumers (decent interest rate, etc), the new name and corporate structure seems to be a deliberate attempt to distance Ally from the GMAC mothership. Does this make smart business sense? Sure, if you are assessing this in isolation. But given the history and track record of the GMAC holding company and some of their previous controversial behavior, I think that they owe the consumer full disclosure (and transparency, if one of their new values is as such!) when they invite customers to trust this new, yet unproven entity, and deposit money in their bank.
Hope this helps clarify my position, and very sorry if I was unclear in the original post.
On Jun.05.2009 at 12:06 PM
David’s comment is:
@Debbie
Where's the deception if what they're promising is true?
Maybe I was unclear in my original response, but since you've brought it up again in defense of your posting - exactly what is the controversial behavior you claim to have taken place on the part of GMAC? Or again, is this just a general indictment of the practices of all lending institutions as corrupt?
On Jun.05.2009 at 12:59 PM
debbie millman’s comment is:
David:
Here you go, two really interesting articles:
Ally Bank is acting irresponsibly by offering above market rates
On Jun.05.2009 at 02:09 PM
David’s comment is:
@Debbie:
Thanks for your supporting links.
It may be unfair to the rest of the banking industry for Ally to be able to offer those deposit rates, but you have the government to blame for that, not the bank. When Congress enacted the TARP bailout legislation, there were no restrictions given as to how that money was to be used or for what purposes. It was entirely at the discretion of the Sec Treasury.
This preferential treatment is one of the unintended consequences of the government being involved in the private sector. (See GM, Chrysler incentives as well).
Additionally, if the government is the majority stakeholder in ally, who does the FDIC hold accountable - the Treasury department? What is the legal recourse of other banks - especially when the government has so much of a financial stake in the rest of the industry?
From your link:
Just goes to show the petty bickering going on, while behing the scenes zillions in taxpayer money is slowly being funneled not merely from depositors to weaker banks, but from taxpayers to asset managers and CEOs of companies that would have long since ceased existing in a fair and efficient market.
David Hartman’s comment is:
Not only are we being robbed in broad daylight by the federal government to support ailing companies like Ally, which should have been allowed to go through normal bankruptcy procedures, we're told its being done in our best interests.
Now - who is truly being dishonest?
On Jun.05.2009 at 11:46 PM
JonSel’s comment is:
@debbiemillman: But I do want to make clear that, for me, the reputation and what a company stands for is as important to a critique of a redesign as the brand mark is in any launch, rebrand or repositioning.
Good point, Debbie. I've long felt that this site doesn't take a lot of that into account. It's often hard, though, as we're critiquing a logo on day 1 (or 10 or 30) of its life. What a company promises in a new logo/re-branding is often not initially apparent – they have to earn some of what they say.
So, while I agree completely that GMAC as a brand and a company are deplorable, this is an attempt by the banking division to chart a new course. Can it do it? That's up to them, and, to me, will eventually determine whether Ally as a name, a logo, and a brand will be successful.
On Jun.06.2009 at 02:09 PM
Blais’s comment is:
For a bank with supposedly no sneaky shnick-shnacks they sure managed to sneak a very subtle colour shift into their logo. Dark, dark purple vs. black? Had to look twice to figure why the "a" was bothering me so much.
Wait ...
It looks like the logo in the before and after on this page (left) has a completely different shade of purple than the one on the official site (right). What happened? I'm on a non calibrated monitor at the moment, but the difference is more than obvious, no?
The real thing looks a bit better, but it still is way too elusive for it to say transparent, candid or anything in that direction, rather the opposite. The logo itself is, like it has already been said, bound to feel dated in a year.
(My first post, hello brandnewers; been a fan for quite a while, keep up the good work.)
Ethan Allen Smith’s comment is:
I'm revisiting this logo after seeing an advertisement for ally last night. Even though I had seen this logo before, been introduced to the concept, AND formulated my own opinion in advance, my first thought (or gut reaction?) when I saw the ad was:
"Laundry detergent."
I would like to recant my previous statement that this was a "very good image." This might be the worst bank rebranding I've seen to date.
On Jun.16.2009 at 10:19 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
