Countries seem to be updating too. I put this in my design collection a couple weeks ago. If my memory servers me correctly Duffy did this.

I saw the Bahamas mark a few months ago and love it. One of the better "destination" identities I've seen.

I'll reserve judgement on the Bausch & Lomb mark until I see it in context with packaging. I don't hate it but don't love it yet, either. It needs time to grow on me. There is good design language potential from the mark. Dave, are you at liberty to share some of the impetus for this change?

I really like the Travelocity logo. Much improved over their old mark which was too complex. I feel like I'm starting to see more and more hand-drawn star-type logos appearing (nothing empirical to back this up; maybe it's just that I tried something similar for a bank awhile back) and wonder if that's the next logo trend, like arrows (Morgan Stanley, El Paso, Accenture) and swooshes before that.

Speaking of trends, what about joint branding? Whether it's CitiGroup, DailmerChrysler, or AOLTime Warner (aren't they disjointed?), cobranding is such a trend these days. Who knows what's to come of this one. Will Landor come to the rescue, as usual?

Link to press release.

I can't remember when I noticed the Bahamas thingy, but it's really pretty. I like. There's some other travel destination I seem to remember spotting last week or so that's got a kinda similar idea going on. Need to dig through magazines to find.

The B&L rework makes me go, "Meh." And while I admit I'm nitpicking, it seems a bad idea to suggest it references the path of light through the eye and then wildly change the color of said "light" during that process. We could get into all sorts of fun philosophical arguments about perception over that one *grin* The font's boring, and the graphic wouldn't indicate much of anything to me unless I'd been informed of the eye bit prior. I see nothing wrong with the old one.

It's kind of a weird shape, no?

really not looking forward to seeing that bausch and lomb thing every day when spritzing my contact lenses. the typography's horrifying.

I'm glad to see that Bausch & Laumb are trying again. Their current branding is a big ugly mess. I remember when they switched to it, about 5-6? years ago, and thought "man, that's ugly" -- they even ditched their trademark green & blue colors and also started using a swoopy wave line thing. I'd love to know who was the design firm on that fiasco. Or - maybe B&L is just a client who doesn't know how to hire a design firm. -- But I agree with Su -- I want to see it "in use" before making any more judgements.

I really dig the new Travelocity logo. It is so much more humane and less… internety. The color palette is real nice and the type treatment, although simple, is very well executed.

The Bausch & Laumb logo I second the meh. It's not bad but it's not terribly great. The mark could have a really cool TV animation. Also, one thing in its favor, is that it has some attention to detail, the end of the blue "ramp" ends right at the stem of the "b". So, at least the designer payed attention to that. The wordmark with the icon has a strange spatial relationship, but I think it kinda works. The "&" looks like it's from another font altogether.

> Will Landor come to the rescue, as usual?

I really doubt that FedEx and Kinko's will become one entity. There is too much [good] equity vested into both brands to warrant a merger-style rebranding. In any case, they should use the same color palette from FedEx on Kinko's, being that they are so similar.

I'm undecided on the B&L logo. It looks much better with plenty of white space around it (think the pop-up window was crowding it a bit). The font seems slightly heavy in comparison to the graphic element. I think it might be the slightly awkward balance that might be getting me. The green piece extending out from the first "B" and the second half of the "b" extending out past the blue piece don't quite seem to balance for me. That being said, the more I look at it, the more I say "nice".

I very much agree with Armin on the Travelocity logo. Very sharp. I simply love the connection between stars and navigation during travel. Excellent concept. My only pick, is that I didn't realize that the 3 graphic elements were stars in the sky right away. My first thought was "what does an asterix have to do with travel?"

My first thought was "what does an asterix have to do with travel?"

See, I didn't even realize they were stars until you pointed it out. Don't stars have five points, though?

Wow, the B&L logo sucks. Besides the relationship between the light-bendy-raything and the b there's no relationships whatsoever and the kerning's off. I think that this one got sacrificed to the committee. Although, having been to FutureBrand's site I'm not sure any of those guys spend a lot of time thinking outside the box. d/g's site was fun though.

B&L doesn't do much for me before or after. I wouldn't see the whole light passing through the eye point unless someone hipped me to it earlier. I'd be really surprised if the "&" was from that same font. Also, the letterspacing seems funky.

I worked with Travelocity early on and always hated that multicolored skyscape thing. My eye saw it as an ugly graph before I ever got to the airplane at the end. Kudos to the new mark for cleaner type and those hand drawn stars, which remind me of Alvin Lustig for some reason. I wonder if a 5 point star would take away that "asterix" feeling?

>I really doubt that FedEx and Kinko's will become one entity.

Yes, a rebrand is in the works by the SF office. Don't know any of the details, but I think the UPS Store may be one indication of a similar strategy. Most likely, Kinko's will be sub-branded to serve as a retail presense for Fedex. I mean, that's the whole point of the merger in the first place, not because Fedex wanted "in" on the booming color copy business.

And to weigh in, B&L: pedestrian and forgettable. Travelocity: better, but trendy.

Travelocity: better, but trendy

I concur. I would go beyond that and say that I don't find anything really compelling about it -- typographically, there's not a single idea in that design. Yeah, it's well kerned, but but I would have expected that to be a given (Bausch and Laumb notwithstanding) It's not memorable and it tells me nothing about the brand (except, perhaps, that it is clean and simple). Their previous logo was amateurish, but at least it stuck in my brain, and it did distinguish them from their competitors. (In fact, Armin, the new logo seems to me much more "internety" than their previous one, at least as far as internet brands have developed recently. That includes the color palette, BTW.) Finally, the Matisse-style graphic flourish feels tacked on, at least to me.

The new Bahamas identity seems even trendier than Travelocity -- Design is Kinky, anyone?

Arm, Always with the logos... Nice!

The new Travelocity is quite cripsy- classy even. I always hated the sloppy digi-rendering of the city-plane artwork. However, having viewed DGAs/Futurebrands websites, they're hardly worthy of any sort of pat on the back.

Barf.

The only "emotion" I get from their "branding" is sadness. Q:Why must coroporate design firms continue to swap the visual for the verbal. A: They want clients who need to hear beaurocratic blather in order to make an informed decision. Do some fucking design and shut up.

Per that thought, Ya gotta respect Pentagram.

Superficially the travelocity logo looks nice, but once you get past the pretty blobs you realize that it is difficult to discern the connection between the icon and the brand - they just seem out of sinc. I wonder how many people would recognize those as stars? At least the original logo gave me a go-anywhere-right-now feel. Stars are static!

I cringe to think what B&L spent on that useless stinker of a logo. It's nothing.

btw I think desgrippes gobé needs to redo their web site. yikes!

> Their previous logo was amateurish, but at least it stuck in my brain

Amateurish is never something you would want associated with a brand. It was a literal logo with absolutely no sense of having been designed. The new one… I immediately knew they were stars, I mean, travel-little pointy thingies-on a dark background? Stars. That said, I like the new message because it is much more open to interpretation, and to paraphrase another famous rebranding, whose bow-tied package was "too literal" for some: this helps encompass Travelocity's offerings, because they offer more than flights from city to city which is what their logo said. The sky is the limit! (How's that for cornyness).

> a rebrand is in the works by the SF office.

Like I said, I don't doubt that FedEx and Kinko's will become one entity. Fine… No, I didn't say that.

While both are improved over the previous generation (travelocity taking the more dramatic jump), I feel that both fall very short of good design. The symbolism in both logos is a stretch at best and fail to really make a connection to the company itself. I feel that any time you have to explain why an element is included in a logo, you're not leveraging the brand well enough. In both cases you would not know what the symbols stand for unless it was explained here.

To me the B&L logo is a complete loss even though it is improved. The Travelocity logo will do ok and like Armin said makes the company less internet and more human. But I don't like the blob looking stars/astericks.

Such a busy day, and I still have time to SLAY these massive cobranding initiatives. damn i'm good.

I immediately knew they were stars, I mean, travel-little pointy thingies-on a dark background? Stars.

Armin raisies an interesting issue: the onus is on Travelocity's designers to provide a proper context for the logo.

1. Will it still be identifiable on a white background?

2. What if Travelocity wants to sponsor a Miro exhibition?

(the scribbles look like something in either Matisse or Miro's oeuvre -- which isn't a bad thing)

Kinkex, that's funny. Make it black and red and you got yourself an Adult-themed store.

Yes, I thought about adding two more x's at the end, but that would have been too much.

I cringe to think what B&L spent on that useless stinker of a logo. It's nothing.

Right there with you, Patrick. The graphic element does not even have a VAUGE connection to their branding statement and the spacing/spatial relationship is all off.

In both cases you would not know what the symbols stand for unless it was explained here.

If I said "travel" and "stars", what type of correlation do you conjure in your mind? I instantly think of the days when long distance travel was navigated via a star's position in the sky. I think it is the rare case where a new symbol doesn't need a slight explanation at least initially (and I'm not talking about how a shield embodies synchronized commerce). As long as the explanation is short and sweet then I'm satisfied. And I'm always happy when a corporation (even one that is outsourcing their call centers to India) embraces the human touch as part of their brand image.

And I'm always happy when a corporation (even one that is outsourcing their call centers to India) embraces the human touch as part of their brand image.

Aha! The failure of branding!

I've had too many communication failures with customer service reps in India -- usually due to a random cultural difference or language gap.

Dear branding colleagues,

Before you redo the logo, why don't you address customer relations first?

Nothing pains me more than to walk into the UPS store on 8th Ave and 22nd St and be forced to wait in line, in a filthy store, and put up with a surly attitude. Nothing bothers me more than a Starbucks employee mumbling a required greating line. And so on, and so on...

Until I see branding companies present their contribution to their clients' customer service -- as part of their website's portfolio -- I will retain my skepticism.

Until then, everything else is sizzle; not steak.

Amateurish is never something you would want associated with a brand.

Funny that you say that, because that's exactly what the scribbled stars in the new Travelocity logo look like, regardless of their connection with Matisse (or Miro). In any event, I didn't mean to suggest that their previous logo was effective or appropriate, but that there was a quality within it -- a certain distinctiveness -- should also exist in the new design, but doesn't. Perhaps if the human touch had been carried over to the typographic treatment, the result may have been more distinct and convincing.

Speaking of human touch, I think this opens up a separate question about truthfulness in branding. I mean, wasn't Travelocity's innovation to remove the "human touch" (namely, travel agents) from the process of making flight reservations? Should a logo be truthful to the product, or should it simply reflect the marketing strategy? Ethically and aesthetically speaking, of course -- we know what the business answer to that question would be.

>Kinkex.

I'll insidiously (too late) send this to the Landor team and see if it has any traction. Stay tuned Paul.

...

Expedia used to be a client. In the online travel market, the real value and profits lie in cross-sells, ie. hotels, rentals, vacation pkgs. Booking flights comprise a majority of transactions, but provide only a small fraction of margins. It's a hard way to keep a company going.

So it's no surprise that the Travelocity rebrand feels more like a Condé Nast travel magazine, rather than a discount online travel source. In that sense, I think it's the smartest brand in that market. It'll be interesting to see if it makes an impact.

FYI, Expedia has the lion's share of the market, while Orbitz is steadily gaining ground. Orbitz is actually partially-owned by nine major airlines. Travelocity is a distant, struggling third.

And I detest Travelocity's new ad campaign, the one with the gnome traveling around the world. It's a straight ripoff from the movie Amelié, but done poorly.

> And I detest Travelocity's new ad campaign, the one with the gnome traveling around the world. It's a straight ripoff from the movie Amelié, but done poorly.

Nope, it is simply a ripoff of all past gnome-based advertising. What is it with advertisers and gnomes? The first project I worked on at marchFIRST was an ad for who-knows-what and it had a gnome. Lame.

> Until then, everything else is sizzle; not steak.

Steak. Now that's some funny shit.

And I detest Travelocity's ... gnome

Didnt Phillipe Starke churn out premium plastic gnomes a few yrs back? People love gnomes. They want to hold them. Cuddle them. Also, midgets.

To be fair, it is a roaming gnome.

Surt,

yes, Duffy did that Bahamas shit. Its fukn beautyfil.

Inside poop: they called me to do the icons- couldnt afford 2k, did it themselves (looks fine), i recall account woman saying "maybe next time you'll get work on a Duffy project" as if my world was shattered. Arrogant. Seems they train people to be arrogant there.

IE: last month the same AD (now at mad dogs) calls me to do the new Atkins icons. Story is told on feluxe.com (its basically the same).

Keep an eye out for the new Atkins identity being rebrandified as we speak by Enterprize IG. It will be the same but the blue ribbon is (will be) wavier and the gold lines 86'd.

Michael Surts

Duffy did create the Identity for Bahamas. Wonderful Article on Joe Duffy in March issue

Graphis Magazine. Discusses the Marriage of Design and Advertising. Which many of us know is like Oil and Water.

Article discusses Duffy's relationship with Partner Fallon McElligott.

To my Compodre's

I can't believe none of the Residential SU Identity Experts were aware Lippincott & Margulies created the before Identity for Bausch & Lomb. Which I personally think is an excellent Design.

Not because Lippincott & Margulies created the Identity. Because, L & M has always been Typographic Driven in their Identity Solutions.

Which is their philosophy. They think in need of

Typography First in solving Identity Problems.

Other Identity Consultancies are Symbol driven.

Based on Thorough Understanding Symbols Transcend Language.

There are no Principles of Right and Wrong.

Only a Matter of Preference. Often times an amalgam of both theories.

Several people commented, they thought the Identity was Amateurish.

Comments such as that are as Foolish as saying

Picasso, Braque, De Kooning, and Klee can't draw.

I'm Breaking Balls. I know what you meant.

Whether one knows whom created an Identity or Work of Art is irrelevent.

There are canons of the Profession of Identity Design which assist in informing which Identities

are successful. Other than personal likes and dislikes. Which are as meaningless as Identities created without Marketing and Communication.

Certainly, nothing amateurish about Lippincott & Margulies. The Foremost Identity Consultancy to the World. Bare None.

Again, I stated this in an earlier post.

Only three criteria have to be addressed in Identity Design.

1. Is the Logo and/or Identity Proprietary ? (meaning) does it communicate the essence ot the business ? Does the Logo represent the Goals and Aspirations of the entity ?

2. Is it livable ? (meaning) longevity and comfort. Will the Identity be around for a while ? Most Identities Designed by Professional Designers are Designed to stay in vogue ten (10) to twenty (30) years or longer.

For example CBS; ABC; Motorola; UNITED AIRLINES; IBM; RCA; AT&T. (many others)

3. Is it usable ? (meaning) versatility, adaptability, on stationary, envelopes, business cards, merchadise, will it look good in print, multimedia, one color, two color, full color. Can the identity successfully be reduced and enlarged.

Blown up to the size of a Wheather Baloon for Storage Tank. And reduced to the size of a dime for advertisement.

Does the Identity have a Good to Excellent Retention Rate. When addressing Semantics and Semiotics.

Whether you like or dislike an Identity. Does

not make it succeed of fail.

The question is always does the Identity satisfy Propriety, Livability, and Usability.

If so,It's a good Design. I like it or I don't like it are irrelevent attitudes. Designing an Identity or Trademark can't be simplified down to personal taste.

There are a lot of UGLY Identities and Trademarks around that do a HELL OF A GOOD JOB.

Success of an Identity or Brand is not Driven by Design.

1. It is driven by whether or not the public buy into the Marketing or Communication Concept.

2. Whether or not the product is any good.

3. How you treat people when they walk through that Door.

For argument sake. I will touch base on number 3.

I shop at Neiman Marcus, Saks, Bloomindales,and Nordstrom.

When I'm in New York Barney's and MISSONI.

When I'm in Chicago Marshall Fields.

In my hometown. Saks, Bloomingdales, and Nordstrom pretty much have the same merchandise.

For Upscale Designer Wear. Such as Lora Pina,

Luciano Barbera, and MISSONI. You have to shop at Neiman Marcus. The aformentioned merchandise is considered High End. The manufacturers carefully select what entity will sell their merchandise.

My point, If I had to choose where I shop. It would be Nordstrom everytime. Their service is IMPECCABLE and UNSURPASSED.

Nordstrom, make all their shoppers feel like the President of the United States and First Lady.

They are not stand-off-ish. They Greet you when you walk in. Assist you whether you are in Tee Shirt and Jeans or $ 3000,00 dollar Broni or Ermenegildo Zegna Suit. Everyone that shops Nordstrom is treated the same.

Nordstrom has straight Logotype. Nothing Fancy.

The Identity was Design by Ted Leonhardt of Leonhardt Group. Whom owns Fitch, and Primo Angeli. Several smaller Consultancies.

The Identity is Appropriate on several levels.

M Kingsley is Correct.

Service is Everything.

For my money. More important than the Identity.

Which is what I constantly tell my clients.

Regardless how appropriate you think the mark I made. How good the Business Strategy. If you don't treat people like you want to be treated and give good service. The cash register will not jingle.

I can't emphasize the aforementioned Common Sense Approach to Good Business Sales enough.

In lieu of an Identity or Trademark.

Which is the Focal Point and Essence of All Business, Marketing and Communication.

Dave, are you at liberty to share some of the impetus for this change?

Sure. Bausch & Lomb owns an interesting place in the category. Through both acquisition and focused efforts, they have expanded from a historical focus on vision and optics, to overall "eye health" which also includes pharma, surgical, etc. They are really the only ones who do this. They are the leader and will continue to focus on the future. The new identity can be seen as a signal of renewed and holistic dedication to eye health.

The problem with the old mark, is that it didn't really say anything about the company. It didn't say innovative or even contemporary and it sure didn't reference eye health or vision. Granted, Bausch & Lomb means vision, but that is why we didn't create an "eye" symbol, which is what virtually all others in the category do. The new mark is going to be great for Bausch & Lomb.

The "&" looks like it's from another font altogether.

The ampersand treatment was HEAVILY driven by the client.

There is good design language potential from the mark.

Great point Jon. It's unfortunate that the identity was launched out-of-context. The new identity system is a lot more than just the logo. Bausch and Lomb will now have more of an impact on the shelf and behind the counter in addition to using color and typography to more effectively link their products. The identity was created with all of its touchpoints in mind.

The current Bausch & Lomb identity is ghastly.

I've been jonesing for their old '70s/'80s Bauhaus logo ever since they walked away from it. I got my first pair of Soft Lens back in '78... so I suppose this is just another one of those fuzzy childhood attachments of mine.

This new thing is better than what they've been using anyhow. (Meh)

We're not really supposed to be talking about that Bahamas identity here, but it really is brilliant. To take something as literal as a map of the actual islands and to turn it into something that smart and, well, pretty? Sometimes pretty is enough. My propers to Duffy if the attribution is correct.

My daughter has been jonesing for a t-shirt with that logo since the day she saw it. Cheaper than a cruise, I guess.

My only complaint about the Bahamas identity is that it is overly trendy and overused by so many web "designers" that I have a hard time finding it original. I have to say that it is the best use of the tear droplets I have seen.

And — sorry Debbie! — these two web sites look a lot alike (1, 2). Both in their own cool way.

Michael: And, apparently, it tesselates(!), without too much extra effort.

I don't care if it looks trendy. Weirdly enough, that hadn't even crossed my mind. That thing is sexy, and I generally can't abide anything that colorful.

I am a bit bothered by the site. (In Firefox, anyway...) There are elements of the design that seem to change randomly, and I can occasionally see alt text or something peeking out under the navigation.

For more information on The Bahamas identity and Duffy Design's redesign, there is a small article on Logo Lounge.

Actually the Nordstrom logo was designed by Girvin, not Leonhardt. And Leonhardt doesn't own Fitch. Ted sold The Leonhardt Group to Lighthouse Holdings, which sold it, along with all the "Fitch" branded companies, to Cordiant Communications. Cordiant then sold them all to WPP at the end of last year.