Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Brand Envy Run Amok


Just Undo It!
Nike's humble beginnings began in Oregon as Blue Ribbon Sports, basically operating as a distributor for a Japanese shoemaker. In 1971 it was preparing for it's own line to be launched, these would be the shoes that would bear the swoosh for the first time. The logo/trademark was later registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in January 1974.

In 1978, the company officially became Nike, Inc.



It was not until 1988 that their agency Wieden+Kennedy launched the slogan "Just Do It."  Oddly, Dan Wieden says his inspiration for the slogan came from Gary Gilmore, who reportedly said this as his last words before his execution by firing squad in 1977. Clearly Dan Wieden was cognizant of one fact: you can’t get sued by a dead man.



By 1980, Nike was dominant, with 50% of the athletic shoe market. Their growth in the 80s was meteoric, as they expanded into all sports and also began acquiring other apparel and footwear interests including, Cole Haan, Bauer Hockey, Hurley and Converse. Its brand and its swoosh became synonymous with cool success; synonymous with Tiger, with Jordan, with all athletic excellence, and more importantly, synonymous with global brand success and financial success.

Nike was the company with the golden touch. And everyone wanted in on the action. Everyone wanted the success that they had. Everyone wanted that cool factor.

So, what was the easiest way to associate one’s company with the new, the hip, the cool? Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, almost every company, large and small began using a swoosh variation in their brand, or simply adding it to an already existing identity.

Some of the adopters were already successful companies










...some were regional small fry, with nothing to lose.

 


 

 


In the end, these other, often half-assed iterations of the swoosh polluted the branding world like a virus. And the ubiquitous presence of this second-hand crap was not pretty. I even had clients of my own pushing me to incorporate likenesses of it into branding components I was working on. Everyone wanted it.





The inevitable cruel irony: 
In 1971 a graphic design student at Portland State University named Carolyn Davidson, was asked to do some work for the original Blue Ribbon Sports. She designed the swoosh. Phil Knight, one of the founding partners, didn’t even really like it. He was forced to make a choice to meet a production deadline, reportedly stating: “I don’t love it, but it will grow on me.” If only he realized how prophetic that statement was.
Carolyn Davidson was paid $35.

In 1983, following their IPO, Knight made good, giving Davidson a diamond ring engraved with the swoosh and an envelope containing an undisclosed amount of Nike shares.


 ____________________


This shape, this concept, lived long before 1971. Most publicly, in the brand world, as an icon for Newport cigarettes starting in 1957.

















Thursday, September 26, 2013

This Week's Crap On the Street Award



The Golden Deuce 

goes to...

SVA


For this improbable promotional poster for the School of Visual Arts (yes, an ART school), as seen in a city subway station. I am not sure what it means, or what it is intended to do, other than creep people out.


Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Yahoo Indeed!



Nothing to Shout About



Apparently Yahoo CMO Kathy Savitt and CEO Marissa Mayer believe the best rebranding strategy is an in-house, throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks approach.

And the idea of polling the public for votes on the different designs is as stupid as the idea of letting the designs be done internally. Let's just call this the 'American Idol Approach.' Marketing peeps feel this 'engagement' creates buzz. But the public are not arbiters of good design.

And in the ramp up to the 'big reveal' they let virtually every runner-up design have its one 'day in the sun' to create momentum, in what ended up being a font parade of blah.

If the idea was to make the winning design look great by comparison to the multitude of losers, this was a 'brand fail' from the get-go.


Here are some of the runners up...






















Drum roll please.

And the winning logo is...


Yep. And when you log on to Yahoo! the logo has a cute and tiny animation whereby the exclamation mark gestures or does a little dance. Whoo hoo Yahoo! — an effect wasted at such a small scale.




That's it? Really?
Yep. That's what we waited 30 days for.





Friday, September 13, 2013

Rocky Mtn "Are You High?"


Just the Tip





Earlier this month Colorado launched it's new brand. Why they needed a brand is not known. Other than the fact that others have done it (and why not?). An investment of nearly a million dollars netted a staid and boring icon and a tagline.


The new brand has not been well received by the state's residents so far. But the state's CMO is hopeful and expects people to come around in 6 months to 3 years after they get used to "seeing it on things," as the state prepares to brand products made in Colorado with the new logo and integrate it into tourism advertising.




Some comments were that it "looked like a street sign." Perhaps they should have used yellow instead of green, which after all is the color "owned" by the state of Vermont, in a way. Maybe it will be mistaken as a 'Danger: COBALT' sign, given that Co is the symbol for that element.









Inspiration?
Perhaps one of the most heinous state brands ever is the now ubiquitous and eternally co-opted Milton Glaser piece of 70s crap: The <I Love(Heart) NY> logo.

Replete with the gaudy (even then) American Typewriter Bold, this little turd can be bought on any object or article of clothing in every damn souvenir shop in New York City and beyond. It has even found it's way into the broader lingua fraca with often feeble results. e.g. Why is the company called 'iHeartRadio' when it is meant to say: iLoveRadio. [message and usage lost]




Uncle Miltie revised this bastard child after 9/11/2001 when he felt compelled to comment (and capitalize) on the lives of hundreds to sell t-shirts to the bereft and mourning (I don't care where the money went: bad idea). Clever little smudge there. Genius!







The CO triangle both benefits and suffers for it's own simplicity. I am attracted to and respect it's pared down economy, and yet am disappointed with it's dry utilitarianism.

It essentially looks like the tip of a pencil more than a mountain top.










Monday, September 2, 2013

Rain Delay

U.S. Open: The Brand
Some years ago, in the modern/Open era, the U.S. Open ball/flame logo was introduced. It was a refreshing, very hip, almost prescient, tattoo approach to a 'ball in motion' graphic. It was successful in its absence of extraneous, precious detail (even eliminating the periods after U and S). This logo/icon lockup held up solidly in may sizes and applications. 




Then at some point in the modern, Nike era, (that being the dark times in branded America when the Nike swoosh became the hip-vernacular graphic) the swoosh began to make its ubiquitous appearance as an attachment/add-on to many existing brands (this the subject of a later, more detailed post).

So, yes, the US OPEN too, just couldn't help themselves, tacking on a swoosh/half oval that wrapped around the right side of what was an already pleasingly balanced brand. (below)



To add insult to injury, other elements were added in the absence and violation of any clear space criteria, often with a multitude of fonts, making matters worse for the clutter.



Because the swoosh tail is thinner, and it is connected to and running into the ball, the implication is that it is the trail of the ball as it zoomed up from that thinner arc. But if that were the case the arc would be on the flame side...




The more the merrier...

Perhaps the worst offense to the original, core brand element, was the insertion of a flag motif into the flame, eroding it's look/feel and, especially on a white background, negating the flame shape entirely. It begins to look like a New England Patriots logo that exploded. When will they learn: it is best to leave well enough alone?