Paul Rand Swooshed Under the Rug

Overheard this evening in a chatroom:

me: what do you think of the new UPS logo?
S. Geerlings: eek!
S. Geerlings: my stomache hurts
S. Geerlings: i feel like that is more suitable to be put on a
S. Geerlings: package of stomache-aching medicine
S. Geerlings: UPeptoS™

I'm going to be heretical and say that I actually prefer the new logo, even though it stinks. I've decided this is because a) I always thought Judge Dredd was a great comic, and b) I've come to associate Paul Rand's tidy little package with the shit brown service of UPS and the recurrent phrase in my head 'Why didn't the person who wanted me to receive this important package last week use FedEx?'

Is it just me or does the brown shape sort of look like Gumby™ with a sharp chin?

I like it, but it reminds me of seed corn or ethanol or something. Not UPS.

i think, this is not FF DAX, or modified.
see the lc »s«.

I think you’re right. My guess is that it’s modified. Looking at the text on the UPS site, a lot of the glyphs are the same, but there are some differences (s, e, g). It could be a customized version of Dax. It’s at least in the same idiom.

I didn't like it at first, either, but it's grown on me as certainly being more appropriate for the times. The colors/contrast seem to be the weak point, but working with brown is never easy.

I guess one (minor) issue with the old logo was that UPS no longer accepts packages tied with string.

Here's a Studio 360 interview (see "Design for the Real World") with Pentagram's Michael Bierut. He speaks about his experiences when Pentagram was asked to look at the UPS logo and think about how it could be improved.

Is the little "highlight embellishment" right above the "U" really necessary? That says to me, "Lookee here, we got some spiffy graphics programs!"

The great thing about the old logo is that it seems like it transfers to _any_ medium (letterhead, online, trucks, brown shirts, etc). How's that little highlight (or the subtle bevels, for that matter) going to transfer? Or is this a "modded up" logo for show-off purposes only?

It looks to me like they got what they paid for: a modern logo that accompanies a modern identity. All hail vector-based gradients, and the Swoosh.

I don't dislike the old one necessarily, but competitors like FedEx, for example, have had a fresher look for some time now. I guess somebody at UPSwoosh had spare cash lying around, 'cause they bought and absorbed Mailboxes Etc. on top of that. And their logo looked like AT&T meets IBM.

The bow on the old logo nowadays suggests gifts, not parcels, so the logo needed changing.

Neither logo is great - any symbol that uses a basic solid shape (rectangle, circle, shield, etc.) ends up looking too similar to all the other logos that use the same shape.

As much as I don't idolise Paul Rand, it is sad to see the 'update' of the UPS logo, because it changes something timeless - or at least representative of High Modernism - into something contemporary, and I'm not sure if that is such a good idea. It's like painting new haircuts and clothing onto the Old Masters. (Mona Lisa with a "Friends" do and a Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirt?)

I just think that if it ain't broke, don't break it.

And you know that the bulk of the design budget went to the rationalisation for the design. And to the ever-so-catchy "Synchronizing The World of Commerce", a phraselet that is rife with internal problems. (It'll need to be 'Synchronising' in the UK and Canada, and why is 'The' capped, but 'of' not?)

And as far as the highlight goes: It's so last month... In fact, it already looks dated, now that it's April.

Change is good, but not change for the sake of change.

The old one was stale, but it reminds us of a time when quirkiness and personality were still allowed into the world of commerce. The new one expresses absolutely nothing, and quite well. It's the perfect emblem of this age.

Joe

It's Dax and it's modified.

The tag line ('synchronizing'; doesn't that sound horribly dot-comlike?) has a custom g which seems to come straight out of Meta.

Which to me only contributes to the last-monthness, no, 3-years-agoness of the identity.

OK, I made a double-post - sorry. But you didn't have to delete both of them...

hhp

The old one always reminded me of a face, and the package was like a hat with a little bow in front. It said "straitlaced efficient guys in uniforms delivering stuff."

The new one reminds me of a kid with the haircut I had in my skateboarding days. Coupled with the brass-badge look, it gives off a strange mix of incompetence and official self-importance.

Sorry Hranter. I tried to delete your duplicate and the comment hijacked the entire entry. It's as if the ghost of your comment was haunting us. Now the intro to the article is missing. We're trying to fix the issue now.

> haunting

"If you kill me, I will become more powerful than you could ever imagine".
;-)

hhp

And to the ever-so-catchy “Synchronizing The World of Commerce”, a phraselet that is rife with internal problems.

And let's not forget, "What can brown do for you?" Ugh. They're goint to take such a beating on that one.

Anybody know what's going on with their homepage? It's been completely changed since I saw it last(when this came up at SpeakUp), and that was only maybe two weeks ago?

'of' should never be capped. 'The' is capped because it's 'The World,' and I guess it seems proper to cap it. That's what I would say. They might say something different.

I agree that if it ain't broke, don't break it. I don't think the update is bad to look at, but the original logo is classic and recognized worldwide. On the other hand, this will make people look twice. Looking twice is thinking about UPS. Thinking about UPS is what they want.

It's not a bad corporate move, designers are the only people who make it an issue anyway.

i don't mind the new indentity. but they're using this really strange tagline now, something about "the power of brown." yick.

I've got your power of brown right here, buddy.

> designers are the only people who make it an issue anyway.

Conciously, yes. But good design is about the user's subconscious [too].

hhp

While not being particularly partial to either logo, I think that the logo did need an update as well. The new one still carries the initial over-all shape set down by Rand. I find Dax to be no more or less engaging than the original's face.

Regarding the swoosh, I think something else (more creative) could have been done. The string HAD to go. Really, when was the last time any of us have seen a package wrapped with string?

And here is a simple suggestion. Instead of us all continuing a popintless discussion (we are not going to change UPS's logo) why don't we all have a go at re-designing it? Just for fun? And post them all somewhere and be our own worst critics? Sound good? Anyone up for it?

You're welcome to post images here using <img src="http://yourhost.com/image.gif"> tags, provided they are smaller than 350x350 pixels.

The new logo only communicates something about what UPS does by association with its predecessor; therefore it really puts the "brown" on brown.

>more appropriate for the times

yeah, i guess the times are all about what colin said to start with: focus group mush that no one can be held accountable for. surface sheen with nothing to back it up. the logo is very 21st century in those respects. and amen to what chester said.

Last time I checked, Paul Rand was dead.

Indeed, Paul Rand passed away a few years back. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, a composer of music, is also dead, having passed from this plane hundreds of years ago. Since his demise Mozart's music has fallen into obscurity, and has not been performed or recorded in modern times.

Cheekily,
c

The comments regarding Rand's logo being out-of-date are dead on: it is indeed a bit too kitschy to look at, and the bow no longer has relevance. I think its main failing, at least from a logo design standpoint, is that it is a logo incorporating direct representation of an object involved in the service which UPS provides.

On one hand, we can't knock Rand for putting that bow on there, because it is indeed damn difficult to provide a minimalist represenation of a package without a bow. One would have to ad far too much additional detail to make it clear that the rectangle is supposed to be a package, and that would negate one of the key ideas in logo design -an easily-recognizable visual component that can be reproduced at many sizes and still work.

We can, however, look at other things he's done and admit they were done way better. The type is more than passable.

The trouble with the new logo is that it fails to establish an entirely new identity for them. The shield-shaped element has been maintained, slightly modified, and the type, while different, is positioned similarly to the type on the old logo, and to the careless eye of the public, it will probably look the same (though to my eye, the space between the "u" and "p" is irksome; the curves of the "p" are downright unsightly).

The gradient clearly serves no purpose, but then gradients hardly ever do. I'd almost wager that those responsible probably incorporate gradients into their work almost reflexively, much like a kleptomaniac will pocket things at a grocery or a nymphomaniac will engage in sex acts every time the opportunity arises. Just another example of why schools offering design programs need balanced teaching staffs comprised of crusty, highly formal geezers and less bitter individuals who stress the fact that the word "rules" is still incorporated into the phrase "bending the rules".

Or, you know, just get all the clueless youths still wanting to get in on the "hot, ever-expanding world of design" hooked on hard drugs at an earlier age so they OD before they're able to apply to said schools.

Interesting that Nick believes nymphomanics don't exercise choice...

I needed an third instance of compulsive behavior which would be well-known enough to work into my complaint about the overabundance of gradients turning up in logos and other things which should not feature gradients in most instances. I figured that this justified using the term in an extreme way, and that perhaps exaggeration would help to drive the point home...maybe even generate some further discussion about how this new UPS logo is a great example of how so many design firms/groups/etc. don't seem to grasp the fundamental ideas behind logo design and basic typography, or at least opt not to exercise the knowledge of said subjects.

So. If you must be a stickler, let me go back and say that, much like the crop of designers described above, nymphomaniacs are probably aware of the respective situation, and the choice in exercising that knowledge is at their discretion. The difference is that at least someone besides the nymphomaniac gets to benefit from the results of that choice.

Neither logo is appropriate. Instead, it should be a picture of boxes impaled by a forklift. A few years ago when I was working for MindSpring, we received a shipment of brand new 19" Sun monitors with BNC component inputs, silly cables and all, which one of their mullet-crested apes had chosen to lovingly harpoon. Fuck-o's.

DO NOT hire UPS to ship anything other than marshmallows. Take a look at FedEx Ground instead.

It's a sad, sad day.

Yeah, when I had my computer shipped via UPS to Barcelona (many years ago), the monitor got there smashed. They should have paid the insurance coverage on it, but they refused. They were lucky I was in a good mood in the early 90s, otherwise I would've gone Bin Laden on their asses.

hhp

From a branding standpoint, I am very sorry for the transition. I am not saying that the transition for UPS’s branding scope is not a blessed thing. My point is that the new transition is going to bring more confusion to the mass audiences. Especially, the new color components attached in their new print and web entities are the resource of the confusion.

The reason for Paul use brown as primary color for UPS’s brand is because he is trying to set up a image for UPS as a company with tradition, discipline, and the passion to save cost for their clients. The reason for me to saying that is because brown is a dark tone color. So it’s easier to maintain and more stable. You may image how much water UPS used for cleaning more than 88,000 vehicles, 257 large jet aircraft, 1,700 facilities around the world? The idea to use brown is very cost-savvy idea to maintain the stability of color identity in the long run.

If new colors are gonna to add into UPS’s branding family…Would they stand for reasons as the way Fedex’s color code system successfully applied? If UPS uses so many colors just for the sake to be a “colorized” competitor for Fedex and DHL, it would bring up very much confusion in the future. "UPS is a vastly different company today than most people realize," said UPS Chairman and CEO Mike Eskew. However, will new UPS’s investors, clients and employees accept a company brought so much confusion to them? "Synchronizing the World of Commerce" is not necessary to synchronize these meaningless colors. UPS, where are you?

Peretz Rosenbaum (Paul Rand) designed the IBM logo in, I believe, 1961.

I think they deserve a makeover if they like without criticism. The Rand logo is dated, let's face it and it got over 40 years of use.

As a creative at an ad agency who worked for a market research company for 25 years, I can tell you that nothing is scarier for a company than changing a logo or packaging. I know
they paid us very well to test various logos and packaging before making a change. Typically, they won't put so much as a sticker on a package for fear that they'll lose brand loyalty.

In any case, the Paul Rand UPS logo is nice. Less is always more, but the world keeps spinning and UPS wants to change their image. As a designer, I try to always remember my years
in research and repeat over and over "form + function." The design needed a makeover, it made UPS look antiquated and out of time.

The new logo may not be great, but it's modern, which I'm sure was their goal. I would bet anyone they did a ton of focus groups and market research on the public before they went with this particular logo. Try to remember, not everyone is a designer and things do get tired.

This is a good discussion!

FWIW, my take on the new logo is that it should belong to a private security firm, like the Unwashed Protection Service or the Unknown Potential Suffragettes.

In our town two shops still tie packages just like Rand drew, with string around white rectangular cardboard boxes (a cake shop and a fabric store). They have more business than they can reasonably handle.

The new logo reminds me of an article in The Onion almost 3 years ago ( http://www.theonion.com/onion3634/graphic_designer.html ) Seems the creators of this logo got carried away with the idea of using 3-D and the wood texture map (gradient?)

The way the 3-D and texture/gradient was handled actually make this logo look dated... not as dated as Rand but it still looks very 90's pre dot bomb IMO.

Ironic but you can't even notice that texture/gradient on the UPS website.

Upon closer inspection of the new logo and thinking about what I would do with it as a designer, surely I wouldn't use a gradient or any kind of beveling or 3D effect. Not in 2003.

However, as I remember from design school a logo should communicate a message, firstly and most importantly. So if we're talking about function, I do think this logo does communicate two things quite well and at first glance, one is speed (which I'm sure was the primary goal) and two is "more modern" (which I would imagine to be the secondary goal).

So, I can't fault it for doing what it's supposed to do. Could it be better. Yeah, maybe just lose the silly photoshop effects.

One thing I am sure of is UPS's motto should be "Ring The Bell And Run" because that's what my drivers do to me.

What does a shield have anything at all to do with shipping stuff? Does UPS protect its customers from middle-eastern-looking anthrax?

hhp

I believe it has to do with heraldry.

I figured. So do they have a motto too? "Brunatre, a yu a pee an ess or, swoosh or chief dexter"? But wait, brown is not a legal heraldic color (except in Germany)... Off with their heads!

Seriously, how recognizable (and how desirable) is this feedle reference to chivalry? Does the UPS guy/gal symbolize a jouster, where the freeways are the parcourse? More like a jester...

BTW, doesn't Wells Fargo have a strangle- hold on the quaint transportation metaphor?

hhp

Just a comment on the the high drama here. To quote Chester, "It's like painting new haircuts and clothing onto the Old Masters. (Mona Lisa with a "Friends" do and a Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirt?)
I just think that if it ain't broke, don't break it."

Firstly I don't think anyone's logo is in the same class as the Mona Lisa. Secondly, no one destroyed Paul Rand's logo. It still exists, it's not wearing a Tommy Hilfiger shirt. It will always exist. UPS just doesn't want to use it anymore. The logo stands, it's just not used by UPS. No one vilified it, spray painted it or destroyed it. It's just retired.

Secondly, I do think a lot of people have had some fun messing with the Mona Lisa which is fine. They haven't touched the genuine Mona Lisa. Paul Rand's logo being retired is not the equivalent of vandals destroying the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with graffiti which would be a real tragedy. Just because UPS doesn't want to use Paul Rand's logo, it's really not the end of the world. We can all see it anytime we like. Just not on UPS gear.

Also, I believe you should do a google search for Baby Mozart and do some research and you will obviously be very surprised to learn that Mozart's music is probably more alive and well than it's ever been. Research has found that children who listen to Mozart's music have higher IQ's, learn more. There is a whole movement that encourages parents to play (newly recorded) Mozart music for infants and toddlers. There are videos, it's an industry. I can also tell you that as a long time piano student, I've been required to toil over Mozart's work endlessly. It's not dead. It's more alive than it's ever been. My kids have blocks that play Mozart no matter how they are placed in their holders, many variations.

Just a little reality I thought I'd inject.

Yes.
But.
The point of the pudding is in the eating, no?
A visual identity's raison d'être is in the using (of it).
And aren't 'retired' logotypes as graceful as 'retired' boxers?

love,
ƒ

Mr MacNamera,
perhaps you didn't realise that my comments about Mozart were meant to be, as our president would say, ironicalistic.

Ironicalistically yours,
c

PS; Piano concerti 20 & 21, as played by Patrick Cohen with the Ensemble Baroque de Limoges, Christophe Coin directing... That's the business.

Chester, call me Willy. Your post was funny. It made me laugh. I have the George W. Bush talking doll (it was gift). He says "It's my first presindentiary." You know what I love about Mozart the most? It's the hidden "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" that you find every now and then. His music is truly beautiful and I say that with the greatest reverence. Even among all the great composers, I find his work to be the most ageless, timeless, music I know. The Beatles sound more dated to me.

Speaking of dated, I want to take back everything I've said so far (maybe not everything)....I saw a UPS truck today and probably for the first time, I really looked at it. And the first thing that caught my eye was the big gold Paul Rand logo. And I sat in my car and thought, that is perfect. There couldn't be anything more perfect than that logo on that truck.

So, I'm an idiot and now everyone knows that including me! In all honesty, I do think the logo looks dated on paper and on screen unto itself. But I have to admit, it still holds up better than anything I could come up with on the trucks, where it belongs. UPS should do a few more focus groups before they rush off and paint the trucks.

Love the funny stuff Chester, and our president just keeps giving us the ammo. Oh yeah, Chester, you should listen to the Baby Mozart stuff....It's played with a lot of bells and things because it's for babies and it makes you happy just to hear it. Give it a listen if you get a chance.

All the best,

Willy

Willy,
I'm glad you found the post amusing, and that you received it as it was delivered.

And it's interesting to hear about your UPS-epiphany. Personally, the one thing I feel is missing from the new UPS logo is a reason: the addition of the swoosh and the highlight, and the change of type serve no purpose, and have no reason other than to "freshen-up" the identity. Whether or not one likes Paul Rand's work, you have to admit that his modernism was pure and a lot of what he did was simply right.

I seem to recall hearing about the Mozart on toys project, and even hearing snippets, which I enjoyed. There's an example of material that can survive just about any treatment: the music is so strong that it's really hard to kill.

Best regards,
c

I have my reservations about Mozart on bells and whistles. But hey, whatever. Still, if one wants toys and such, why not Daddy Leopold’s Toy Symphony? (Or is it only Wolfgang Mozart that makes you smarter?) And then there’s always Wolfie’s composition for mechanical clock (K608).

But I digress . . .

— K.

Kent,
it's diversion that makes life worth living. And online forums worth visiting.

Your question about the educational effects of Mozarts is very interesting. I personally wonder if any research has been done into the effects of the Bach family on early childhood development. Does baroque music make children more mathematically-inclined? Does exposure to Stravinsky at an early age make children good dancers? Does exposure to Messiaen result in particularly pious tots? Does early exposure to Scriabin result in life-long personality disorders?

In a typographic vein of this mine: I once asked a British designer whose work often uses Gill Sans why it was that Gill Sans was so prevalent in the UK - this was in 1994; little has changed in the intervening years. He told me that a lot of the books he had as a child were set in Gill Sans, and maybe that had something to do with it, although he had never really given it any thought.

Best,
c

Interesting comments. I'm not sure why the study was done on the music of Mozart or if it was just accidental and the research grew from that. Having been in market research for years and years one thing I know for sure is research will always, in the end, go in the direction that whoever pays for it wants it to.

That's the thing that really annoyed me about the business. We all know statistics and be played with, questions can be leading, etc. etc. etc. You all know what I mean. It's hell on the creatives though. They hated us and all we stood for. That's how I got into design. I was sort of the liason between the research and the Creative Teams at the biggest ad agencies in New York. Obviously I identified more with them and had a lot of advertising experience. It's funny, it seems like everything in life happens while you're aiming for something else.

Love the Gill Sans story Chester. Who was it that said "Give me a child till the time he's nine...."

wills

Just for those interested, I know this is probably not relevant to this board, but it came up. I did some research on the "Mozart Effect" as it is known.

A snippet of what I found is "The researchers believe that listening to Mozart's music, with its complex patterns of evolving musical themes, somehow primes some of the same neural circuits that the brain employs for complex visual-spatial tasks. They base their ideas on a "neural network" theory of music perception developed in 1990 by Gordon Shaw and Xiaodan Leng of UC Irvine and Eric Wright of the Irvine Conservatory
of Music."

So apparently from what I could find, it's not just any music, it's Mozart's music. Take it with a grain of salt. If it interests you, you can research conflicting theories all over the web.

Will

sorry to beat a dead horse, but i just came across this article where susan kare (designer of the original mac and windows icons) talks about why the old UPS logo is timeless and iconic.

You know, I already thought of Kare as too Northern California, but that sweater-over-the-shoulders takes it to a new level.

hhp

Anyone notice that the new UPS splash page (http://www.ups.com) appears lifted from Sapient's current site (http://www.sapient.com) in terms of structure and graphic intent?

>why the old UPS logo is timeless and iconic.

"Timeless" is not a virtue. Design should be of its own time and place.

Mr Shinn,
I'm a little surprised to hear that you eschew timelessness. As a type designer, surely timelessness would be something you wished for your own work. Garamond is timeless; Babyteeth is not. Mozart (yes, him again) is timeless, Milli Vanilli is not.

"Girl you know it's true / Oooh oooh ooh / I love you"
c

Maybe Nick was trying to say something I that feel myself: timelessness doesn't really exist - and anything that shoots for it makes itself worse. The best type is "context-sensitive". Beware those who preach a utopian universality: they're either dangerously naive, or thieves.

Garamond for example isn't timeless. For I think two hundreds years or so printers wouldn't touch it with a composing stick (which much shorter than 10 foot pole). On the other hand, it was* and now again is very successful, and one could think that in fact it wouldn't have been if old Claude had tried to make it timeless.

* Although one has to note that Claude Garamond died poor.

hhp

Indeed, timelessness isn't something one puts on one's design brief. It is a label bestowed by later generations. Any great work of art or craft is timeless because it transcends the time and place of its creation. Which is not something that the artist / crafty-type can set out to do, but she can make decisions about formal language to "de-specify" the design elements.
Hard for me to explain...
c

Hi,

I'd simply say that Paul Rand's logo is so great just because it shows what it tells – the classic 1+1=3. It is the same that could be read out of the IBM logo, with its "screen-lines". maybe I am way off the track here, but that is my translation. And I can't translate the new logo into… almost anything. The closest I get is that the dark brown is a road, disappering in the horizon. And the road is probably made out of wood, judging from the tree-like material of the shield.

The old one is clearly ideomatic (?), the new one plain surface.

Best wishes
Pelle

(Excuse my english – I'm just a swede:)

What's even more interesting is that they switched from an ® to ?

Actually, I do believe that some things are timeless and hopefully they will stay that way and that it is a virtue. I always knew as a designer and especially a type designer that type design is fashion. It goes in and out of style. Mostly out of style very quickly, in the case of a lot of display fonts, by the time they've become popular enough for the designer to have reaped ten cents from them, their 15 minutes of fame is over and the typeface is tired and dated and out of fashion.

However, I could probably come up with a list of things that are timeless and I would consider that to be a virtue in their case. One thing Chester pointed out in a previous post, The Mona Lisa. It is timeless...it will forever be a great work of art. Michaelangelo's David has proved the test of time. I might even go so far to say that Emigre's Suburban, a brilliant design, overused and all that it is, will probably stand the test of time for it's pure individuality. I don't know a type designer who wouldn't kill to have designed that typeface.

I could go on and on, and as much of a consumer as I am (I want a new computer every year because my is outdated, a new TV, etc.), and I firmly believe that "new" = "better" in most cases, I treasure the rare gems that are truly timeless. I hope my Pumas are timeless because I hate wearing anything else. May they be cool forever. And if they're not, may they be cool in their uncoolness.

Wills

Oh yeah....let's dig up Vincent Van Gogh and whisper in his good ear that his work, so unappreciated, is timeless and priceless in this century. I think he, who sold one painting in his lifetime would be very surprised. So, basically, he wasn't aiming for timelessness, he just wanted to paint, make a living at it, and probably be a little bit more sane. So when we talk about timelessness, it's not something you aim for, it happens accidentally on the rare occasion that someone creates something so beautiful that generations of people recognize its beauty.

Aiming for timelessness is probably the equivalent of aiming for coolness, in which the end result is always a pretentious poser.

Just my 2 bucks. (Even the cent isn't timeless).

willy

Aiming for timelessness, as opposed to something that's desperate to make a striking first impression is, if nothing else, good economy.

How long did Paul Rand's last? How long will this new atrocity stand time?

You KNOW it makes sense. Please.

Timeless:

Pardon my Marxism, but the issue is flesh and blood economics, not some abstract ideal of aesthetic value.

At the moment, a lot of typographers are using old sans serifs, such as Helvetica (marketed as "timeless and neutral" as if that were a virtue!). Why aren't they using the work of present day type designers?

If our culture has criteria that considers the work of people in another country, or another time, to be more appropriate than the work we are doing here and now, screw that. Let's not bury the past, but let's not be buried by it.

Perhaps there is some merit in the longevity of corporate logos, but not for typefaces.

Chester, I don't think that timelessness is something that can be designed into a typeface; for the designer to wish for it is a vanity. On the musical analogy - Aaron Copeland in the 1920s, being a classical composer in the US when orchestras wouldn't play contemporary work.

Typefaces are not like music in this respect - the timeless faces (e.g. Garamond) transform at some stage into archetypes in the social consciousness, whereas Mozart's compositions will

hmmmmmm.....lots of food for thought on this subject. Typefaces, logos, probably all of graphic design comes down to just about what every thing in the world does: it's fashion. And when it's fashionable it's great. And we all know how long fashion lasts. Timelessness as a concept is probably always an accident.

Having said that, add to it the mystery of the creative process, which either comes or doesn't. Personally, I don't believe in "forcing" design. I try to let design flow through me. If I'm lucky enough to get a good idea, I don't think about forcing it into fashion or trendiness. I go so far as to keep my head out of it and let my hands and my Mac bring the idea to life.

One of two things usually happens, it's either great or horrible and goes straight into trash. Modern typefaces are great. There are so many that are so great and I do think designers should take the chance and not go with the safe typefaces and use them when appropriate. At the same time though, I do think that like classic works of art, some typefaces have managed to stand the test of time and nothing could be better. When someone is using a text face for a book, they want a classic typeface that is somewhat generic and safe and won't be dated in ten or twenty or thirty years. Is that possible. I think yes. I think some safe typefaces that won't ever be dated are Palatino which is beautiful and always will be, Garamond, we can all name a lot of them.

Someone asked me to design a typeface for the text in a book. I said I'd love to but I could never outdo Palatino. Set the book in that typeface. And I really believe that. When I look at a lot of modern text faces, they are certainly derivative of many classic typefaces, but they're just don't have that timeless quality. I don't know. I could be wrong. I have been before. I just know that the world keeps spinning and it seems that sometimes classic is better for certain applications because it is timeless. That's not to say I wouldn't have loved to have designed the Pet Rock and have become a millionaire from it. That would be nice too. But I'd rather have my legacy be the author of "The Catcher in the Rye," a timeless piece of literature.

Once again, I don't know but I like the discussion and the various opinions.

Quick nitpick:
Zapf didn't intend Palatino as a full-on text face. His Aldus is supposed to fill that role. But the fact that it wasn't included in laser printers means few people even know it exists.

hhp

Palatino/Aldus.

The collections of free fonts that come with printers, browsers etc., have always underestimated the public.

Wouldn't it have been great if the Laserwriter had originally come with both Palatino and Aldus - introducing the concept of text and display faces to the masses. How hard would that be to grasp?, [interrocomma] we are constantly reminded how important size is.

Or if the Core Web Fonts included a light weight sans.

> we are constantly reminded how important size is.

Who are "we", and by whom are "we" reminded, exactly?

hhp

"we": also "one" (is constantly reminded). Everyone who has a computer and does typesetting on it, not just design professionals. The mass media does the reminding.

What I'm saying is that the selection of free fonts everyone with a computer gets is needlessly one-dimensional. Copperplate Gothic would be a very useful font for the kind of "job work" that non-designers do.

?
You were effectively saying that people are always reminding other people that visual scale in type is important (right?). What I'm trying to say is that both the "people"s in that idea are a subset of type designers! Nobody tells any type user any such thing almost ever (unfortunately).

hhp

No, I mean all the people, not just in the type and graphics business.

Everyone with a computer is a typesetter.
But the multitude of free fonts they get to work with have all the variety in typeface, but none in style, which is limited to the basic roman and italic, upper and lower case. There is some variety in weights, particularly at the heavy end (Impact, Arial)

The expert sets are missing. Concepts such as true display, true small caps, and old style figures (with the exception of Georgia and Skia) are not there.

None of the OS X system fonts, for instance, have families that include expert sets. (There is the clunky Capitals, and Copperplate Gothic).

So what I'm saying is, and apologies for straying so far from Paul Rand, that non-professional typesetters are familiar with aesthetic parameters such as the effect of size. When an amateur does a poster for a garage sale or lost dog, they have a big headline which they juice up by using extra bold, a zany face or applying some wack candy effect.

Wouldn't it be great if the masses had ready access to expert fonts?! Sure there would be "inappropriate" uses, but we're on that road already.

> non-professional typesetters are familiar with aesthetic parameters such as the effect of size.

Well, to me the effect(s) of size are much more technical than aesthetic, and that's exactly where laymen don't know much*, and neither do most designers.

* And they shouldn't need to. The problem is, they think they already know everything.

hhp

There is a difference between shinola and this new logo and I'm surprised so many agree that this new logo is more successful than the Rand design or that it was necessary at all. It reeks of web design and all its beveled glory.

It's not that fine a line between stale and classic design. What's next to go, the IBM logo?

UPS delivers packages. Their new logo does not deliver anything. This should have been a rework, not a completely new design. The new logo looks like it could have come from a clip art book included with FreeHand, or dare I say CorelDraw. There is nothing unique about it, and it is not memorable. As a logo, it fails in my book.

I would love to have a look at the design brief and the strategic summary for the project. I doubt it made much sense either.

Does anyone know for sure what UPS is planning to do with the new logo? I have a feeling that maybe, just maybe it's for web use only.

There's a brand new UPS store near my house. It just opened yesterday and clear as day on the front window, larger than I've ever seen it is the original Paul Rand logo.

That made me happy and curious. If these are brand new stores and they have a brand new logo, why not set up the store with the new logo? Because maybe they don't intend to? Cool.

Actually, if you've seen the stores, they're sorta very high tech in a lot of ways and UPS didn't cut corners on modernism or anything. It almost (and I do mean almost) was a sleek looking as The Apple Store. So, deductive reasoning says to me, they're only using the "new" logo for digital stuff maybe....

wills

There are pictures on the UPS site of the logo on trucks, stores, etc., and I've seen it live on a truck once. I'd assume relabeling trucks is not a huge priority, but it's odd that a new store wouldn't start off with the new brand.

> why not set up the store with the new logo?

Because large corporations are about as nimble as a bantha on hasheesh?

hhp

There are large "ups store" banners featuring the new logo at stores (2 that I've seen) here in Cambridge, Mass. 2 color printing, gold on dark brown. Looks worse-to-awful than the digital version of the new logo. Haven't seen it on a truck yet.

As I started to type this our UPS guy, Chris - "It's me, it's me, it's C.B. Chrissy baby..." - drove past in his new-logo-ed truck. A few days after the announcement of the new identity, Chris was in his new truck. He said that there was only one truck in his garage with the new logo, and he was the guy who got it. Next time he comes in I'll ask if the logo is spreading. (Like monkeypox.)

The local Mailboxes Etc. has become a UPS Store with the new identity. The signage is temporary still, but Terry and Joanne's uniforms are emblazoned with the SwooshieldTM, so it looks like Rand is out and Interbrand is in. There may be "rand" in "Interbrand", but there's not "Rand" in "Interbrand". (BTW, I used to work for a firm which later sold out to Interbrand. I mention this in the name of full disclosure.)

And while I'm writing...
Could everyone please please stop referring to Modernism as a style? It's only a style to people who apply style in lieu of actually designing. Modernism is a philosophy, and that which we call modernist design is the result of the application of that philosophy to design problems.

Best,
c

Hey, why can't the new and old logo just get along?
Why does a corporate standard have to be so totalitarian?
Maybe UPS will use the old logo on stores that have a more old-fashioned, personal service.

A design system (like the FontShop logo) is cooler.
It's the only way to stay ahead of the game, ie the Swoosherizer filter in the next Photoshop .

I passed the store again tonight and like JNicholas, I saw the new addition of a big ugly banner with the new logo. No gradient but it really looked awful. Yesterday the store looked slick and sleek and today it looks like, I don't even know, I'm out of similes and metaphors to describe it the damage it did to the look of the whole store. It practically screamed out "Cheap Awful Low Class Service" or something.

Then I remembered something from my days before I was a designer. I was a market research analyst and the CEO of our company of course got some letterhead when we started the business. The designer who did our printing sort of did it "on the side" but his work was good and it always looked very professional. Anyway, I remembered the first time I saw the stationery I was so puzzled and disgusted by it, I couldn't believe it had such an effect on me. The CEO wanted a logo, as does everyone I guess.

Well, our logo was literally, and I'm not kidding a Spirograph design....just a round ball of a Spirograph design that any 6 year old could do. I was appalled till the day I left that job. And I knew, even as a non-designer, that a bad logo is much much worse than no logo at all and that a logo needs to instantly express an idea, a thought, the whole meaning really behind a business. It has to convey everything in one small little icon. A difficult job. In fact when I'm asked to design a logo, if I can't make that happen after trying, I decline the request.

So maybe as a word of caution to all companies: no matter the size of your budget, do not be cheap about spending money on your logo. In fact, spend more money on your logo than anything. It defines the company. Maybe UPS doesn't matter really. Everyone knows who they are and what they do and how badly they do it. So they've taken one step up and two steps back with the logo redesign but who will really care in the end? Funny, I started out thinking they needed an update and ended up thinking it was the biggest mistake they could have made. Discussing it here has really made me think and sharing opinions has opened my mind, which is always a good thing. I should hang around here more.

wills

Will,
thanks for your post; It made me happy to know that there are still people out in the world who are not feeling hate and bitterness about design and fellow-designers.

I have noticed a worsening trend of designers slagging off other designers, and picking at others' work. The discussion in this thread has been (for the most part) a different flavour; people have been discussing the relative merits of the UPS logos, old versus new. This is true design criticism: critique the design, not the designer.

Very best,
c

If the UPS logo were a typeface, the present iteration would still be considered Rand's design, a revival.

Right off the bat, the Interbrand work is being described as a "new" logo, which is misleading.

Revising a newspaper nameplate is termed "renovation" or "restoration" (Jim Parkinson first used these terms, I believe).

But it is also called "modernization", which unfortunately, Chester, has two meanings - the strict design meaning, and the popular, just meaning "updating".

The most noble definition of "Modern" I've come across is Paul Renner's (translated by Chris Burke from his biography):

"For the Modern is an idea, an unending task, never to be entirely resolved. We seek it on a narrow ridge, which drops away on one side into thoughtlessly adopted convention and on the other side into the Modish, which is mostly a somewhat foppish exaggeration of the Modern at any one time. The ridge is no comfortable middle way."

Nick,
thanks for the Renner quote. That's a very good thought, and I would say that it could apply for any philosophy of design or of anythign else.

I would say that (David) Carsonism is as much a philosophy of design as Modernism, both pure and well-thought-out to those who understand the philosophy and underlying thought. And both of those design philosphies have been referenced by designers who didn't care about the philosophy and only saw the product, the design, and copied how things looked.

I must disagree with your contention that the new UPS logo is a renovation, restoration, or modernisation. The only thing retained from Rand's logo is the shield outline shape, and that the typography is a lowercase sans.

If we are going to use architectural metaphors I would say that this is a tear-down. The only thing left was the foundation; a brand new building was built on the foundation laid by Rand.

Excuse me, but is this the "This Old House" forum?
c

The shield has been a part of the UPS logo since the 1920s, so Rand himself is guilty of tear-down.

regarding the trend of "slagging off" of other designers and their work: maybe this is more a symptom of a bigger problem.

It seems to me that everyone who's posted on this thread agrees that the new logo is bad. Dont you think that the guy who designed it probably does too? Large design firms will pay a group of freelancers a couple hundred bucks each for a page of logo designs. The freelancers only do the initial pencil comps—all refining is done in house. Its the freelancers job to overturn all the stones, explore all the possibilities, and they're all put up on the wall for the client to see. There's no ownership in any of it. When Paul Rand designed the original symbol, he presented UPS with ONE design. How could the new logo possibly be as good?

Colin,
excuse my error re: the history of the UPS logo. I hope that my metaphor still works.

Let's say that Paul Rand built his UPS logo on the already-laid foundation, and his UPS logo is the Farnsworth House of UPS logos. The Interbrand logo which is built on the same foundation is the McMansion of UPS logos.

Stretching,
c

PS; David, we call the Rand-style presentation the "Here It Is Baby". We do not engage in this activity because we are not Paul Rand...

Of course, I didnt mean to insinutate that designers should only present one comp of a logo to a client, but there ought to be some middle ground. I agree with whoever said clients should invest a lot of money in their logo design, but what should they get for their money? Designers are consultants, and need to be able to advise their clients as to what's good for them. If you cant do this, where is your value? To give a client an endless choice of designs is encouraging the client to remain completely ignorant of what design really is, and devalues the profession.

I think there are a lot of frustrated designers who are forced for economic reasons to do work that isn't as good as it could be (I feel Im one of them). I have to admit, it sure makes my co-workers and I feel better to take a few minutes out of our day to verbally rip apart someone else's horrible logo, brochure, etc....LOL

Just another two cents. I have clients who sort of trust me implicitly because they love my work and give me very little input and are always happy with what they get.

On the other hand, I have clients who just tear apart every piece of design I show them. They ask for a logo and they then say "Can you include the phrase 'Care With Compassion Every Day' with the logo. At which point I say, "No...In good conscience I cannot and will not do that. If you need a billboard you need another designer."

However, as a graphic designer I need to make a living as well and as we all know, in the end, no matter how diplomatic, no matter how strongly WE believe in our designs, we still end up having to defer to the client.

Personally, I find it very frustrating. I always start from belief of "form + function" and I always remember the goal of the type of design I do: to express the goal of the client. Dealing with clients who are not designers can be very frustrating. I sometimes feel like they think that the more words and junk they can clutter up the design with the more they're getting for their money.

I have painted one whole wall of my office with the words: Less Is More, in the hope that my clients will realize at all times who I am, but it doesn't work. Forget it when you have to go up against a whole board of directors and someone comes back to you with 12 opinions from people who know nothing about design or making it work to your advantage. That's when I quit. I have that luxury and I just say, you'll do better with another designer.

Sometimes I'm critical of other people's work, but I realize that economically, they may need that job and do have to defer to their client's wishes. Jeez, I have to put up with this even when I do pro bono work. Then I quit even sooner. As you can probably realize I make lots of money as a designer! It's important to me to the best work I possibly can and not lose myself chasing paper. It's hard too. But I try not to compromise my beliefs because as soon as I do, the day will come when I no longer believe in anything but cash. I make no judgment on designers who do need to take on impossible clients and defer to those clients. I take no joy in seeing a great designer do something way below expectation. There are economic realities and beaurocracies to deal with. At this point, I'm lucky enough not to have to compromise my vision.....not yet....

> we call the Rand-style presentation the "Here It Is Baby". We do not engage in this activity because we are not Paul Rand...

I engage in this activity when I know that the new logo hits the mark squarely. I do it fairly often, and in those cases, clients are generally very happy. Yet, I am not Paul Rand. (I think.)

Kelly

Not really about the UPS logo, but about Paul Rand: I stumbled upon and bought some of his geometry books.

Damn that horrible eclipse thing! I see it on about 8 million failed dot coms! I still draw myself, my clients really like it. Not everybody can draw anymore, it's a shame really, drawing is a kind of meditation.

Tipeografik Ruls:
Rule #1 - There are no rules.
Rule #2 - There may be exceptions to rule #1
Rule #3 - Any rules that are exceptions are made to be broken
Rule #4 - It's all relative. Absolutly and totally.
Rule #5 - Ignore Rule #1

Nat - a current design student, whom notices its only the designers (myself included) who raises issues about things that the "layperson" would not even notice. Or care about.
Who cares anyway? Since when has designing something (say a logo) not been at the end of the day about the money generated from the time spent researching, thumbnailing and generally (and specifically) drawing till ones fingers bleed?

ooo look. An orphan.

Impossible to argue with the dark side of Post-modernism, its facile cynicism.

But there is an antidote. As Noel Coward put it, "rise above".

lol - exactly
all our inaccurate views

have to say the following:
- org/corp identity is not just a logo. it can be color, line, etc. why are we so hung up on this spec like object to be identity exclusively? designers - expand your thinking about what identity can be!
- the string on the package is still relevant. it represents the ultimate thing one can "receive", a gift. so in that sense, it is a feel good motif (why UPS did not capitalize on that but brown instead is very strange - maybe Target beat them to it?)
- Rand wanted to update it but (read the Heller book on Rand as to why it did not happen). I think he mostly wanted to improve the type choice.
- the new design is shit. (I'm being a little like Paul Rand in his honor...) we did not need another swoosh or another shield on this world. the comments about it being of its time and meaninglessness are right on.
- another loss was the change from the great design by Raymond Loewy/William Snaith, Inc. of the Postal Service logo to that swooshing eagle head!

You should check out the other things Future Brand has done.

They have messed up some classics and made some questionable design decisions.

http://www.futurebrand.com

Damn. How droll. Conversing about a express package delivery log.

The new UPS logo scores -20 points.
-10 because it has had "meaning" taken away.
-10 because it bows to trends.
The packet symbol represents, at a glance, what UPS's core activity is. It's meaning is as recognisable in Maine as it is in Jakarta.
When one redesigns a logo many things must be taken into account. In UPS's case "Global Meaning" has been completely wiped out. Very very bad.
I agree things must move on, but not at the expense of meaning.
So, the Rand logo is dated… what exactly does that mean? it's out of fashion? A good idea will always be a good idea, regardless of which style is in or out. Well, now it's just another a fashion logo. I'm sure people, who are used to identifying it, will be initially impressed. But what of the person who sees it for the first time in 7 years time? What will the logo communicate to them? Not as much as the Rand logo, for sure. And it will look dated.
Less is More.
Yeah, but…
Less (meaning) is Moronic.

Dated means people are bored of it.

An idea can be good for a very long time, but a given execution of it less so. The old logo had become too "dainty".

That said, the new one is indeed the pits.

hhp

I absolutely 100% agree with you! I'm doing research on Paul Rand and his UPS logo is one of my favorites of his, not to mention one of my favorites of all time. The simplicity and incorporation of message and identity is remarkable in Rand's UPS logo. I love it. The new one doesn't compare to his early work. I guess the world is changing and modernization in design is unfortunately and fortunately on the train.

HI EVERYONE! anyway i think the old logo needed change... the new one has a more contemporary feel and that is a sign of the times

I think the new UPS logo looks more solid, reliable and cheerful. however i do like the old one for its simplicity and versatility. Hopefully the IBM logo will stay for a long time into the future, easily Paul Rands best work!

I dont like this new logo at all. Is this what logo design has come to? It looks to me like someone with a bit of computer know how got a bit giddy showing off all the various things a graphics program can do.
In the name of design, lets not forget these basic principles we have been taught about design, and not the ones that differenciates a computer nerd to a designer!

Some of you seem to consider the "badness" of this logo to be a particular case of poor design, and others a representative of the state of logo design, corporate communications, or the times more generally.

I'm curious to hear what recent logos (last 5 or so years) people would nominate as more successful or better designed.

To name a few:

BP
Lucent
FedEx
H&R Block

Funnily, all by Landor.

And Citibank by Pentagram.

At core of Paul Rand's logo design philosophy was that people based their reactions to a company's logo on sentimentallity.

I have read and heard criticisms of his logo saying that it was "outdated" and that UPS "doesn't even allow packages with strings to be shipped"...this is silly. The gift is a symbol. It represents what one might want to recieve. It represents a good feeling. Getting a present, it is that simple. The concept was so simple his 10 year old daughter recognized it. Have you ever recieved a wrapped present inside one of the UPS mailers? How are you going to represent documents, contracts, and whatever else gets shipped? You simplify it. Another criticism was that it did not reduce well. That is ludicrous. That stems from a firm being given the logo as an assignment (Pentagram) to rework it so they struggle to find any possible flaws.

The logo was perfect. It is UPS that is having the problems judging from the comments above. Changing their logo is not going to change the perception people have of their company. When I first saw the TV ad I thought they had swiped the National geographic gold rectangle.

Here is an interesting and topical interview with Mr.Rand regarding the FedEx logo and he also recounts what he went through when ABC was considering altering the mark he had designed for them.

http://www.mkgraphic.com/paulrand17.html

I have also read his recollections of being on the "other side" when he was challenged with updating the Ford and American Express marks. (Heller's: Paul Rand and the recent collection Paul Rand: American Modernist) I am not here to sell books but it is interesting to piece together Mr. Rand's perspective based on his previous experience. He was both an "updater" and now the "updated".

"A logo is only as good as the company it represents." - Paul Rand

He was right. (you can include ENRON in the group too)

> The gift is a symbol.

But gifts don't look like that any more.

Nothing is ever perfect, not even for an instant, much less decades.

hhp

>but gifts don't look like that anymore.

I have yet to see a human being that looks like the representation in a crosswalk sign or a hospital that represents the letter "H". These are symbols designed to convey a general concept. Rand's "gift" is no different.

>Nothing is ever perfect, not even for an instant, much less decades.

My standard for perfection in our industry is based on the balance of form and content, the execution of the concept, and the ability to strip away all that is uneccesary leaving a potent and easily recognizable symbol. Mr. Rand's design met all of these criteria.

This does not mean that we have to agree, particularly if you do not feel that perfection is attainable. Mathematically it can be acheived. A perfect circle can be created, but I do not think that was the crux of your argument. So I elaborated on my criteria.

I would also deem the work of Frank Lloyd Wright as perfect.

Armin, do you know what Lucent employees affectionately call their logo? The term has since been adopted by network engineers everywhere...

"devil's asshole"

Or is there a new, more politically correct term for it?

Rather obvious.

Here's another, older, similarly tagged: Flying asshole, checking the "flying wing" planes of the era.

As Rand Paul Said
They didn’t have to, they just used it. I mean if you go to a doctor and he
tells you that you got to use some medicine you don’t tell him:”Well maybe that
other medicine is better…” You don’t do that with a doctor. this is the same thing businesses carry a marketing idea to best sell thier products indeed art and design work is to serve the companies needs. However design work will always be design work. The evolution may be comming and new ideas will arise. The marketing wrold needs to update it`s current material in order to be in business.

I need someone who is willing to video record them selves on their thought about paul rand and his graphic design skills. if you are interested please record and send to Amanda Weeter 607 N 36th Rogers Arkansas 72756 needs to be here no later than March 28th or I can not use it in my presentation.
Thanks,
Amanda

STINKS OF PHOTOSHOP.
I think there´s a better way to make it more "contemporary" instead of use photoshop. I mean, the shadows, volume, glows and stuff like that is seems to me like a formula especially when a logo is not good enough.
And this is an example.

I like what Santiago has to say. I think a logo works best if it's designed to be in solid black. If you can add color, great. But I think using Photoshop tricks takes away from a solid foundation, which is so important in a logo/identity.

The UPS logo was designed in 1961, that was 43 years ago, we see changes on old logos alot more than we used to. Changing Pauls Logo shouldnt have been so dramatic that we lose his insight to the creation.
Change is good, but not in this case the logo could of lost the bow by shrinking it but still using it. I am a Graphic Designer too. What would Paul say?
He always preached one Phrase. Keep it Simple.

Just to dispell the Photoshop myth. The actual logo that is used by UPS is very well done in Illustrator with the mesh tool, making it scalable (same as AT&T's newfound dimensionality). Not that I support it, but I think it should be noted that it is not a Photoshop effect – maybe it was in the beginning, in the first round of comps or something.

I see FedEx has rebranded Kinko’s now too.

Kinda like the new logo. The old one does look dated. The package carefully wrapped with a perfect bow, and the shield, probably representing that UPS will guard your package, take good care of it to its destination, are 2 separate elements, although close to being one. The new logo is one symbol, better, I think. The swoosh reinforces the curve of the shield while also representing a horizon with vanishing point on the right. The highlight is the sun. The top right of the swoosh is also an opposite for the bottom right of the "U". I'm not sure whether I like the bottom right of the U though.

"I like what Santiago has to say. I think a logo works best if it’s designed to be in solid black. If you can add color, great. But I think using Photoshop tricks takes away from a solid foundation, which is so important in a logo/identity."
I think this idea was fine years ago when the important considerations were how the logo looked on a letterhead and on the side of an 18 wheeler. Today the web is what's important.

Naw, web isn't any more important than the letterhead or the 18-wheeler. It's just one environment of many.

Even on the web, the new logo looks gimicky. Plus, the old logo could have been used on the net in many more different ways than the new one--because of its simplicity--I think.

I think the saddest thing is how many comments this topic has inspired. Ok, comparing the virtues of logos as a visual exercise is fine. But really, why do we care so much? That we feel so emotionally attached to the visual marker of a corporation is proof of the danger of branding. Logos are a fiction, however thoughtfully and artfully made. I think corporate branding should be outlawed. Make every corporation set their name in black Univers on white (if they accidentally use helvetica, they get slapped with a significant fine). Then graphic designers will have more time to do something useful to the world.

Maybe its just me, but if I had to design corporate identity for a living, I'd jump from floor 11 of Bobst.

I think corporate branding should be outlawed...

Hmmm, you seem to think you know what's best for people. Let me guess... you're still in school?

Corporations aren't people, despite what everyone seems to think, including the supreme court.

And was that a personal attack? Those are strictly against the guidelines.

And I'm not in school. I'm a freelancer. I'm poor and I only do work that I want to and I don't have a credit card. And its great. Apology for off topicness.

Corporations aren’t people, despite what everyone seems to think,

I never said they were, and obviously your proposal is to protect people from corporations and not the other way round, from which I conclude that you seem to think you know what's best for people, e.g. how to protect their weak little brains from invasion by the evil corporate brainwashing machine that transmits its instructions through branding. These are the kinds of problems I would love to have!

I find the call to "outlaw" something as inert as corporate branding presumptuous at best, and if I expounded further then it probably would be a personal attack. But we don't know each other, you're probably a nice guy.

But I have read these calls for "socially conscious graphic design" for years now, from Emigre magazine to Adbusters and everywhere in between, and such incessant whining really wears me down. Liberal guilt--what a shrill, useless thing. It couldn't power a light bulb.

If you feel you're not giving back enough, go outside and build someone a house, get your hands dirty, accept that you can't make a difference purely in the abstract, and for God's sake, do it without making a public act out of it. No fanfare, no telethon, no "consciousness raising," no outpouring of idle sentiment, just real work with a real connection to real people done on real time. I'm sure you already do this, it just merits pointing out.

So tell me, What Has Brown Done To You?

> graphic designers will have more time
> to do something useful to the world.

Good luck, in this brutal, provincial society.

--

What has Brown done to me? They broke my monitor shipping it to Barcelona and wouldn't honor the insurance. But I'm more worried about them being just another cog in the evil empire.

hhp

More information regarding the new UPS brand can be found at A Website about Corporate Identity.

"I think the saddest thing is how many comments this topic has inspired. Ok, comparing the virtues of logos as a visual exercise is fine. But really, why do we care so much?"

What is "sad" is that a work created by one of the greatest -(arguably the greatest)designers of the 20th century has been replaced. One can certainly view it as a strictly business decision -and that things change-,but the point is that something that was created by a master in our field is gone form the public eye - and the argument is that the replacement is not a better solution. It was changed and now incorporates the latest design trends. (swooshes/3D/gradients/shadows and full color) Which is quite frankly, the antithesis of modernist design and Mr. Rand's design philosophy.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I care because I want Mr. Rand's work to endure and remain in the public eye as testament to his expertise and brilliance. "a potent symbol"- if you will. Now if Colorforms updates their mark-----that's it!! :)

as suggested above I went to http://www.futurebrand.com site - it threw a script error and left me on a completely black screen. At least there's no beveled gradients (the internet can look so different with scripting and flash disabled :)

Hey there. Normal business person here (not a type guru or designer). The first impression I had when seeing the new UPS brand was..."niiiice".

Looks modern, up to date, makes me think they're preparing to "do battle" with FedEx instead of just laying down and being the Pepsi to FedEx's Coke.

After a few years of this, FedEx now looks like they're chasing UPS (acquiring Kinko's and coming up with all of these stupid color schemes for different services that no one recognizes).

Anyway, bravo to UPS, and no offense to Paul Rand (apparently revered by type/logo folks) but the new logo is cool like boot-cut jeans and the old logo is a mesh tank top from the Miami Vice era.

Understandably, a time will come when the new UPS (shiny) logo is less cool, but what you have all failed to mention is that the logo actually gracefully degrades to a simple silhouette pretty easily (once the public is familiar with the new shape/text and the shine/bevel becomes passe).

So speaks the "real world." Sigh…

Anyway, when did FedEx become the new Coke? I always though that UPS was the brand to beat.

On another note, the Coke logo hasn't changed significantly in, what, 100 years? Pepsi gets a make over every year. The old UPS logo managed to stay relatively current for 40 years. Lets see how long this new "niiiice" logo lasts.

Don't get angry at the layman. The more you're a designer (and the less an artist) the more he's your master.

Don't reject, assimilate.

hhp

I didn't like the new logo at first either, but it has since grown on me. It looks great on their new all-grey trucks and, contrary to popular beliefe, looks simply stunning (not to mention vintage) on their invoices in two-tone (brown and gold ink on yellowish paper).

Interestingly, FutureBrand also did the new Aflac logo.

Is it a hostile takeover for gradients and 3d mapping?

Wow, that new Aflac logo makes the "new" UPS logo look like pure genius.

it works....I am not an uptight designer who hates change.
Change is good....the world globe on the trucks represented a real perception UPS had...NOT Global. The new mark has flaws....but don't they all....it is called personal opinion.

The basis of Pauls identity has not changed and will only live on forever...BROWN......It is better than the Swoosh.....

The new ID now paces the competition and does not chase it....Great Job!

Thanks for the web. I have another question. Does any one know when was the NeXT loge and the Yale logo design. I am having a hard time finding the history of them?
:-{
This project is my final exam for my visual communications class. And I've come to a dead end on those two logos. What I've have notice is that Rand was a very private man and finding information on his and his works has not been easy here. If anyone can provide a link please do so.
Thanks

He wasn't so private. He just passed away before he had to make himself a website.

Have you tried the library? Plenty has been written both by and about him.

This UPS shift notes the total de-evolution of man! It's fucking
web gloss crap, as if you might click on it. Rand had a tight
hole and this new thing just bites balls. DONE.

Actually, our Swiss Post recently made it an issue to tell use not to use string anymore to keep packages from falling apart, because strings tend to get caught in the various machinery that transports/sorts/conveys the packages.
So, having strings in your logo means giving your customers a wrong idea of what is expected from them to put around their packages (try to imagine a conversation between - say - an old lady and a UPS employee - funny).
Simple enough.
And yes, the brown sucks (always did) as does the new logo. The old one was not too bad. They'd better hire a better designer.

does anyone have the NEW ups logo in vector, eps or ai format for graphics works?

Kitsch.

The fact that parcels do not look like that anymore is not necessarily a reason to change the logo—it has become a symbol, just like the letter 'A' (rotated) represented an ox's head (aluf in sematic languages) and the shape of the 'M' comes from 'maim' (water in sematic languages—notice that it looks like waves).

Having said that, the parcel does represent 'gift' nowdays.

I never thought of it as one of Rand's best logos. Maily because of the type. BTW, the shield was there before Rand and he decided to keep it. But my feeling is that the new logo doesn't say anything.

I was surprised to discover that the only reason for the horizontal lines in the IBM was to improve the horizontal flow of the type and make it lighter—Rand didn't think of it as representing computer type (that appeared that way on early monitors), in fact he said "there's nothing inherent in horizontal lines or vertical lines that says 'computer'".

To me that's like Columbus, who didn't realize he had reached a new continent.

Paul Rands UPS logo was and always will be a fundamental lesson in simplicity, it explains the business it was designed for without words. Why didn't they update the original? Designers like to be thought of in circles as the person who redesigned a masters orginal. New ideas are old ideas with a twist. True design is simplicity.

Actually there's not much of a change as the allignment and the font of the word "ups" are still fundamentally the same. However, I do have to laugh at the mention of the excrement brown of the logo.
I personally think that the change is neither to be embraced nor frustrated at. The world changes and time moves on, a bit of conversion is unavoidable. More colour and a 3-D look give us a more modern and adorable feeling of the logo, and, frankly speaking, the new logo kinda stands out more than the old one.
Oh well . . . no matter what happens/ed to Paul Rand's classic works, it's always the company itself who decided to have the change benefits/suffers and it's not quite our business, and they will forever live on in our hearts.

the new logo is better, "you" typography/graphic/illustrator bullies need to relax. paul rand is jut a man, not a demi-god, everyones work gets pushed to the side at some point. it's just a friggin' logo, a lot of companies tweak their logo every few generations. only thing i don't like about the new logo is the half-swoosh, something about it bugs me, but guess they did it so it doesn't look more like a shield than it already does. overall i think it's good. the old logo looks old, very 1950's looking.

UPS changed there logo to get away from the "all we deal with is packages" connotation. They quite simply wanted to reflect the diverse products and services they offer outside of what the logo implied.

I was told UPS waited till Rand was dead to change their logo, as Rand offered to redo it for them.

They should've taken him up on his offer. Am I the only one fed up with all these gradients?

I find this redition of the UPS logo rather spiffy, simplified curves dynamic swooshes and I think the gradient works rather beautifully across all media.

begone all yee technophobes!

I'm not the best graphic designer in the world, but i know that you need to have logos that can be faxed, emailed, that look good black and white, or in color... gradients don't allow most of that to happen.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the first two logos of UPS...the first the silouette of an eagle, perched on a small package, with a sheild background. The second, a more stylized shield, with "UPS" on it, getting closer to Rand's version. I actually like the older logos...they're "retro" and yet seem futuristic at the same time. I think the new logo was trying to hearken back, in the typeface and simple shield, to the second logo. The UPS web site has good pictures of early company looks.

Hi,

I have seen some time ago mention d "updated" logo of UPS. Say no more... Knowing works of Paul Rand, being his follower in his design lectures, philosophies and art. I cannot remorse more. This "new" look is more like Mars bar wrap rather then a good design thought-out identity mark.

My sincere condolences to any who like it.

Lech

I'm not crazy about either of them. Both Logos and the FedEx logo are directly symbolic of the service. Fedex is speed. The old UPS was suprise or present and the new safe. FedEx's logo makes sense. Other than speed, it is clean and well presented. They are ALWAYS on time. Also, they are reliable and their delivery persons are pretty much always hotties. UPS service isn't nearly as good and neither are their logo's. It's a company wide problem. They just appear like they haven't put as much effort into the whole project. Fed Ex costs more but you can even see that in their logo, lol. Not surprisingly enough, I just feel like they are worth it and subconsciously it must be their presentation.

I've seen a flat version of the new logo at a Tennis Court in Toronto and I really like it more then the old UPS logo. With the gradients and flashes it looks terrible, but the simple, flat logo is actually very nice looking.

http://www.geocities.com/big88fan/homepics/newupslogo.gif