CASE STUDY: The National Football League Shield Logo

Country of Origin: USA

Industry: Football

Today marks the beginning of the NFL's 2021 Draft, which has become nothing short of a sort of holiday and is as prime-time mandatory viewing as the Super Bowl itself among football diehards. (Personally I prefer when it just took place over the course of one weekend, but that's just me.) As such, I thought it was a fine time to take a look at the logo of the NFL itself, a mark that carries all the legitimacy of the corporate giant in one compact, instantly identifiable graphic.

HISTORY

From what I can gather, the familiar shield we basically associate with came about sometime in the 30's after the the NFL had started to establish itself as a viable league. You can see that even in that early striped version, the basic building blocks were there. The nicely packaged evolution graphic here (courtesy of the great Todd Radom) doesn't include all of its iterations— there are a few more variants, and I'd suggest heading over to Chris Creamer's logo site if you want to see more.

But you can see that all of the basic pieces are in place. The shamelessly patriotic shield, which was probably much more commonplace of a thing in the 30's than it is today is there, as is the football, and the stars, and the acronym of the league itself, the National Football League.

You'll notice that the stars vary greatly. It seems like there's more, and then there's more... and now there's only 8? Well, the stars used to signify each individual team in the league, and that in and of itself is problematic. By making such a choice, you create a logo that actively features components that are in flux. Sports leagues grow, and add teams, and occasionally subtract them. The NFL had a situation where the logo had to be redesigned every time a new team was added, and often with painfully non-symmetrical results. So for the most recent update, developed by the league itself in 2008, the choice was made to reduce the stars to 8— one for every division. The solution should prove to be less volatile and prone to change, plus it looks cleaner. Any good artist can tell you all those stars would prove to be a nightmare in cases when the logo would have to be reduced in size, or rendered in embroidery, etc. The 8 stars are clean and offer much more consistency in reproduction.

The other biggest change we see, and the one that surprised me the most in 2008, was the changing of the typeface. I always loved the old, throwback serifed letterforms of the NFL logo I grew up with, the curved stem on the bottom of the F, and of course that lustrous swirling L. That type of L is what typographers might call a teardrop lacrimal or teardrop terminal, and probably saw its start with calligraphers in the Middle Ages who wanted to "end" their letters without sloppy finishes or exits.

For me, even as a kid, that teardrop on the end of the "L" was a vital piece of visual DNA in the NFL logo, but the league chose to scrap it. It is a bit busy, and does get very close to the column of the L. Perhaps they did some testing with younger viewers who thought it looked a bit too much like a lowercase "b." But for whatever the reason, they simplified the acronym, and used a more squared, chiseled typeface. It still fits the personality of the brand, if not discarding some of the obvious visual history. And, truth be told, that might have had some say in the decision as well.

It's also worth noticing how the orientation of the football changed in the 2008 revamp. This is very clever design work, as it's a visual nod to the Lombardi Trophy itself, awarded to each year's Super Bowl winner. See how the new angle and vector treatment of the ball is styled to remind you of the prize at the end of the road. I love how the design team basically reworks the NFL's own mythology into itself like this. A very strong change that's worth the entire rollout of a new brand, in my opinion.

A SHIELD

The NFL's official mark is instantly recognizable. If you're in any way used to seeing this thing, you can see it anywhere and know exactly what it is and dial up whatever emotional attachment you have to American professional football. But what exactly is it about this thing that makes it so unique?

Trying my best to remove my own lifelong connection to this brand, I'll try to approach it simply as a design professional and try to pretend I've never seen it before. So, looking at this thing in terms of pure aesthetics, the shape of the mark stands out. Yes, it's a shield, and this shape of a shield obviously goes back centuries in western civilization-- and yet, for the latter half of the 20th century and up until today, the NFL mark has basically appropriated this shape. When you see this shape, even if you're at Medieval Times or your local Renaissance Fair, you probably think about football, which says a lot. It's probably worth considering that there's some latent or subconscious connection with shields and war and masculinity, but that might be reaching a bit deep. But make no mistake, you're not going to see the Hallmark Movie Channel using a strong shield silhouette anytime soon.

The shield as a shape is bold and has a lot of sharp angles, across the top, the point at the bottom, etc. Its aggressive points boldly stab at the surrounding white space, and that creates visual interest. It's also extremely symmetrical, which implies balance, trustworthiness, and order.

Those protruding outside features also propose problems for designers handling this mark and inserting it into clean design. I believe I have mentioned before what I refer to as a logo's footprint— basically, the horizontal and vertical real estate it must take up in any design. If you look at the graphic to the left, you'll see how much vertical white space outside the logo is basically used up because of the sharp points at the top and the bottom. Well, who cares, right? Well, designers care, especially NFL designers, because let's say there's a spot on a web page for these graphics, and it's only, say, 100 pixels tall. Well, because of those exterior points, the entire footprint must be squeezed into those 100 pixels, and as a result, the core elements of the logo may only take up about 80 to 85 pixels.

Imagine, let's say, that you want to put your car in a garage. But for whatever reason, you decided to add some tail wings to your car. Now, the main part of your car would fit in that garage perfectly, but those wings make it a much more precarious fit, or perhaps it just can't get in there as a result. So your options are to pay for a larger garage, or hypothetically "shrink" the entire car to fit inside. That analogy kind of breaks down at the end, haha, but I think you get the idea.

MASCULINE

This thing is all about STRONG, TOUGH, CLEAN, BOLD lines and elements— The chiseled typeface, the super clean vector football rendered in one color, the white stars contrasting against that blue ground— all of this is some conglomeration of toughness and patriotism that appropriately screams "American Football!" This is all about audience. Graphic artists can and do influence the connection between brands and its viewers by using design cues that resonate with portions of the public that their clients intend to connect with. I'm sure you've all heard the term target audience before, and branding professionals develop iconography that helps build those connections.

Some of my past students have had struggles understanding the concept of gender in design. For example, one student thought that creating masculine or feminine designs basically boiled down to using pink or blue in his palette. But there are lots of ways logos can be rendered to look more male or female. Feminine designs can feature more graceful lines, curved and elegant, as opposed to bold and strong. Colors might be used, but not in such glaringly presumptuous ways as mentioned above— for example, masculine designs tend to use colors that create contrast and visual punch, where more feminine works might employ more subtle or complex color combinations.

However, if an artist really want to pronounce gender in a logo, typically the easiest way to do so is in typeface selection. Typography styles naturally create the illusion of voice and personality as aesthetic elements in design. The fonts you choose can make designs feel angry or funny, happy or sad, frenetic or bored, and yes, male or female.

These are deodorant products from the same brand, Nivea. Notice the differences in colors, typography, and even design elements. It's even worth noting how 'masculine' the Nivea mark itself is, especially on the women's deodorant package, because everything else is designed with a more feminine flair.

For the sake of illustration, I prepared this "alternate" NFL logo. The colors are softer, less primary. Those jagged exterior elements are rounded, smoother. And I chose a typeface that is scripty, flowing, lowercase (UPPERCASE TEXT ALWAYS APPEARS LOUDER AND MORE MASCULINE), and even on a baseline skew or oblique. Does this feel tough to you? Do you think this brand would connect with all those guy's guys who wake up on Sunday mornings in the fall lining up their beer and nachos for a long day in front of the TV?

NOTE: Please, by all means, I am in no way implying that women cannot be tough, bold, strong, aggressive, or any of those things. All I'm saying is these design cues focus on triggering perceptions in audiences, and, quite simply, they work. I am in no way saying that I am a traditionalist or would ever tell any woman what she can or cannot be. I'm just illustrating how brands make their connections with their audiences.

CONCLUSION

The NFL shield is an instantly recognizable mark that calls upon decades of brand equity and association with its loyal, fervent fan base. One thing most sports leagues do well is use their league logo in conjunction with individual teams. Yes, you might be, say, a Packers fan, but you're not going to buy a Green Bay jersey unless it has that NFL shield on the collar. Even more so, what self-respecting Packers fan would want to buy a jersey without the NFL shield?

See, what they're doing there is using the league icon as an element of authenticity. In other words, it's not the real thing unless it has their mark on it, their seal of approval. I'm making it sound foolhardy, but that stamp of authenticity is worth millions and millions of dollars in licensing revenue, and plenty of apparel and product partners pay dearly for the right to slap that shield on the things they turn around and sell to the loyal team fans. Smart business, and smart branding.

What do you all think? Does the NFL shield really mean that much to you? Or is it something that's just there, and you tend to forget about it once the game starts? (Trust me, you don't.) 

Sources Include: NFL.com, Todd Radom, sportslogos.net, Wikipedia, Amazon

CASE STUDY: FIRST LOOK! Cincinnati Bengals New Uniforms

 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: United States

INDUSTRY: Football

"This is the LOGO INSPECTOR. LOGO, man, not JERZEEEES!"

Yes, this is true, football jerseys are not logos. However, uniforms, on sports teams and even in corporate or retail environments, ARE a form of branding, and they can and do shape consumers' opinions and ideas of what a brand is. When it comes to sports, uniforms are extremely important, not only in a sense of visual identity, but also as a major source of income. We've grown up in an era of sports where you show your sense of pride for the team by... buying a hat, or a jersey, or everything under the sun. Heck, I have enough Michigan gear to cover me from head to toe several times over.

WHY APRIL?

This week the Bengals unveiled their new uniform designs, brought to you by the team sports group at Nike. If you weren't aware, April is typically the most popular month for new uniform unveils in the NFL, because the NFL Draft is held at the end of April, and most teams like to trot out their new draft pick in a shiny new jersey, also available in a matter of minutes on the team's online store for a hefty little price.

SOME HISTORY

The Bengals began their not-quite-illustrious history in 1968 as part of the new hybrid NFL, their inception in part to balance out the number of squads on both the AFL and NFL sides. There was once a wartime-era football team in town called the Bengals, and the Cincinnati Zoo had some famous tigers at the time, so the name stuck.

The original logo set, was... well, it was a football uniform, I guess. These things had no identity, obviously. I seem to remember reading somewhere that owner Paul Brown, once head coach of the Browns, perhaps chose the same shade of orange for his new fledgling team because he owned all their gear, and actually took it south with him to Cincinnati. I once read that prototypes exist of a turquoise and gold look, but that obviously didn't fly.

Seen here is former Bengal Kenny Anderson in the largely forgettable look. I don't remember sitting through many Bengals games as a toddler back then, but I do remember the little plastic bubble gum machine helmets, and dropping a quarter just to get that ugly thing was something a consumer fear I can vaguely recall.

In the months leading up to the draft, chatter coming out of Cincinnati kept dropping words like "clean" and "classic" and "throwback," leading me to believe we were inevitably going to see the Bengals follow suit of their instate rivals the Browns. Cleveland dialed up a classic look out of the 80's, fan and critical response was overwhelmingly positive, and then the boys in the new threads followed it up with their most successful season in a generation. I figured we were certain to see the Bengals return to their classic Boomer Esiason look, seen here. If you ask me, ehhh. It's okay. The orange always seemed too dark, and it all just seems to focus on the helmet. 

To my surprise, the team did NOT do this, and instead rolled out what I think can best be described as a cleaner take on what they already had. Their old uniforms were a bit busy, but I've been on record as saying I didn't think they were that bad. They were busy, probably a sign of the times in 2004 when they were rolled out (shout out to Christ Creamer for making it so easy to find the date). Looking at them now, it's no secret that side panels... yeah, they reaaaaaally haven't aged that well. So it was time for a change. What I liked about this set was the ORANGE-- it really was allowed to star a bit more, and not just on the orange alternate jersey. Look how well the orange played on the away jersey, seen here from former Michigan great Chris Perry.

My biggest criticism of the Esiason era set was that the orange never really popped-- you'd watch a game on TV and it usually looked like it was just some random team in black and white uniforms, with some other color in there somewhere. So the 2004 set alleviated that. I always liked the numbers, too.

NO LOGO?

The Bengals started their history with no logo at all, just a plain name on the side of their helmet until 1981, when their famous striped helmet became their entire visual identity. It's still a winner, and I'm glad they didn't touch the helmet at all in the redesign. But when it came to logos, for a long, LONG time the only thing we saw was a vector illustration of that same striped logo.

There was a leaping tiger in there for a while, which I believe even made it to the jersey sleeves in the 90's, and then with the 2004 redesign came this tiger head logo. I've always liked it-- tiger logos are fun because the animal itself is very complex, so it becomes this exercise of simplifying the stripes and the expression without getting away from the source too much. I've always like this graphic and wish the Bengals would use it more; to my knowledge it's never actually showed up on a uniform design. And don't get me wrong, sometimes those "never actually on the uniform" is a sort of fun trend in sports altogether, especially in baseball, but for whatever reason this guy has always seemed under-utilized in my opinion. But it's hard to argue that the striped helmet has always been the star in the Bengals visual identity, and always should be.

THE UNVEIL

Fast forward to 2021, and the Bengals roll out their star quarterback and former number one draft pick Joe Burrow and his teammates in these:

FERNS, man. Seriously. It's literally become part of their identity, even showing up as venue graphics in their stadium. What's with Ohio football teams and vegetation, anyway?

I won't go into scrutinous detail, picture after picture. You've already seen the images and there are better sources to look at them, anyway. But, as a designer, and as a branding guy, I like what I see. These uniforms are clean, and they kind of got out of their own way and seem to have been planned to get down to the core, root idea of what they should be. It's a football team. It's based on a tiger motif. They're going back to basics. Most of it works fairly cleanly.

I liked the numbers the Bengals used in the last set, and they kept a similar numerical face here. They have character but they're not overwhelmingly complex, either. It's more about style that complexity, and I guess you could say that about the entire design.

If you're looking at it in the most basic, literal terms, as a designer you clearly see you have a great visual element to start with, and that's the appearance of a tiger, one of the more aesthetically stimulating animals on the planet. But as a designer, what I see as a problem, or perhaps a problem to solve, is the fact that the color relationships on a tiger's hide are very specific. The stripes are black. They exist on white, but the strong association most people have with them are on an orange background. When you think "tiger," the image you see is an orange cat with black stripes, of course. Colors and the relationships between them have a lot to do with context.

Okay, but now you're designing a football uniform for a team that has those colors, but want to use black as its primary base color. So how do you solve that problem? Going back to past uniforms, the artists employed shoulder yokes or panels to create areas of orange background upon which to place those stripes. Which, for their time, apparently worked. But in this latest round, it would appear the creative team were hell bent on keeping it simple, and that meant putting some stripes on the shirt but otherwise keeping it devoid of additional stripes, panels or insets. So, obviously, the stripes look great on the orange jersey. Very tiger-like. But how do you "solve" the black jersey? And, for that matter, the white jersey as well?

This is what being a graphic designer is like. You invent rules for your artistic vision, and then you have to figure out a way of working within the constraints of those rules while still developing a solution. As a designer, I love that word... because that's what we do. Jobs and logos are "visual problems," and the artist is tasked to solve those problems with some sort of creation. That's how I think and that's how I look at the finished work. So what did the designers do here in regards to the tiger stripe dilemma?

Well, obviously the simple template was the priority, and someone just made the decision to flip the context of tiger stripes. Orange stripes on a black shirt. Show me a tiger that looks like this in nature. You can't, of course (imagine how cool that cat would look, right?), but after some simple testing, I'm sure the decision was made that it just doesn't matter. Yeah, orange stripes, who cares? It still works. And it does.

After spending a few minutes looking through the galleries, your brain isn't even thinking about jungle cats or natural striping patterns. It just makes sense, and it solves the problem. Whether or not you see such a motif in nature seems irrelevant, because you're seeing it here on their uniforms and it looks good. The simple stripe motif carries over onto the pants and it works there as well. It may not look like a tiger to you, but it clearly makes sense to you as a Cincinnati Bengal.

For the white uniform, I think they got pretty inventive with their solution. Yes, it's the Bengals, there's a whole tiger theme— but in the entire history of the team, it's always been a typical orange and black tiger. But "hey, white tigers are cool, right? Why can't we design a uniform that feels more like that, right?"

Yeah, that's probably not what happened. If you ask me, they just got lucky here. They had a very simplistic template that they were dedicated to, and it juuuuuuust so happens that it connects with an image you have in your brain of another type of tiger.

This cropped photo (courtesy of Bengals.com) shows how clean white jersey will look. Yes, it's a bit plain, but there's just enough of orange in there with the number stroke and the ubiquitous Nike swoosh. When Joey here throws on his helmet, you'll be surprised how much more you'll see that orange pop off his plain white and black jersey.

But hey, wasn't I just complaining a few paragraphs ago about Boomer Esiason's jersey looking too plain, too much black and white and not enough orange? Isn't this the same thing? Well, fair point. I think we'll have to wait and see how they look in actual game play, against the backdrop of a perfectly manicured NFL field of green.

It's worth noting here, as well, the idea of the pant stripes. Those AREN'T EVEN STRIPES, right? Well, we previously talked about amodal perception in the WWF case study, and you could apply that same concept here. What it basically means is that no, those bizarre shapes on the side of Burrow's leg are NOT tiger stripes, but they show you enough of them that your brain kind of subconsciously sees the rest of what you don't see. Your mind completes the partial "thing" the artist is showing you, and your brain decides that they are stripes anyway. It's amazing how well great design can be helped along by the viewer's own powers of perception.

So it's all one big perfect solution, right! WRONG!!

Why? What's wrong with it? Well, the same thing I say the designers have done well also have become their biggest complication. They created new color associations with the stripes and the backgrounds they're on-- we have black on orange stripes, orange on black stripes, and black on white stripes. They all look great on their own-- for example, the pic of Burrow above defines the stripes as black and the uniform as white, both jersey and pants. And as long as the white shirt is always worn with the white pants, it will always seem flawlessly in concert. 

COMBOS

Like most uniform designs these days, the entire collection of all of the separate elements is designed to be a system. You have one and only helmet, as mandated by the league (at least for now), and you have a home jersey, an away jersey, and an alternate jersey. You also have a selection of pants, as you can see above. You have black pants and white pants, and.... white pants? More on that in a moment.

But most teams develop a system so that these separate uniform elements can be mixed and matched to create variation and visual variety. When it's done well it looks great, and when it's done poorly it can look like a team got its laundry mixed up with another organization.  What we have here is something... in the middle. It's not perfect, but it's not horrible either.

As we discussed above, the simple shoulder stripe template became a cardinal law in this design, which in turn predicated some strong decisions on how it would be carried out on different base colors. Well, what happens when you mix and match those base colors? Look at the player on the far left-- he's got an orange helmet, black jersey, and white pants. Because of those different relationships of the stripes on his jersey versus his pants, it kind of... conflicts a bit, doesn't it? That's because it's messing with your perception of the color relationships. Orange on black is one thing, and black on white is another, and put together like this, well, it sort of clashes. They kind of feel like two separate ideas coexisting, as opposed to one singular vision or concept. What do you think?

But hey, at least it's all still sticking to the core idea, right? Single color stripes on single color background, all the time, every time, head to toe? Right?

ALT PANTS

Okay, Nike, this is where you lose me.

The day before the unveiling, the Bengals claimed that they would be revealing no less than nine separate color combinations in their new uniform system. Which isn't exactly advanced calculus math here-- 3 primary colors in both jersey and pants, you get 9 possibilities. Jersey in black, white, and orange, and pants in black, white and orange, right?

No. They rolled out two pair of white pants. Obviously someone ruled out the orange pants for whatever reason. And it certainly wasn't me-- I look at every jersey in that set above and I think orange pants with the implied black stripes would just POP.

Instead a separate pair of white pants was developed, now with ORANGE stripes on a white ground. But that's not all-- as you can see there, they elected to stroke the orange stripes in black. Yeah, can you guess where I'm about to go with this?

When it comes to strong uniform design, the key concept above all else, at least in my professional opinion, is CONSISTENCY. You develop rules that the design must adhere to, and you stick to those rules from beginning to end, and the final solution is usually more successful for it. Why, because when all of the same separate elements adhere to the same design decisions— the same visual language— they tend to work together. Look at the player to the left, above. Yes, the stripes are orange on his shoulder but black on his pants and helmet, but in the end you're willing to accept it because they're all still working within the same system.

I'm sure some designers would disagree, but when it comes to team uniform templates, I'm a firm believer in consistent application throughout the entire uniform. If you have thin-thick-thin stripes on your jersey sleeves, then you'd better damn well have them on your socks or across the top of your helmet too. It's those consistent details that make it all work. And don't even get me started on teams whose away uniforms employ an entirely separate template than the homes.

As for all this alternate pants business, yeah, the creative team broke their own rule and it betrays the look of the entire thing. The orange with black stroke design isn't altogether unappealing— it's got a very wild sort of feel and looks kind of Zubaz, don't you think— but it just doesn't fit with the rest of the design. I don't like it, and I think it's kind of interesting that I couldn't seem to find a pic of a player wearing the orange jersey with the black striped white pants in the entire rollout. Maybe that was their way of controlling that portion of the conversation?

CONCLUSION

So the Bengals are all set, and I think for the most part they have a great new look that both Cincinnati fans and NFL fans nationwide are excited to see on the field this fall. They're sure to make a ton of money, and they'll make even more if the team has any sort of success in them.

Nike Team Sports did a good if not great job with the design, and the simplicity they chose to employ will probably keep these from feeling dated ten years from now. I'm a big fan of jerseys that are unmistakable-- the sort of designs where you look at them and you are left with zero doubt whose uniform it is, even if there isn't a logo on there. This definitely falls into this category, and that singular identity helps create a strong connection with the brand it is representing. I wouldn't be surprised that in three or four years time none of us will even remember the Bengals uniform this new set has replaced, and that's a very good thing if you're rebranding your identity.

What do you all think? Do you agree? Disagree? I hope you all enjoyed some insider designer perspective, and thanks for reading all the way to the end. And as the Cincinnati faithful say, WHO DEY!!

(Sources include bengals.com, sportslogos.net, cincinnati.com, wikipedia)

CASE STUDY: NISSAN's NEW LOGO

 Country of Origin: Japan

Industry: Automotive

So.... Nissan has a new logo. Perhaps you're just recently seeing it. Probably a better question is, "how long ago was it unveiled, and is it still 'new?'" Well, this graphic is actually almost a year old, first rolled out in June of 2020. But the process of unveiling a logo, and specifically of UPDATING A BRANDING DESIGN, is fairly complex and would probably make a good story in and of itself here at the Logo Inspector sometime. But it is an ongoing process.

What logos do best is working as a sort of instant activator of memories, feelings, thoughts, emotions and experiences of a brand-- we can that your own personal BRAND EQUITY. As your relationship with a brand grows, so too does the power of these pieces of art and your ability to recognize them and connect with your thoughts on the company they represent. So what happens when they change the art?

Yes, it can be a slow, and sometimes uneasy process of transferring your connection with one logo to another.

LINE ART

In this case, Nissan has opted for simplification-- it's what we in the business would call ONE COLOR LINE ART or ONE COLOR VECTOR ART. If you're wondering what a 'vector' is, it refers to the way the art is created, and the software in which it was built. More on that some other time. In the case of the Nissan logo above, yes, it is a single color, namely black— but it's also designed in such a way that it can function as multiple colors on varying backgrounds.

This graphic, presumably part of the press release, displays what I mean. The logo can change easily by changing its hue, easily translated to light colors or dark colors or even complex backgrounds because the design itself is not complex. Logos with multiple colors (say, MasterCard) or one very dependent hue (think Twitter's bird) immediately pose challenges to being displayed on certain colors and are much less flexible.

AUTOMOTIVE BRANDING

Perhaps a better question is, why did Nissan change? You might ask, what was wrong with the new one? Especially if you're a Nissan driver and you became very used to seeing that old shield in your driveway or staring you in the face every time you sit down behind the wheel.

Car companies... have a lot— A LOT— of vested interest in branding. It's a major part of their industry. Every company has a badge or shield that typically serves as their primary logo. It's how you know you're seeing a Ford when it's a new make or model you haven't seen before. But even beyond the logo on the hood, every car company also creates branding for EACH SPECIFIC MODEL— typically in the form of word marks on the back of the car, or in some cases a specific iconic logo for individual models. For example, A Ford Mustang not only has its Ford logo, but also the familiar horse graphic as well. Corvettes are another good example.

 

But what kills me with automotive branding, specifically in print and in digital applications, is the way the artwork has been rendered. Obviously when, say, a Nissan logo goes on a car, it's usually in chrome or chrome-like plastic, shiny and beveled and impressive. There's a long history of chrome on cars and branding and all of that, and there's no arguing that it looks great on a car.

But over the past 30 or so years, as graphic design and the tools of the trade have evolved, car makers and the artists working for them have been able to render highly complex logos that capture the look of those chrome shields. What's more impressive is they are still vector art, meaning they will reproduce cleanly in different applications and are not bound by things like file size and resolution. But, again, more on that in another post.

Here's an example, this dated Mazda logo. It's ridiculously chromed out, and perfectly rendered. The process actually uses gradients in very complex ways to sell the illusion of an actual automotive shield, even though this thing would be going on print and advertising applications. But they're not the only ones— basically everyone in the industry starting doing this in, say, the mid 90's, and that's just how it was.

But if that sounds dated, it's because it is. And I think the industry has decided that it was time for a change. Over the past four years or so, we've seen the automotive industry moving away from these heavily stylized brand graphics in favor of the simplified one-color approach. You may ask, "Why?" And I'm sure every company has its own reasons... but if you look at the entire situation as a timeline, it basically lines up with the surge of business in social media, app, and mobile site applications. Those complex graphics tend to break down as they get smaller, and smaller and smaller. Even the Vette logo above looks kind of hard to discern because of the size I chose to display it at. Simple line art is cleaner, more versatile and lots of different sizes and colors, and is also promoting a sense of newness to an industry that always seems to follow each other in terms of aesthetics.

(Case in point, as a young designer I once decided I was going to 'reinvent' the car ad for a local Volkswagen dealer. It was smart, and used white space to associate cars with their pricing, and created hierarchy for different models and the dealers' urgency to sell them. I thought it was really something special. And the dealer HATED it. It just didn't 'look' like a car ad. They follow their formulas and stick to them, because that's what the other guys are doing. Just felt like a story worth sharing.)

Nissan is one of many auto makers that made this change to sharper, cleaner, simplistic vector branding. This article by Dezeen breaks down several and also includes dates to help put together a sort of timeline if you're so inclined.

What I find most interesting about this trend is that, well, the logo itself doesn't often change. The Toyota logo to the left is the same proportions and shapes of the original Toyota logo, it's just rendered in black, or whatever color they choose, instead of being locked into a series of color gradients that make it look VERY much like shiny metal. It's mostly cosmetic.

BACK TO NISSAN

Except when it's not.

In the case of Nissan, they didn't just 'simplify' the brand. They did actually redesign the elements. If I had to guess why, it's because that bar and circle on the old mark is, well, kind of boring, or at least WAS/IS boring when rendered in simple black. You'd also be left with a black bar and necessary reverse white text, ALL the time, which might defeat the purpose of simplifying for lower screen resolutions and such.

What I see as a designer, though, is much more purposeful. I think the biggest difference I see in the new vs old logo is the scale of the name within the art. Look at the two logos below. The green square is basically the footprint of the logo; it represents how much vertical and horizontal space, in pixels, the logo will make up.

Now observe the red boxes. That's the part of the footprint used to render the brand name. See how much smaller it is on the left as opposed to the new one on the right? It may not seem noticeable when up close or rendered large, but as that logo gets smaller and smaller, the name becomes less prominent. It's also just good branding design, because the larger and less bold font (along with the cleaner line art rendering) helps drive it home and remain recognizable, and ultimately, more memorable.

What my box graphic above illustrates is a breakdown of the real estate within a logo. Good logo designers are very cognizant of how they use the space they occupy— with name text, with graphic elements, and even with how much empty white space the mark takes. In this case the name was designed to be much more prominent and yet still is similar enough to the original that it won't feel like a full-on departure of the brand you're connected with.

So all in all, it's not a sea change, but rather part of a trend. And a pretty solid job on the designer's part to make good use of the opportunity to clean up some other things as well. I mean, seriously, I can't be the only one who was put off by those slanted mid slab elements of the 'S' in the old logo. See how the middle of the S's isn't parallel with the baseline of the text? Sure, it's unique, but it just kind of bothered my aesthetic sensibilities and felt unbalanced.

What do you all think? Is this good? What would you have done differently? Do you think the industry will shift again in another 10-15 years?

And yes, for what it's worth... I am a Nissan driver. And my brand experience is absolutely affected the lousy stock sound system in my car.

Sources include: Dezeen.com, carlogos.org, and Google.

CASE STUDY: WORLD WILD FUND FOR NATURE

 Country of Origin: Switzerland

Industry: Conservation/Wildlife Preservation and Research

This is the famous logo of the World Wide Fund for Nature. Yes, that's right-- that's not even the same name you think this organization had. Same here-- it was only while writing this study up that I learned they recently changed their name from World Wildlife Fund to World Wide Fund of Nature. But this is a recently new development, right? Yeah, still no. This has been their name since 1987, and most likely predates our own exposure to the brand.

If you're a Gen X person like myself, chances are the first time you'd heard of the World Wildlife Fund was when they successfully forced the World Wrestling Federation to change its name somewhere around the year 2000. Actually they had an agreement in place for years to let the brands co-exist, but changed their stance when the wrestling league violated the terms. Perhaps they didn't like Jake the Snake Roberts' handling of his pets in the ring?

At any rate, the WWF is an international group that advocates for the ethical treatment of animals and nature, specifically the defense of endangered species and the proper stewardship of the earth by the human race. How successful they are in these pursuits remain to be seen, and we won't even get into the scandals and controversies that have swirled around the organization. Let's just focus on that beautiful logo.

HISTORY

The WWF's iconic logo was first developed in the early 60's, when the brand was developing its mission and wanted a symbol that would promote its mission as an animal rights group with a distinct global footprint. The group was the brainchild of several prominent influential leaders, captains of industry and even princes-- founding members include a Rockefeller and the recently deceased Prince Philip. Also in this group was famed British conservationist Sir Peter Scott, who came up with the idea of using a panda as the group's logo, inspired by the first Great Panda put on display in a western zoo in London just a few years before. He developed the first simple sketch to the left, which would later be developed into this one color line art treatment on the right:

 

(SIDE NOTE: I recently read elsewhere, on the fantastic and always well-documented Today I Learned Reddit page, that all pandas in zoos remain the property of the Chinese government and come at a hefty fee of $1 million per year or more. Basically zoos around the world 'rent' the pandas to live in their facilities. Just thought that was worth mentioning, tangent over)

COLOR

So, at any rate, the panda was chosen and a simple black and white illustration was developed. It was simple and efficiently captured the look and feel of this amazing creature that had a bit of buzz surrounding it in swinging London, but there was also an ancillary motive for its choice of palette. Quite simply, the founders of this new WWF felt they could save a bit of money by keeping the mark a simple one color line art black on white. This makes sense, for at the time most publications were partially full color at best, printing the bulk of its pages in black and white or one-color spot applications. Frugal, even for princes and Rockefellers!

EVOLUTION

Time over the next half century would see the logo evolve, moving away slowly from a fairly literal pen and ink illustration of the asian ursine creature, and becoming something more abstract and elegant. I wouldn't exactly call the initials of the group's anagram a word mark, per se, but the initials were added and the typography would see a few changes of late. But obviously, the only reason we're even looking at this today is because of that branding redesign in 1986.

The updated logo was created by Jerry Kuyper of Landor & Fitch, San Fransisco (I believe at the time it was simply Landor). According to Jerry, his brief included the simple request of "not making it look too cuddly, too ferocious, or like it was about to go extinct." Obviously his final solution is smart, clever, and most importantly, simplified and yet instantly recognizable. The illustration doesn't get in the way of itself, and uses the space around itself impeccably. Which gets us to the real conversation most people end up having about it.

THE WHITE SPACE

Lots of people have had plenty of things to say about the design concepts used in the creation of this mark. And I suppose none of these ideas are wrong. Some people will call it Gestalt Design, which basically describes its ability to use separate individual shapes and pieces to drive home a single unified idea.

Others might suggest it uses what is known as Amodal Perception, which promotes the idea that human viewers tend to visualize complete objects even if part of them are obscured or not included. Take, for example, the circle to the left. Our tendency to see things "Amodally" suggests that even though the object is multifaceted and has several flat edges and an outer curved shape, what our brain sees is a circle with a rectangle sitting in front of it. We essentially see something without having to see all of it.

If it were up to me, and what I have taught in the past, however, I'd say this logo is perfect example of the concept of Incomplete Closure. This basically means that a shape, or line, or object, or some thing is created in the illustration without entirely creating it. You might use two lines that do not actually meet, but they are close enough in proximity and movement that your brain connects them as part of the same thing, and you might see them as a square corner, etc. They're fun because they create complexity and visual interest-- you see things even though your brain might be telling yourself it's not what you think it is.

In this particular case, we're talking about the top half of the graphic-- the bear's back and head. It's really not there, is it? The white space around the logo invades the interior of the space, and some of those black shapes for the eye patches and ear are just floating in space, aren't they? Well, they are, technically-- but no, they're not. Your brain sees them exactly where it thinks they should be, because it's 'closing' those incomplete shapes, and seeing it as an entire bear.

Take, for example, this shape to the right. You still see a bear, right? Well sure, you're conditioned to it now. But try to see it as JUST A BLACK SHAPE, and not as the thing with the white and black areas. Try covering up the 'ear' part, or squinting your eyes until you no longer see the mouth. Slowly, but surely, you start to see this round black shapes. They kind of look like talons or bird claws or something. Maybe. But you're no longer seeing a bear. Well that's what makes this logo so successful-- with a few well placed, well-drawn objects of single color line art, the designer created the perfect illusion of very recognizable and familiar animal. It just works, and the more you look at it, the more you continue to admire the solution of it all. And you certainly don't forget it.

What do you all think? Is it interesting? Is it memorable? Does it represent what you think it should be? How would you have solved this differently?

Or are you just an old school wrestling fan that resents this organization and what it meant for Vince McMahon's business model? If that's the case, I'll leave you with this fairly fun tee design, which was obviously created as an inside joke for designers, wrestlers, or both:

Thanks for the interest!

Sources include: 1000logos.net, logodesignlove.com, pentagram.com, funny junk.com

Case Study: MAERSK SEALAND

Country of Origin: Denmark

Industry: Shipping/Logistics

I have to be honest, I thought this Danish shipping conglomerate was actually named MAERSK SEALAND, but in truth that's only one of their divisions. The Sealand was actually added after a merger in the 50's, but it makes sense that their name is less specific, as the brand is applied over multiple applications of logistics.

But yes, your exposure to this brand probably involves large 40-foot shipping containers, either on massive container ships at sea or secured by twistlock onto semi-trailer beds. It's one of those brand marks that instantly catches my eye when I see it. It is unique, it is memorable, and has a strong, masculine, industrial personality that announces itself rather loudly. But let's discuss why, in my opinion, it's a good logo.

HISTORY

First, there is some history to the Maersk branding solution. From what I have read, its principal founder, sea captain Peter Maersk Meller was on a voyage in the late 19th century. His wife Anna was accompanying him, and during a rough storm at sea she became very sick. Her husband feared she would die, but they were at sea and little could be done. But as the story goes, one night the Danish captain gazed up into the cloudy night sky, and he saw a brilliant star, its light fighting through the gale to his watchful eyes below. The star gave him hope that his wife would also weather the storm, and she did. As a result the star became a symbol for his seafaring business for years to come, remaining on the company's logo to this day.

The wordmark is a strong, bold sans-serif slab typeface, with strong horizontal bars and rounded corners. Eurostile comes to mind, but at quick glance I didn't find any information on its specific creation or selection. But it works, especially with all of that left-to-right movement through its middle. It also probably doesn't hurt that it's a rather foreign-looking word to the average American, which contributes to its standout nature.

THE STAR

But let's be honest, what really makes this thing pop is that icon. A rounded square in a very unique shade of icy blue houses a seven-pointed star that catches your eye and refuses to let it go. For me, personally, the HEPTAGRAM, a star with seven points, has this strange sense of imperfect symmetry. It's symmetrical, but it's not; it's balanced, but it isn't.

I can't remember where, but I seem to once recall reading that a seven-pointed star was selected to reference the seven continents of the world, inferring that Maersk is a truly global company that serves every continent on the globe. 

It's just something you don't see every day. A seven-pointed star is horizontally symmetric, but not vertically. It is not CENTROSYMMETRIC, meaning it does not have a symmetric balance to its center point. We really don't think about it, but a standard star, such as one of fifty on the American flag, is no less symmetric than this. We tend to equate symmetry with even numbers, so perhaps it seems like it shouldn't work with five or seven, but it does have balance; just look at the distance between those outer points— each are perfectly spaced around the center. It's math magic!

What I always find myself drawn to when I see the Maersk star is that unique chevron shape our eyes create within the star. There's actually seven of them— you can "spin" that chevron around the center point of the star and it's going to be the exact same proportions every time. It's just such a strange, unique thing, this weird imbalanced-yet-perfectly-balanced urchin thing.

COLOR

Pantone 298 C (best match) • CMYK: 67/12/9/0

Yes, the color doesn't hurt either. It just seems to fit with the Scandinavian origins of the brand and its name as well, and it's certainly atypical of the standard blue we typically encounter in the civilized world around us. It's so unique, in fact, that when The Lego Company developed train and ship sets in conjunction with Maersk in Europe, it had to invent an appropriate color for their bricks and pieces to match it, which to this day is still known as "Maersk Blue." Look at the little figure's hat— isn't that great?

Maersk is one of those brands that just has this sort of industrial appeal. I look at that mark above and I imagine the spray of massive waves splashing across it somewhere in the middle of the North Atlantic during some howling storm. Its imagery is unique and clever and vaguely bizarre, and feels very much like a modernist take on something that has probably been attached to the business for a very long time.

What do you all think? Is it memorable? Do you find it interesting? Do you want to grab a compass and try to draw bizarre odd-numbered stars after reading this?

Sources include: 1000logos.net, wikipedia.net, brandpalettes.com

PASSING GLANCE: FRENCH INDIAN WAR ANNIVERSARY LOGO

 Country of Origin: USA

Industry: Historical/Education/Marketing

Quite simply, I LOVE this logo. It's not new, by any means-- in fact, the anniversary for which it was created was celebrated almost twenty years ago, but it caught my eye then and it still caught my eye now.

WHAT I LIKE

It's a bit ornate for a logo, but it just has so much spirit and personality. The quill and feather adornment of the Native American depicted are both simple and complex all at once. And of course, we all see the way the two figures are created even though it is a one color, or line art graphic.

This occurrence, in this case the native figure "coming out" or emerging from the black of the other figure, is something I'm sure we'll discuss quite a bit on the LOGO INSPECTOR. It's what we in the business call FIGURE GROUND REVERSAL, and occurs when the negative or white space in an object is consciously manipulated or designed to become the primary object amongst 'black space.' In this case, to the right we see a colonial silhouette, a black object on a white background. But within his shape, we see an indigenous person, a white foreground on a black background. The intended effect is surely deliberate, and in most cases, when done well, it adds visual interest and a sense of smart, intelligent design.

I don't know who created this, but beautiful work.

WELCOME TO LOGO INSPECTOR! (Please Read)

"When the Logo Police aren't enough, call in... THE LOGO INSPECTOR!!" 

Hello and welcome! We live in a visual world, surrounded by name brands and powerful icons play very powerful roles in the relationship between the things we want and the things that are available. Logos aren't just pretty little things that represent a business, or a restaurant, or an idea-- they are reminders of our own thoughts and feelings and loyalty (or sometimes hate) of these entities. This ever-evolving relationship between consumer and product, user and supplier, us and them is what's known as brand equity, and it's a different and ongoing relationship for every brand and the people who do business with them. No matter how loyal you consider yourself to your favorite soft drink or car company, you're only one negative experience from changing or shifting your feelings of that brand. But that instant sum of all of your experiences is instantly triggered... when you see their logo. And that's branding plays such a prominent role in our society.

I look forward to having some fun looking at the brands we come into contact with, sharing my thoughts on them, and communicating what I like about some and what I would change with others. The LOGO INSPECTOR is not meant as an authority on the branding world, but is more one person's opinion, and I hope that we build plenty of interesting dialogues about what makes some brands more successful than others and why.

In the days to come, I look forward to providing:

• PASSING GLANCES: Knee-jerk reactions to sports and corporate logo reveals. These may reside more on my corresponding Twitter account but they may spill over or relocate to here. These should be on a random basis as new brands drop or as things simply catch my eye.

• CASE STUDIES: Mid-length features of logos and the stories behind them. Look for an average of at least one of these per week.

• FEATURE REVIEWS: Long form historical reviews of popular brands and their visual evolution over the ongoing life cycle of their products. I hope to put one of these together about once a month.

• REQUESTED TAKES: Hey, I take requests! Reach out to me here or on Twitter and ask me for my thoughts on a specific brand's identity. Chances are I may not see it the same way as the rest of you.

• BRANDING AUDITS: Interested in learning more about your own brand from a professional? I do branding audits, written assessments of an identity system and how successful it is performing or how it might be improved. Because of the time requirements, these will be considered on a case by case basis.

I think this should be fun-- let me know what you think of the concept and what else you might like to see included here, or what works best or is least interesting. I'll probably be creating something in the next few days focusing on the vocabulary and terminology of visual identity and design, which might help us all speak the same language a bit more fluently. Thanks and enjoy!