next »

[Morroque]

What was the theory?

Naturally a theory is nothing without exact evidence to back it up, but my intuition is that it might have something to do with the very process of "rebranding" itself, or that this form of simplification might happen when the scale of the group it represents becomes so large that any form of expressive individuality becomes impossible.

Historical examples of things with the simplest logos would be things like the red cross and the christian crucifix - large, international organizations that had simple and homogenized representations, at least when compared to slightly more complex nations with more detailed flags, and even more to specific kingdoms with highly ornate coats of arms.

Since the idea of "branding", not in the product name sense but in the business conglomerate sense, has root in early forms of globalization/internationality, the very practice of it is to reduce the complexity of an organization's appearance, all the while the actual complexity of the organization's structure increases.

So my theory is that, barring historical circumstances, as the size and complexity of an organization increases, the more bland and homogenized their outward appeal becomes.

... of course, since this is a claim about media homogenization, this theory is somewhat hard to actually prove.

[ham and brie]

Tell him to take it all away then because by that definition, doing nothing would make you the best designer. It would also help reduce the crap and allow people who actually want to design to be able to design interesting things that have some sort of meaning.

A design needs to fulfil its purpose. The point of the quote is that a designer ought to be clear about what they're trying to achieve with the design and has the discipline to remove anything that isn't justified in serving that purpose.

[AlexHW]

That makes sense, Morroque. It's kind of disheartening to think that the more you include everyone, the less of an identity all those people will have. I mean.. A cyan dot? what does that say about that organization? It's like they stand for nothing as their characteristics blend together and become diluted away. What will we have left if all this continues? How will we understand who we are if we can't tell one person from another?

[Christian Knudsen]

As nice as that theory is, all these companies redesigning their logos into a much more simplistic form isn't doing so because they've just now reached some critically complex size. It's just the current style or fashion. It's just modern or hip or whatever to have clean surfaces and a simplistic logo. In 30 years, all these logos might be redesigned into an overly complex and elaborate form as a counter-reaction to the current style. And not because the size and complexity of the companies have decreased, no, merely because styles and fashions change with time.

[Morroque]

That makes sense, Morroque. It's kind of disheartening to think that the more you include everyone, the less of an identity all those people will have. I mean.. A cyan dot? what does that say about that organization? It's like they stand for nothing as their characteristics blend together and become diluted away. What will we have left if all this continues? How will we understand who we are if we can't tell one person from another?

"What does that say about that organization?"

Actually, it says the opposite of what you think it does, as unintuitive as that sounds.

Take note: the new logo outright mentions what the holding company of the newspaper is: The Gannett Company.

Take a look at their assets:

Print media

    USA Today of Tysons Corner, Virginia (1,830,594, 2nd overall)
    The Arizona Republic of Phoenix, Arizona (308,973, 14th)
    Detroit Free Press of Detroit, Michigan (245,326, 20th)
    The Indianapolis Star of Indianapolis, Indiana (182,933, 32nd)
    The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky (159,275, 42nd)
    The Cincinnati Enquirer of Cincinnati, Ohio (157,574, 43rd)
    The Tennessean of Nashville, Tennessee (127,538, 61st)
    Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester, New York (119,399, 65th)
    Asbury Park Press of Neptune City, New Jersey (112,683, 68th)
    The Des Moines Register of Des Moines, Iowa (109,095, 73rd)
    The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware (87,138, 89th)
    The Journal News of White Plains, New York (79,525, 96th)
    Pacific Daily News of Guam

Broadcast media

    WBIR-TV in Knoxville, Tennessee
    WXIA-TV and WATL in Atlanta (Pacific and Southern Company, Inc.)
    WUSA in Washington, D.C.
    KPNX in Phoenix
    WTSP in Tampa-St. Petersburg (Pacific and Southern Company, Inc.)
    KARE in Minneapolis-Saint Paul
    KUSA-TV and KTVD in Denver
    WKYC-TV in Cleveland
    KXTV in Sacramento, California
    KSDK in St. Louis
    WZZM-TV in Grand Rapids, Michigan
    WFMY-TV in Greensboro, North Carolina
    WJXX and WTLV in Jacksonville, Florida
    WGRZ-TV in Buffalo, New York
    KTHV-TV in Little Rock, Arkansas
    WLTX in Columbia, South Carolina
    WMAZ-TV in Macon, Georgia
    WCSH-TV in Portland, Maine
    WLBZ-TV in Bangor, Maine

Gannett Digital Assets:

    4info
    Captivate Network
    CareerBuilder (50.8%)
    Classified Ventures (20%)
    DealChicken
    GannettLocal
    HighSchoolSports.net
    Metromix
    MomsLikeMe (ceased operations in October 2011)
    PointRoll
    ShopLocal
    Cars.com
    Reviewed.com

Horrifying, isn't it? USA Today is merely but one node of an entirely synergized network, all of which sharing key personnel and resources within the parent company's pipelines.

In the end, it forms a media system that is so inwardly complex and difficult to put together from an outside prespective, that the most outwardly noticable nodes in the network (such as USA Today) literally have no choice other than to put on the façade of simplicity. Otherwise? They'd frighten away their customer base for fear that Big Brother is real and is keeping tabs on them.

If my theory has basis, you might apply this sort of thinking to any type of high-complexity business environment. Especially to the zombie banks with the single-type, sans-serif typography logos. Were they too big to fail, or perhaps too complex to be properly understood what effect they were actually having? They hid such complexity very well from their partons, with their sans-serif logo typography and effective brand management -- at least until things went wrong.

It's not like these companies stand for nothing. In fact, they stand for everything. They extend their reach in many ways - much more than we can understand. And it's because of this that they hide how much they stand for, by merely appearing so simple.

Really, not many of us truely want to have to deal with a heartless, uncontrollable, and utterly massive corporation, or an overtowering and unmovable bureaucracy. It's simply not pleasant. This type of highly neutral branding isn't mere fashion -- it has some utility. It makes it seem unassuming. It feigns innocence to what it externalizes.

But maybe Mr. Knudsen is right, and there is so fashion in it after all. Any conglomerate that is truly heartless can't hide that fact forever. Maybe there will be a time when this type of homogenized blandness in visual identity will merely reflect exactly what it tries to hide, and a revolution will be sparked anew. ... but how long will it be, before these massive structures consume the revolt and make that the new evil? A cyclical history doesn't solve problems -- it merely prolongs their effects.

[AlexHW]

that's pretty scary.

It's not like these companies stand for nothing. In fact, they stand for everything. They extend their reach in many ways - much more than we can understand. And it's because of this that they hide how much they stand for, by merely appearing so simple.

I guess that would be the intent, but wouldn't one question the complexity and think why? In my opinion such complexity gives the impression that they don't care, but that they just want power.
So I just look at it and think that they don't stand for anything because they are so invested in everything not to really think about those involved but rather simply the involvement itself. That's pretty messed up!

[Christian Knudsen]

Take note: the new logo outright mentions what the holding company of the newspaper is: The Gannett Company.

Yeah, so if the purpose of the new logo is to hide the complexity of the business structure USA Today is part of, it's doing a really shitty job, wouldn't you say?

[Morroque]

Take note: the new logo outright mentions what the holding company of the newspaper is: The Gannett Company.

Yeah, so if the purpose of the new logo is to hide the complexity of the business structure USA Today is part of, it's doing a really shitty job, wouldn't you say?

Big organisms move and think rather slowly. That, and corporate brainstorming is considered a contemporary continuation of dadaist surrealism these days; so your assertion that this look at things from their viewpoint doesn't follow a complete logic would indeed be entirely correct. Believe me, I don't hold corporate branders in terribly high regard. I recently made the mistake of reading some literature from the more professional brand managers and found their language to be quite noxious and borderline with Vogon poetry. Those experts who recommended this logo dumbdown know so much about one thing that the rest of the universe of discourse is simply unknown to them.

I'm sure they'll realize it's not working sooner or later. 'till then, think of yourself as the game hero and think of dealing with this as guiding a somewhat stupid escort mission AI around where if it makes one false move it'll make the world explode. It's just some crazy thing we're all forced to put up with - a groupthink we all hate but will still happen anyway.

This idea I have about inverse relationship between the working complexity of the structure against the visual complexity of their media image is still just theory. I'll welcome anyone who thinks of a reason why it might not be correct. I'm not exactly in love with this topic.

[mono]

Aha, so you have not figured out the brilliance of this logo yet? That is not just an cyan dot. The logo cleverly brings up the global warming issue in a sublime way. This logo represents the water levels of the earth if we do not slow down this process. USA Today are not just being minimalist, they are realists.

[Evan McClane]

Looks boring on its own, but the other versions look decent.

[Superb Joe]

forget usa today, lets talk about usa tomorrow and attend barack obama speeches

[Christian Knudsen]

@ev149: With those logo variations, it makes a lot more sense. It kinda reminds me of how DC does their logo and variations.

[moi]

north korea would never have such a pitiful logo, you fucking american.

[FK in the Coffee]