Our first reaction to something, usually a superficial one based solely on appearance, changes almost immediately upon use. If it doesn’t work well, then it really doesn’t matter how impressive your graphic design or industrial design was.

So is it a waste of time for a designer to do work for a product that isn’t any good? First, I suppose you have to determine what makes a product bad. There are numerous things, but usually it’s a case of quality being compromised so that they can be made cheaper. Businesses figure that marketing can fix that problem by making the products seem a lot better than they actually are through image manipulation & trendy graphic design. Well, I personally don’t think that’s good business.

I think there has to be more collaboration between the design and the product; meaning that the product should feature the same equality in its use as it does in its appearance through industrial design and graphic design. All it really comes down to is businesses should be more honest about what they’re selling.

It’s a frustrating problem. Sometimes the product will be so awful you can’t even take a good photograph of it for your ads. I often find myself feeling very sorry for professional product photographers. Some products are so bad that you have to fool people by manipulating the photos so much that it ends up looking like almost something entirely different. The product you’re now portraying in your ads after your extensive photoshopping ends up not being the one you’re selling at all. Is that deceptive? Is it wrong?

Well, companies do it all the time. Most photography we see of food isn’t actually real food, for example. Not only does that really upset the consumer when they find out that they’re being fooled like that, it really makes what the graphic designers and photographers did completely pointless. I’m sure you can probably relate when I say that my first experience with that feeling of advertising deception was as a young child. I had just received my hamburger, expecting the big juicy burger up on the menu, but instead I received a burger that was half the size and half as appetizing as what I saw on the menu.

If the product you’re marketing turns out to not be quite like the great product you advertised, then the graphics are awful too and not only did the company fail, but so did the graphic artist. The graphic artist lied, and dissapointed the customer. Yeah, the company may have sold one product thanks to the good graphics. Yes, you got the customer in the door, but you’re probably not going to see repeat business. Company’s will rarely admit this failure is the product’s fault, though – they’ll blame it on the marketing.

I just wish things could be sold and marketed as honestly as possible. If only it were that simple.

I had been having some nagging feelings about my design work recently. I’m pretty sure I’ve just been experiencing a bit of a burn-out, as the past few weeks have been very busy and stressful. I started feeling like the design work I was doing was not really touching anyone on the kind of level I would like. I’d get to the point where I would feel like the work was completely selfish and irrelevant, only touching people on a very superficial level. But I suppose that’s the nature of marketing design. If I wanted to touch people on some truly deep and profound level I’d probably have to hightail to Paris and mingle with the “real” artsy types. I know what would happen, I’d come running back after winding up painting road signs.

Don’t get me wrong, I love what I’m doing. I’m just in a rut. It happens. After a while, the batteries have to be changed. So lately I’ve been looking everywhere for some sort of seeds of artistic revolution. I’ve been looking for something to convince me that my designs are still worth making and looking at, that they aren’t as irrelevant and silly as I fear.

Initially I thought that what I needed was some time and space to think. I thought that maybe I just needed more time to be able to focus on my personal life, without all the distracting clutter of marketing bottom lines and mission statements. But I need to save that for later. It’s way too early in the game for a time out.

The fundamental question for me isn’t how do I as graphic artist touch the world, but how the world touches me as a graphic artist, and how that shows up in my work. There’s certainly more to this story, and there are all kinds of related tangents, but I’m afraid I’ve gone on too long already. The rest will likely come out another day. For now, I’m not really going to change anything, I just need to relax and look at things in a more positive way. It gets tough sometimes to overcome this perpetual state of angst that I seem to be in.

Thank you as always for your kind attention, and please let me know if you’d like me to clarify, recant, or feel embarrassed about anything. See-ya later!

Let’s start with the nightmare – Kodak. This is the worst face-lift I have ever seen on a logo. Kodak has taken their well known logo, which I’ll agree needed a little updating, and they’ve reduced it to what you see below. It’s some kind of ugly russian futurist style thing. I’m not sure entirely what they were trying to accomplish here, but if it was an attempt to modernize it they have truly failed at that. In fact, it looks like it’s from the same era as the original, just not as good. The old logo at least had a very clear connection with photography.

The only thing this new Kodak logo has going for it is that the “d” in the logo looks like half of a film roll that would have been used in those old instamatic cameras. The worst part is that they likely spent an unbelievable amount of money on this redesign. I’m still technically a junior level graphic designer, and I could have come up with thirty logos for Kodak that are ten times better than this. They should show us the rejects. I’d be interested in what they turned down for this.

Now, Intel. Not too bad, it’s bearable. But wow, a swirlie thing around the logo? That was old and busted back in 1989, when Ameritech changed their logo. I think Intel might be doing themselves a bit of a disservice with this logo. The sunken “e” was exceptionally iconic and unique to the Intel brand.

The more I look at new logos like Intel’s and Kodak’s and compare them to AT&T’s new logo the more I actually begin to like AT&T’s new logo, even though it replaces such a great original. You see, minimalistic curves and swishes with sharp edges are getting to be somewhat annoying when every single company on the face of the earth is trying to use them.

Man, I sure can be negative about these things can’t I? Why can’t I say something good about something for a change, you wonder? Well, I can. I will say that I like what Sprint/Nextel has done with their combined logo. I’ve always liked the whole “pin drop” clarity concept and think it’s communicated really well in the new Sprint logo’s illustration. The yellow and black colors they took from Nextelwork really well for a tech/communications company, the colors are high-tech and commanding. They did a great job, especially since they were dealing with the merger of two very large companies. One is so large, it’s the title sponsor of a major sport: NASCAR.

But it seems that NASCAR fans shouldn’t get too used to the new “Nextel Cup” name that titles NASCAR’s top series. Nextel Cup replaced the Winston Cup name in 2004 when Nextel purchased the naming rights. The “Nextel Cup Series” name is reportedly continuing until the end of the 2006 season, but we can expect a name change for 2007. It will likely be something like Sprint Cup, as Sprint remains the main corporate name, and Nextel will just be a sub-brand. (Source)

NASCAR has a right to approve or reject any name change that could result from the merger between Nextel and Sprint. The 10-year contract Nextel signed also limits how many times they can change the name. I can see how NASCAR would have an interest in such a thing, as certain names might not test well with fans and may effect the sport’s marketing. (Source)

Overall, this trend of modernizing corporate logos, whether it’s UPS, AT&T, Kodak, Intel, or whoever else decides to do it next, it’s been very disappointing so far. Sometimes minimal works, but I feel like it’s going a bit too far. No wonder so many ad execs and corporate types have no respect for graphic design anymore. Apparently they can get what they want out of a logo at one of those $75 online logo factories. It’s very, very disappointing.

Recently I was asked to share how I come up with a design concept. They wanted a run-down of my whole creative process, which kind of felt like having a telemarketer ask for my credit card number and social security number. The little voice in your head starts asking, “Why do they need to know? What are they going to do with it?” You see, my unique creative process is what makes me, well, unique as a professional. I feel compelled to protect my process like a company protects a trade secret or formula. Maybe I’m just paranoid. In my competitive field I feel like I have to have an edge all the time. A lot of people think graphic designers are a “dime a dozen.” You have no idea how many times I’ve heard it – There are some people out there who are really quite cynical about my line of work. Unfortunately those people are usually those in the position of hiring or employing graphic designers, which as you can probably imagine really makes things interesting for people like me.

Sure, you can probably find any punk off the street to lay out some text and place some stock photos onto a page using Adobe Illustrator. Thanks to software, a simple secretary can make a PowerPoint presentation look as if it was designed by a pro. But it’s all template driven. It lacks original thought and no one is really inspired by any of it. There is a difference between some secretary throwing together a presentation using some template designed by Microsoft and someone like myself going through a couple hours of research, a couple hours of thumbnail sketching and brainstorming. I’ll usually write each idea or line of copy and draw each sketch on a Post-It note and I’ll stick it up on a wall. I’ll usually fill up the whole wall, using 1-2 pads of Post-Its. What color do I use? Wouldn’t you like to know.

You’d think I’d be used to answering these questions about my creative process by now what with all the job interviewing and portfolio shows I’ve had in the last couple years. Still, I feel like I have to hold back. I just don’t feel like giving away my secrets. So I often just give the usual generic response, which is probably why some might find themselves hesitant to work with me. In the long run, it will probably be better if I just start sharing more of what I do with the people who need to know. After all, it’s the final result of a design that ultimately matters. Who knows, maybe my process wouldn’t even work for anyone else.

It almost seems impossible that Christmas is already behind us. And 2006 is upon us? We’re already over halfway through this decade? Unbelievable. Time is really flying, which means I’d better get my butt into gear and get some big things accomplished here pretty soon. More about those things another day…

To be honest, this was a really stressful Christmas. Even though it’s over, I’m still feeling really stressed out. I really envy those who can make it through Christmas stress-free. As much as I try not to, I’ve always envied those lucky enough to have all the material comforts of life. It’s hard to imagine what it would be like to be one of those people who whose backs are truly unbent.

Plus, It’s been kind of a long week back to work. That comes as no surprise, you get all built up to this big holiday and then it’s just all done in an instant and we’re expected to get back into the swing of things just as quickly. So it’s been one of those “I need a beer” weeks.

That aside, Christmas this year – although stressful – was great. I enjoyed my holidays very much. Had some delicious meals, received some wonderful gifts. Can’t ask for any more than that. Would have loved to have seen more of my family, but I guess I got that at Thanksgiving so I shouldn’t complain.

I do feel kind of bad about one thing, though, I messed up when shipping out some of my gifts. I mixed two boxes up and shipped one to Kansas, the other to North Dakota, but really they should have been reversed. So now as a bonus Christmas gift, those people get to make a trip to their local post office to ship them to the right place for me. Not to mention the gifts are late. What fun is opening gifts a week after Christmas? And I tried so hard to get things out on time. I guess this will teach me to not be in such a hurry at the post office. I’m confident they’ll understand.

No big New Years plans for us, and no resolutions this year. I’m not entirely sure what I’m going to do with my Monday off from work just yet, but I’m sure I’ll have no trouble figuring something out.

Happy New Year!

The AT&T globe logo, designed by Saul Bass in the early 1980s, is the latest victim of the recent corporate logo modernization trend. It has been turned into a multi-toned three dimensional logo with some similarity to the original, however it does not seem to communicate the same strong image that Bass’s original had, in my opinion. The first problem I notice is that they’re going to have a hell of a time getting it to print consistently in all of their materials. Is it the new trend to make printing even more complicated than it already is?

Bass created the original globe logo for AT&T in the early 80s, following the antitrust lawsuit which forced AT&T to break up. Now, AT&T has merged with SBC, which is one of the Bell’s that was spun off from AT&T during that big break up of 1984. I guess they got that one back.

The AT&T/SBC press release about the new logo contains all the usual corporate fluff:

The revitalized mark symbolizes these attributes: innovation, integrity, quality, reliability and unsurpassed customer care. The new globe is three-dimensional, representing the expanding breadth and depth of services that the new AT&T family of companies provides to customers, as well as its global presence.

Actually, I think it represents someone in the focus group saying, “Hey, can we make it 3D like that cool Firefox logo?” They go on to say:

Transparency was added to the globe to represent clarity and vision. Lowercase type is now used for the “AT&T” characters because it projects a more welcoming and accessible image.

As a concept, it’s not too bad. But the actual execution leaves something to be desired. After reading through the press conference, it comes across as more fluff than bang. It definitely looks more like they’re just trying to follow the latest trends and then they’re just coming up with a spin on what those trends represent.

Then there’s the text, which is actually about as disappointing to me as the changed globe. They brought the once powerful uppercase AT and T down to the lowercase level below the lowly ampersand? This is dangerous. Before, the AT and T stood high above the ampersand reminding it of its place low on the totem pole of typography. But now? Now all second-rate characters are going to demand equal billing. The tilde and hyphen have demanded voting rights. The semi-colon is on strike until it is recognized as a complete colon. They’ve thrown the grammar world into a tizzy.

Ultimately, the logo is a huge mistake mainly because it relies on shading to make any sense of what you’re looking at. It will not degrade well in print and will not print consistently. This doesn’t even begin to include the issues of getting it to work on other branding opportunities. Try to imagine that logo embroidered onto jackets and baseball hats, screened onto water bottles and frisbees and tee shirts. I hope they have a plan B.

Another recent major corporate logo change came from UPS in March of 2003 when they replaced the bow-tied parcel and shield logo, which was originally designed by Paul Rand. The new logo, designed by New York-based FutureBrand, is a two-toned, 3-dimensional shield topped with the cliche swoosh. The logo uses a slightly modified version of the Dax font, which you probably recognize from its overuse by something like 80% of the other corporate logos designed in the last 10-15 years. UPS CEO Mike Eskew said in the UPS Press Release that “UPS is a vastly different company today than most people realize. Today we are bringing our look up to speed with our capabilities.”

I’ll admit, UPS’s new look has some successful qualities, however I don’t believe it quite measures up to the classic identity system they once carried. Executives at UPS think they’ve brought their company “up to speed” with this new look, which may be the case to the masses who don’t know any better – but to people like me who have no time on their hands and think about these things, the logo is filled with design cliches that appear to me to be something a focus group came up with instead of an artist/designer. I bet the focus group ideas sounded something like this – “I want to see a swoosh to signify speedy service! Swooshes work for so many companies! Why not UPS?”

I’ll tell you why not, because UPS isn’t every other company. Set yourself apart from everyone else! Stop changing old classic logos! Since logos are meant to represent companies and foster recognition by consumers, it’s counterproductive to redesign logos like this, especially when the logo has been used for so many years. UPS didn’t need to change it.

So who’s the next victim going to be? Paul Rand’s IBM logo? William Durant’s Chevy Bow-Tie?

Adobe Photoshop vs. Macromedia Fireworks is a fairly obvious one. Photoshop is hugely popular, and much further along than Fireworks. The only thing that I can really think of is that Adobe should be able to grab a few nice features from Fireworks, especially for it’s ImageReady application. In fact, they could probably just get rid of ImageReady, and replace it entirely with Fireworks with just more of a Photoshop look and feel.

Adobe Illustrator vs. Macromedia Freehand is also a pretty easy one to call, Illustrator is as huge as Photoshop and is a much better program than Freehand. In fact, I can’t personally think of too many things that Adobe can really take from Freehand, as Adobe already does everything better in their own vector-based application. The best thing they can do is to integrate Flash into Illustrator, which is something I’m extremely excited about.

Adobe GoLive vs. Macromedia Dreamweaver is the one that worries me the most, and I think it’s also the toughest one to call. Adobe seems to be pretty proud of their GoLive application, they always have been, and no one knows why. Hopefully, Adobe will be smart and recognize the larger market share of Dreamweaver in addition to realizing how much more powerful a tool it is for Web developers.

Adobe After Effects vs. Macromedia Director is another one than concerns me, because I personally prefer Director over After Effects. However, I know that After Effects has more market share and they are more likely to dump Director. Hopefully they’ll combine some of my favorite functions or take some things from Director, so that the transition isn’t quite so hard on long-time Director fans like myself. Ultimately, I’m really going to hate to see Director go.

We all know Flash is going to stay, we’ll just have to get used to calling it “Adobe Flash.” So at least that one small part of Macromedia is sure to continue into the future. But I’m concerned about all the smaller Macromedia developments that have come up through the past couple years–Flex, Breeze, Contribute, FlashPaper, what’s going to happen to all these little gems?

Historically Adobe’s focus has been on graphic designers, and I have to wonder how good of a job Adobe will do in keeping Macromedia’s strong developer base. Graphic designers have a much different set of requirements than developers, and Macromedia has tried to capture more developers and has been successful. This is the one thing that Adobe can either help or ruin.

As I said before, it will be a shame to see less competition in the industry. The new Adobe will kill companies like Corel. If that happens, I’ll be really ticked, as Corel Draw 8 was the first graphics program I learned how to design on. It has sentimental value, I guess. On the bright side, the Adobe-Macromedia merging of software should really streamline things for those of us who have been using both Macromedia and Adobe products over the years. I’m sure there will be things we’ll all hate and have to learn to deal with, but there are going to be things that will be so cool that we’ll forget about all the stuff that we miss.

To be honest, I sort of wish that Adobe would have bought Quark instead, ending that dinosaur we all know and hate – QuarkXPress. Eh, QuarkXPress 6.5 isn’t so bad. It’s a little better. It’s still pretty tedious compared to InDesign. I suppose we’ll just have to wait for Adobe to kill off Quark the hard way. InDesign 2.0 and CS have made some huge blows to Quark so far. Will CS2 finish this fight off once and for all? You all know who I’m rooting for.

Personally not much is going on right now. I’ve had a really quiet weekend. Relaxing, but kind of boring. I’m taking Friday afternoon off this week to get my Minnesota Drivers License and register my car in Minnesota. Yeah, I’ve been kind of putting that off. My ND tabs expire at the end of the month, so I definitely need to get it done on Friday. And my auto insurance company is dropping me at the end of May. Apparently they aren’t licensed to insure in Minnesota. So I’m going to have to find a new insurance company, and the rates I’ve been finding so far haven’t been pretty. Good thing I got a raise last week.

Not much else going on in my world for now. May will be a good month. Big Cinco De Mayo party coming up, that should be fun. Oh, and next Sunday my favorite show, Family Guy, is making it’s big return from being cancelled for a couple years. And of course Episode III on the 19th is another long awaited premiere. Lots of big new music albums coming out, too. But for now I gotta get out of here and eat something, so I’ll see you next time.