From Voice ~ Topics: branding/identity, current affairs
When Bad Things Happen to Good Logos
When bad things happen, even the best-intentioned designs will suffer. Logos are judged good or bad by the deeds or policies they represent. Although inconceivable today, during the early 20th century the swastika—or hooked cross, an ancient symbol of good fortune—was adopted as a commercial mark for such products as Good Luck Jar Rubbers, Fresh Deodorant, Swastika Fresh Fruit, Swastika Cigars, Swastika Matches and even Coca-Cola. In 1922 it was, however, adopted by Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Workers Party (the Nazis), and in 1935 was elevated to the national symbol of Nazi Germany. From that moment its symbolism went from benign to toxic. The possibility that the swastika can be cleansed of its dreadful connotations in Western culture is improbable for the foreseeable future.
Paul Rand’s “E” for Enron (top) and the recently retired Circuit City logo (above).
This is the most extreme case of bad things happening to good logos, but the list goes on. Take the Enron “E” designed by Paul Rand. Prior to the massive corruption scandal that brought down the energy company and wiped out billions in employee pensions, the three horizontal bars on the “E” simply represented three pipelines meeting at a central distribution repository—an elegant way to represent the company’s primary asset. While this was not necessarily Rand’s best corporate logo, it was an effective mnemonic. Until, that is, the public learned of Enron’s corporate malfeasance, which eventually brought its executives to trial, jail and suicide, and the “E” became a scarlet letter, the butt of stinging satire and vitriolic condemnation.
Rand warned that logos are like “rabbits’ feet,” imbued with mystical and magical properties not always rooted in the rational. He further noted, a logo is only as good as the entity it stands for. The Edsel automobile was a commercial failure, so the Edsel name and trademark became forever associated with folly. Recently, Circuit City, the big box electronics and appliance store, went belly-up, and I’d wager that red circular logos like theirs won’t be repeated by other retailers in the near future lest they brand themselves a failure. Although the recession triggered Circuit City’s demise, the logo will doubtless be blamed. The logo is the face of a company, institution or state. It embodies the good, bad and ugly aspects of what it brands. It is either lucky or unlucky, positive or negative, depending on the context in which it exists. Context is just about everything in logoland.
Consumers were outraged by Arnell Group’s 2009 Tropicana redesign (right), but it was a far cry from the racially offensive Tropic-Ana trade character of the 1970s (left).
Much criticism has been heaped on the Arnell Group for its bland design of the Tropicana package and logo, which, following an unpredicted popular outcry, was returned to its previous, less generic state: the orange and candy-stripe straw motif. But few remember that, before the emblematic orange, the juice package was graced with a racially offensive trade character named Tropic-Ana. She was a slightly pot-bellied topless little girl in a skimpy grass skirt, carrying a basket of oranges on her head, a variation on the Minute Maid girl and Chiquita Banana lady. Cuteness was used in the same way one might view a baby bear. Innocent given the conventions of the times, Tropic-Ana symbolized a widespread view of superiority over indigenous peoples the world over (she was apparently a native to Florida) that underscored the colonialist/manifest destiny idea that “the natives” exist only to serve the American way of life.
Could this tasteless Pronto Pups campaign have ever been considered a good idea?
Many trade characters have been retired over time for their offensive depictions. Around a score of such questionable characters are collected in the new book, Ad Boy: Vintage Advertising with Character (10 Speed Press) by Warren Dotz and Masud Husain. Included among the mostly benign, silly and cute characters are the more tasteless: a sombrero/poncho-wearing hot dog for Tasty Pronto Pups; the Indian River maiden, an Indian “squaw” with the head of an orange and the va-va-voom body of a femme fatale; and of course, the Frito Bandito, the Mexican bandito (as if all Mexicans were outlaws) who is always pilfering corn chips. Analysis is not necessary because these characters speak for themselves—we know they’re wrong when we see them. Racist trademarks were once copious on labels and advertisements for American products (and many foreign ones too), in part because minorities had little or no voice in mainstream society, and their otherness gave them curiosity value. Some of these characterizations still exist, however, in the sports field. Others, including Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben and the Cream of Wheat chef, were so positively ingrained in the public’s consciousness (in the trade press they were referred to as “friendly characters” that housewives welcomed into their homes) that, rather than retire them, they were refined to reflect the times. Aunt Jemima, who in the late-19th century was actually a real-life African-American pitchwoman who performed around the country, was transformed from a plantation house slave into a benign aunty. Uncle Ben, the happy house servant, has not changed much to this day (incidentally, the product was originally produced by an African-American entrepreneur, Gordon L. Harwell).
This Archdiocesan Youth Commission logo, designed by Gerry Kano in the early 1970s, is not so black and white.
A logo is designed to activate positive recognition. There’s nothing worse than a logo that sparks indifference, except perhaps one that has no redeeming value at all. Failure—a product that fails to appeal—is one such valueless attribute. Designers who have created logos for failed or sluggish businesses are wise to remove such work from their portfolio. On some occasions, logos are more than marks of failure or malfeasance; sometimes they unintentionally illustrate the foibles or folly of a company or institution all too vividly. Take the Archdiocesan Youth Commission logo, designed three decades before the sex abuse scandal broke out in the Catholic Church. The unfortunate pictorial relationship between the priest and the child, given our collective awareness in 2009, suggests a much too ironic interpretation. It’s a challenge to see what this positive/negative image once suggested, a guardian protecting the innocent, since the benevolence of its subject matter is no longer black and white. When a good design signifies bad deeds, the result is, well, a really unfortunate logo.
-
Enron “E” designed by Paul Rand and the Tropicana to me a are extremley bad up dates to the old designs. When something is good dont change it!
-
Unfortunately, it's much easier to label a poor logo and brand identity as the demise of an organization, than it is to recognize the value that a strategically targeted, creative logo and brand identity can provide.
-
They've gone back to the previous Tropicana logo because of the confusion the new Tropicana logo was creating. It was difficult to recognize the brand and the varieties of juice could not be easily discerned. New is not always better.
-
I think Gerry Kano had something against the church with that Archdiocesan Youth Commission logo.
More unfortunately phallic logos linked through my name. -
Why is the Tropicana logo considered racially offensive? Because it contains the graphic in the likeness of the indigenous people of where the oranges are supposed to be obtained?
P.C gone mad if you ask me. -
What a well crafted and beautifully insightful logo. There's so much there that I was completely unaware of and found very interesting indeed.
As for the new Tropicana branding, I really don't mind it. I personally am very fond of the logo typography. As for the earlier racism, it's just a relic of a different age, the older generation as I see it. It may seem naive or ignorant but I guess that's just the way it was.
The AYC logo is, let's face it, hilarious. Even before any form of scandal broke out, could you seriously imagine passing that off as your logo?
Thanks Steven, I'll be checking out more of your writings. -
I meant 'well crafted and beautifully insightful *article*' dammit!
-
Good read, it shows that to the public, associations that they have with a logo makes a good logo, good — more than the actual concept or design of the logo.
The Swastika move from 'good' symbol than reminded people of some brands to a symbol of hatred.
A logo can move from 'good' to 'bad' without any change to its design — associations, associations, associations. -
Great article. I agree with Paul Rand in that the logo is only as good as the entity it stands for. If Nike, known for its iconic logo, came crashing to the ground because of some corporate or international crime I am sure that its logo would forever be associated with that atrocity, and not the "athlete" stature it represents now.
-
From my experience, I know that the associations that a logo gains after being connected to an organization/product are far more powerful than the intrinsic associations, that get the logo chosen the first time by the client from the proposed concepts.
-
Which archdiocese did that "Archdiocesan Youth Commission logo" come from? This logo came from the archdiocessan level and doesn't reflect the Church a whole.
-
I like the author's point, but I think the examples are a little wanting. Attributing "poisonous" status on the Enron logo and the Circuit City logos is ascribing entirely too much importance on their impact(s) as brands. Neither logo carries the weight or universal recognition of a multicultural symbol like the swastika. As far as racism in older advertising, well that's just plain rediculous. The only minds that are perceiving those images as racist are the ones making an effort to do so. The images were engaging, friendly and comfortable, and they sold an enormous amount of product. Like the big bald white guy who sold all that cleaning stuff. We know that it has never been just one demographic contributing to those sales, so I think it's pretty clear that those materials were engaging for a wide variety of races, cultures and creeds within our own wider American culture. Let's stop trying so hard to find demons and devils in the woodwork. Ascribing racism where it doesn't exist just perpetuates that whole stupid mindset.
-
Ordinarily I'd agree that some of us are just too darn sensitive to innocent portrayals. And arguably - as I noted - these were friendly and successful comic trademarks designed to benignly brand a good product. Ordinarily, I cut some slack given the tenor and conventions of the times. But these are not entirely innocent. Institutional racism is insidious, it occurs when non-racists do insensitive things because convention dictates it okay. There were many Darkie trade characters in American commercial culture that in addition to being comic, created a stereotype that ultimately had negative implications for the group or individuals. I'd say exploiting racial or ethnic characteristics for these purposes is questionable at best. Defending them in light of today's consciousness is like saying it was and is okay. Racism is not as simple as black and white, there are many shades of prejudice, some of it quite friendly, like these characters.
-
To Mr. Snell, Mr. Mckee, and others who can't see the fault in tropicana's logo:
Granted I am making an assumption about you based on your response, but part of the privileges of being "white" in America is having a naive eye for insensitive, slanderous illustrations, comments, or any offensive form of expression. It is not that people want to go and find something negative about the illustration. It is what it is, as Heller stated above, "Institutionalized racism, " or a negative, stereotypical, romanticized portrayal of Native Americans or Pacific culture. If tropicana wanted to be playful they'd illustrate a talking orange tree indigenous to Miami, Florida, or make the character herself and orange cartoon, not a caricature of what they perceive Native Americans look like / dress like. It is offensive because it is not historically correct, and as Heller stated, feeds into people ignorance of what real Native Americans are about. You yourself may be intelligent enough to see pass a "cute" illustration, but think about the little child who looks at the orange carton in the morning while eating his cereal, whose parents aren't educated enough to answer his questions about Native American culture. We as designers have a lot of power to influence the masses by a single image, let's be careful with the images we but forth in the world. If you can design with a "green consciousness" then you can also design with a social consciousness. -
I got a big laugh out of this article. Not just the off-color joke with the inclusion of the AYC logo- but at these two self-aggrandizing, self-important and ridiculously life-in-a-vacuum quotes: "Although the recession triggered Circuit City’s demise, the logo will doubtless be blamed" and "Designers who have created logos for failed or sluggish businesses are wise to remove such work from their portfolio." Are you kidding? Get your head out of the early 20th Century and with the program. I would expect this sort of pablum in the classroom of an online design school ("you too can be a graphic artist in just six months!"), and not as a voice for the AIGA.
-
@Marketing Rockstar - But, what I got out of the article at least, is that the execution of the logo - however well done - can be overshadowed by the actual deeds of the company. That in itself is a failure of the brand because of the disconnect.
-
The logo doesn't make the business. The business makes the logo.
-
It seems to me that Americans can often be too PC. In South Africa we've had lots of great ad campaigns that play on stereotypes. Granted, the time and trouble is taken to stereotype either whites, or a wide variety of groups. So no-one has to feel left out. I think it's much healthier to make fun of everyone and to all laugh and joke together. Rather that than prefacing every sentence with "if you don't mind my saying, don't take this the wrong way please, I don't mean it in that way, it's just how it used to be said, so I just want to ask this question, but don't take offense..."
-
I thought that the swastika had to rotate in the opposite direction to represent good fortune?
-
Melissa, the swastika can rotate in any direction to symbolize good fortune. In fact, swastikas come in many shapes (curved edges, right angle hooks, etc.).
-
Logos are important to the image of the company and thus reflects what the business is about. Scandals like Enron and WorldCom forever sullied their logos to symbolize greed and corporate lying. But I don't feel the same way with Circuit City. They didnt do anything scandalous. They were unable to compete in the recession and lost. I feel sorry for the logo actually.
-
Well the logo is supposed to represent the company but it obviously also works the other way around. Logo is always associated with company and all of its actions.
-
As a designer who also works on a retail sales floor, I can tell you that the "new" Tropicana design did not work because it too closely resembled "generic" products, looked faded in color compared to the brands it is placed next to, it retained nothing familiar but the name "Tropicana" which was positioned vertically and rendered impossible to read/recognize by a shopper scanning the product inside a retail refrigerator. To me, this was a change for the sake of change issue, done more in consideration of "art" than "craft."
-
Over a month ago, I wrote an analysis of what went wrong in the Tropicana re-brand. I provide lessons-learned for brand stewards to consider when moving forward with a re-brand exercise. http://limina-ao.com/blog/2009/03/25/ux-for-breakfast-brand-vs-usability/
I think it's important for highly visible and broadly recognized brands to make mistakes. Because we learn just as much, if not more, from mistakes than we can from their successes. Hopefully the lessons will lead to better practices in the future. Thanks for the write up! -
Context is all. I agree with Marius Ursache that "the associations that a logo gains after being connected to an organization/product are far more powerful than the intrinsic associations", however I am still amazed that even in the "innocent" 70s that that Catholic logo was thought to be a good idea.
-
In regards to the comment made by Noirin "To me, this was a change for the sake of change issue, done more in consideration of "art" than "craft.". My comment on that. We are in a time right now where it is safe to re-brand. Companies are looking for a way to keep afloat in a recession. So it really is not just for the sake of change, it is for the sake of staying alive in a bad economy.
-
Good article. I wouldn't haven't minded to see more examples though.
Having read a few of the missives about the Tropicana design fiasco, I can't help but put my own failures, whatever they are, into perspective. On the days that I feel rotten about a lost project or a good concept derailed, I will say "Tropicana" to myself and get back up on the horse, being thankful, I suppose for little notoriety...good or bad : ) -
Regarding the Circuit City Logo I'm afraid the author has made a illogical leap in the importance of design versus...say a strategic business plan. Why would anyone "blame" the logo for the company's demise in a recession? If logo design has the power to save or kill a company then please let's take it one step further and design a "Healthy Economy" logo and move on.
-
I agree that political correctness can be taken too far in our society; it's almost become a knee-jerk reaction. And, as Ingrid pointed out, sometimes poking fun (in the name of fun) is a healthy thing. But the bitterness of racism in American culture still lingers in the mouths of many people and harkening back to that time is an affront to many people. It's true that many portrayals of minorities were done in a time when racism was just "the water we swam in" as the author Tim Tyson said — nevertheless, it's just wrong to think they're OK in our present time.
That aside, I have to confess that I kind of like the kitschiness of the Pronto Pup characters even though I have enormous respect for Mr. Heller usual sound judgement on all things relating to design. Sorry Steve. -
After watching FRONTLINE about the 'Meltdown on Wall Street',
the AIGA logo now looks like the AIG logo to me!
(Or does the AIG logo look like the AIGA logo?) -
Let’s not contribute to the demise of good sense
I would like to think that designers are above the irrational fear responses often seen in the public sector (in this context – non-designers). Unfortunately, that is not always the case. The Enron “E” is still a good logo regardless of the money gorging misbehavior of its owners. The Circuit City logo is still an effective and appropriate design for a large retail chain regardless of the demise of that company. I personally believe that no designer should feel disparaged when his or her honest, hard work becomes a symbol the public disdains. If it’s intelligently crafted, good and appropriate design, keep it in you portfolio. You have done no wrong.
The second situation mentioned in Mr. Heller’s article is much more subtle and revealing. Here again, I would like to think that designers are above the opinionated responses often seen in the public sector. That’s just not the case. Designers are very susceptible to highbrow views. The coolness and/or politically correct factors drive an incredible amount of design. Social views made evident by such brands as Tropic-Ana, Pronto Pups, Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima and a host of others simply represent the common thinking of the educated minority of earlier eras. Viewing logos and identities like these should make us ponder where our hidden biases are lurking. I’m certain that future generations will be able to discern the flaws in our thinking while being unable to discern their own blind spots.
The last logo, or more accurately pictograph for the Archdiocesan Youth Commission, is a situation that runs parallel to the Enron and Circuit City examples. It does imply a parochial leadership of youth, however, our recent news has added threatening and tragic facets to this view. It’s still a good logo but our changing awareness will not allow us to use it today. Should it be retained in the portfolio? I think so, but the date of creation should be apparent. It’s that fact that redeems it. This logo is in the AIGA design archives where it belongs.
Images, icons and styles based on the sociology of the day only work in the era of their creation. But, if we let social pressure edit our portfolios we can become victims of current events and be forced to design within the limited range of mediocrity. I’m sure we would all love to design a classic, historic piece for every project – but that’s just not realistic. So what do we do?
I believe that it is incumbent upon the designer to be
•Aware of social trends but above them
•Observant of what is politically correct but not commanded by it
•Engaged in a high level of personal integrity
•Aware of the big picture yet attentive to the local need
•Educated in the history of design and the consequences of design
•Excellent at research
There’s no crystal ball. We genuinely don’t know whether a particular design we have created will become classic or tragic because of social or political events. The bullet items above are a starting point. Please feel free to your own.
Sharon DiIorio
Director of Design
The Art Institute of Colorado
1200 Lincoln Street
Denver CO 80203-2172
sdiiorio@edmc.edu -
I disagree with the assertion that red circle logos equate failure. I find the circuit city logo still appealing and pleasing to the eye, whether the company went belly up or not. Target also incorporates red and circle and they are doing quite well.
Otherwise very interesting reading. -
This was a very interesting article to read.
I think you can keep those logos in your portfolio because the person who is checking out your portfolio should see it as a good logo and not for what the company has done. The logo represents the company but it's not the logos fault for making a bad business. Although the logo may have a negative connotation, it still stands out and many people will recognize it and remember it. -
Obviously, the company didn't equate the Circuit City logo with failure. The store was bought out and has just been relaunched as an online only store — using exactly the same logo. Check it out:
http://www.circuitcity.com -
i think the logo is the most important thing when it comes to selling a great product. the logo is always what i remember when i buy a product.
-
A revisor would see all those things.
-
I can't help but feel saddened about the fate of these companies. Too bad that they have wonderful logos. I wonder how the artists must feel. Do they still associate themselves with these companies?
-
I'd like to positve, remember the old BT logo and how it has now changed to it's 'globe' I think that's a good example. Who says they have to go down hill. Matt.
-
I actually really liked the Enron logo. Sort of a shame that they were such a huge... scam. Doesn't do the logo justice.
-
The only minds that are perceiving those images as racist are the ones making an effort to do so. The images were engaging, friendly and comfortable, and they sold an enormous amount of product. Like the big bald white guy who sold all that cleaning stuff. We know that it has never been just one demographic contributing to those sales, so I think it's pretty clear that those materials were engaging for a wide variety of races, cultures and creeds within our own wider American culture.

Comments