It’s no great surprise that AOL has taken a pretty good beating in blogs around the world the past few weeks, after introducing their new…um…logoish thing. I was one of MANY, MANY people who took the time to comment on the logo and almost all of the commentary has been negative. It seems that almost everybody has a reason to hate the logo.

Alissa Walker wrote an article for Fast Company, allowing branding firm Wolff Olins to tell their side of the story. While I am not sold on the somewhat tongue-in-cheek explanation that the new AOL logo is the logo of the future, I think that AOL’s management and Wolff Olins make a good case for themselves. I don’t buy AOL chief of staff Maureen Sullivan’s explanation that scrapping the old name is “the lazy consultant answer,” I can certainly appreciate the idea of hiring Wolff Olins at least in part because they were in the very small minority who advised them to keep the name.

Have you ever heard the old saying about when you’re in a panic situation and everybody is heading for the exits, you’re better off heading in the direction they’re coming from because you stand a better chance of getting out alive? I can appreciate that. I think, were I asked, I’d advise AOL to keep the name simply because AOL is an icon, so I agree with keeping the name.

Again, I don’t care for the changing imagery behind the logo, but the imagery isn’t supposed to be the logo. The logo is the Aol. wordmark in front of the image. If you go to the Wolff Olins home page (linked above), watch the video. It’s a good demonstration of how the logo “works” in a motion environment. The videos produced are, as Walker says in her piece, quite good and make a strong case for the “invisible wordmark.”

I still think they’d be better served by having identified one image as their flagship logo for print purposes, but I at least get what they were going for. I don’t know that it’s the future of design, but I have to admit that I like their out-of-the-box thinking.

Even if you don’t care for the new logo, Wolff Olins certainly gets an A for process and creative thinking. So kudos there, Wolff Olins.

What I’m most curious to see now is how many people start mimicking the style? I only wish I could put together a graph correlating the number of mimics with the number of critics, because you can bet your ass that there is going to a lot of crossover in those two groups. We hate it today, but we can’t wait to steal it.

Woody Allen was quoted once as saying, “80 percent of success is just showing up.”

Often when I am speaking to high school or college classes, the question of how to be successful designer comes up. And more often than not, I quote Woody’s wisdom because it is an absolute truth that applies not just to filmmaking and graphic design, but just about any other path in life you choose to follow.

The best example of not showing up is something that happened recently in my attempt to have a print project quoted by a printer. I am not going to name the printer, but I will tell you that it wasn’t F.P. Horak, McKay Press or QRP. Those are the three printers I use most often and I don’t want anyone to think that I’m talking about them.

This particular project, I thought, was a good fit for another printer in the region. The printer in question threw up every single roadblock they could come up with along the way. Honestly, it was as if they didn’t want my work.

My first step was to find their website to get contact info. The Google search took while because I wasn’t 100% sure of their name (they have gone through some ownership changes). With the correct site located, I clicked through to look for contact info and trouble ensued.

Their site is a wide-awake nightmare. I couldn’t find the information I was looking for, contact info was buried, sales department names and e-mail addresses weren’t available, etc. I didn’t want to fill out a form to wait for a response because my experience with these forms is that response time tends to be slower.

I was able to locate a phone number, though, so I called which led me to a pain-in-the-ass phone tree. If you don’t know the name of the person you are trying to reach, you’re directed to a general mailbox. Since I couldn’t find any sales rep names online, I would be stuck in the general mailbox which often isn’t much better than filling out the online form, where response time is concerned.

I call back and hit zero a few times and get through to a live person. I explain that I need a quote and she isn’t sure who she needs me to get to. After some confusion on her part, I just ask for a customer service rep and says she’ll connect me to the person I need to talk to. The call goes through to an extension which promptly hangs up on me. I call back again and ask if I can speak to a living, breathing customer service rep, but because I don’t have an account manager, she can’t direct me to a CSR.

Finally, in frustration, I give up. The job was a perfect fit for them and it will be printing elsewhere. It isn’t the hugest job in the world, but it would probably be somewhere between 5–10 grand every month or two. How many jobs like this do they lose in the course of a week? There were several opportunities along the way for them to save the interaction, but they managed to miss at every step. All they had to do was show up, but they phoned it in and missed out on a decent, little revenue stream.

There is actually a humorous postscript to the story, too. About one week after being unable to get a quote, I actually get a call from the sales manager wanting to sell me on doing my printing with them. I told him that I was surprised to hear from him and told him all about what had happened the prior week. He is both grateful for the candid input and assures me that is not the way they do business. He asks if he could send me some material to look at about them and maybe set up a meeting. I understand that every business has bad days, so I tell him to send the info and we’ll get together after that.

Five weeks later and guess what…nothing ever showed up.

Chuckleheads.

While the logo isn’t great, it’s not horrible, either. It’s just sort of there. I know that a lot of designers really hated this logo, but to be honest, I was on AOL before I was designer so the logo is very familiar to me. It’s not great, but it brings back good memories from the early days of the internet (granted, 1991 wasn’t that long ago, but it was still long before many people knew much about it).

As AOL continued to grow (and grow and grow), they decided to updated the logo to be more in step with the time. In 2004, the logo was given a more contemporary feel. Strangely, the new logo was to be part of the 20th anniversary celebration of AOL, but that was still seven years in the future.

Fast forward to 2009 and we’re still 2 years shy of the 20th anniversary and AOL finds itself facing a business climate change which they didn’t anticipate. Between DSL, cable modems, wireless networks and so forth, the need to have a dedicated service to connect to the internet is no more. There are still people who use AOL, but the numbers are WAY DOWN from the good, old days. AOL needs to find a way to make themselves relevant in order to survive in the current environment. Step one in that process is, apparently, a major rebranding. Behold the future…

…that’s right, it’s a goldfish. In other versions of the logo the goldfish is replaced with a green scribble, some sort of weird brain thing or any of many other little icons with an updated type treatment. AOL’s big branding brains came up with a whole slew of icons. Their explanation (excuse, is more like it) for this is that AOL is a 21st century media company and that required a brand that is “open and generous.”

Um…yeah…whatever. Just call it what it is…we don’t know who the hell we are, who we’re supposed to be or what you want us to be. So we’ll just be everything.

Can you believe some people get paid to come up with a goldfish with type on top of it? Assuming they were paid for the design work (and I use design loosely), they should be locked up for larceny.

This is, of course, the 989 Design logo:

Then as I was browing one day, I see this:

Ad Index guys, you’re embarassing me with your clear imitation of my logo. I did, after all, invent the red circle with reversed out characters.

And then to further the flattery, I refer you to the Great Lakes Loons Man of Steal poster:

Four or five weeks later, I was sitting in Brewtopia when I spotted the cover of the new Tri-City Magazine:

Stop it, you guys, you’re making me blush! I really appreciate that so many people have taken the time to mimic my work but you’re embarrassing me with all of this imitation.

Okay, to be clear, I’m being very tongue-in-cheek about this. Neither Ad Index nor Tri-City Magazine copied my work. There are trends in design and there are good ideas that happen simultaneously. Each of these is a case of  coincidence. It’s just dumb luck that I spotted the Ad Index logo (haven’t been able to find it since), but when I saw it the 989 logo was the first thing I thought of. As far as the TCM cover, that’s just a funny coincidence that we each had a Superman idea at the same time. I’ll take my Superman over theirs, though, because while Mike (on the magazine cover) is a great guy and a great golfer, Dee is going to be playing for the Dodgers one day.

We’re going to start with an album that some consider to be the very first true rock-n-roll record, Elvis Presley’s self-titled debut on RCA Records. When RCA purchased the 21-year-old singer’s contract from Sun Records’ owner Sam Phillips (for $35,000) Presley had only a few singles to his hame. This 1956 album was the album that introduced him to world and launched him to the stratosphere.

Twenty-some years later, in 1979 (1980 in America), The Clash released their masterpiece, London Calling. The cover of London Calling featured a very clear tribute (or was it a thumbing of the nose?) at Presley’s cover.

And now, thirty years after the Clash’s homage to the King, New York City design studio The Chopping Block has breathed new life into the image with their robotRock t-shirt.

I can’t even begin to tell you how much I love this shirt. I’d like to recommend that everyone go out and buy one—and I really think you should—let’s just coordinate what days we’re going to wear them, cool?

I’m a big Clash fan, so the London Calling image has been a part of my consciousness for many, many years. I never realized until a while after that it was a nod back to the Elvis album. There have been many other covers, images, parodies, etc. that have borrowed from that original Elvis album, but these are a couple of the best examples around.

So what will I design that will be toyed with for the next 50 years? Hmmmm…good question.

Because he was using the wrestler’s image and name without permission, a lawsuit was threatened and Fairey created a new iconic version of the likeness. This new likeness became a brand of its own—Obey Giant.

Like the original stickers, the Obey Giant icon took off. Fairey, a longtime proponent of pushing the limits and breaking rules saw another one of his creations spread around the world in stenciled graffiti and stickers and more.

Fast forward to 2008.

The Obama campaign approached Fairey and asked him to come up with an iconic image and he came up with the Obama Hope poster (bottom image). The image caught on like wildfire and began showing up EVERYWHERE, giving Fairey yet another pop-culture hit icon. This time, however, there was a catch.

The Associated Press claimed that Fairey used one of their photos (top image) as the basis for his icon without permission/rights to do so. Fairey denied the accusation saying that he based his drawing on another photo, but made significant changes to the photo, which he claimed was within fair-use rights.

Taking the offensive, Fairey sued the AP, presumably because of the damage their claims did to his reputation. The AP didn’t buy his explanation and promptly sued back. All along Fairey kept proclaiming his innocense and defending his good name. Until recently, when Fairey admitted that he had, in fact, used the image that he was accused of using.

So let’s recap…the AP said he used their image, he denied it and went so far as to sue the AP. Now he admits that the AP was right and that he concealed/fabricated a story about the other image and filed a lawsuit under false pretenses. His laywers dropped the case as quick as they could and now Fairey is claiming that the real issue is fair use rights.

This guy is a million-dollar talent (literally) with a ten-cent head. What the hell is he thinking? He’s going to lose this case, lose millions in a judgement to the AP (which they have pledged will be given to a non-profit organization), pay all court costs, and could face further punishment for filing a frivolous lawsuit under false pretenses. Hell, for all I know, he could end up with a little jail time.

As a designer I can tell you that if anybody ever took one of my photos and just traced over it, I’d be pissed. That isn’t fair use, that’s copying. It’s larceny and Fairey deserves whatever punishment he gets. He stole an image another artist (the original photographer) created.

The really funny thing is that when another designer created a parody of his Obey Giant icon with a SARS respiratory mask, guess who threatened to sue, claiming trademark violation. Fairey went so far as to call the Texas designer a “bottom feeder” and “parasite.”

I don’t like to see people, even jackassy people, go through bad times, but I have to admit that I want to see this guy get his comeuppance.

Personally, I think it’s pretty funny and it’s a GREAT promotional coup for The Simpsons, who are celebrating their 20th anniversary on Fox this year. Thing is, it sounds like it wasn’t Fox’s idea. Sounds like the idea came from Playboy who wanted to try to draw more 20-something readers to the magazine, whose readers have a median age of around 35.

Why Marge Simpson, though? The Simpsons is still a solid enough performer on Fox, but the series is decidedly in decline. And I can’t quote viewership statistics, but my feeling is that the younger readers they are trying to appeal to aren’t necessarily Simpsons fans. My guess is that if they watch the Simpsons, they only do it to kill time until Family Guy comes on.

Family Guy skews much younger and with it’s edgier humor would seem to be a better fit for what Playboy is going for. Maybe the problem is that Playboy’s folks are skewing a lot older themselves and can’t be bothered to stay up past 9PM. Or, worse yet—and more likely—they’re too busy watching Desperate Housewives.

I like the idea behind the cartoon cover and giving a few pages on the inside—I’m even sure that the novelty will give Playboy a nice, one-issue sales bump—but I think those buyers are going to be in the 30-45 age range. If anything, the median reader age may go up for an issue.

Overall idea: B+
Probability of giving the magazine a short-term (one issue?) sales increase: 80%
Probability of achieving stated goal of drawing younger readers in: 15%

Overall grade (for Simpsons): A

Overall grade (for Playboy): F-
I would have given a C- because it is a fun idea and will result in a temporary sales bump, but they kind of botched when it comes to drawing in the younger crowd.

While I think it’s great that more people have access to photography, I can also see how much leveling the playing field has diminished the quality of photography as a whole. With the economy being pretty rough, you’ve seen a lot of people decide that they’re going to be professional photographers and the truth of it is that they’re doing pretty crappy work and hurting the craft for people who have been in it for a long time.

I suppose that I’m part of the problem. I do not sell myself as a photographer, but I do quite a bit of photography in the course of doing business. I’m not doing portrait work or anything like that, but I did take up photography as a part of my career and I’ve done quite a bit of work. Do I feel bad about taking work away from another photographer? No. I recognize that it’s a little hypocritical of my, but the truth is that I am a decent photographer and the work I am doing is good for what my clients need. When a project comes up that isn’t my bag, I’m the first one to bring in a pro or recommend someone else for the job.

All this being said, I want to propose a couple of new rules for photography.

1. Using brick walls as backgrounds is outlawed. This is not a local photographer, but this is the sort of thing I’m seeing everywhere. It’s tired and it’s boring. Every other senior portrait taken these days is using an alley or a building as a backdrop. BORING BORING BORING! Friday weddings are all the rage right now and I see these party buses pull up outside the studio and use one of the buildings as the backdrop for their “creative and fun” photos. Several have used my studio as a backdrop as have several people doing senior portraits.

2. The black-and-white-photo-with-one-object-in-color effect achieved in Photoshop is outlawed. Holy crap is this awful. With great technological capabilities comes great responsibility. Stop doing this. It was a creative and unique thing a decade ago. Now it’s just played out.

Do you want to be a professional photographer? Do you want the respect of your peers? Adhere to these rules! Stop being a follower and create the next really boring photo cliché! Much like the globe in senior portraits and the finger-thumb on the chin, there are many more terrible ideas that you could be executing. If you’re going to suck at something, you could at least do it in an original way.

For any established institution to undertake a rebranding project is a pretty big deal and to do it twice in two years is a risky proposition. Any momentum you have gained with the initial rebrand stands to suffer a little bit with a second rebrand. On top of that, changing the name and then changing it again so soon after will give some people an impression that the magazine is not stable or lacks direction. In the magazine’s defense, due to some big internal changes, I can attest to the fact that they are now probably more stable than they’ve ever been. With the recent changes as well as the editorial changes that took place a couple of years ago, I think the overall content and presentation are better now than they’ve ever been.

While I don’t like the idea of rebranding so hot on the heels of another rebrand, my real issue isn’t that they’re changing the name again, but what they’re changing the name to. Great Lakes Bay Regional Lifestyle Magazine? Really? I have to admit that I am surprised that Tri-City drank the Kool-Aid on this one. When the local communities first unveiled “Great Lakes Bay Region” as the new name for the regional brand, I wasn’t particularly wowed by it. I think the name is way too long, doesn’t lend itself well to certain applications, and I don’t much care for the logo. In branding terms, that’s three strikes against you.

Right away, though,you saw a lot of businesses jumping on board. Public radio quit calling it the Tri-Cities and started using the GLBR moniker. Newspapers quickly updated their style guides to push the new regional brand. My problem with the magazine changing their name, though, is that I think they are the first business to make the regional brand a part of their identity. In effect, they let somebody else name their business. And until then you are saddled with a magazine name that’s as long as an entry in the dictionary.

I don’t think you’re ever going to see an everyday person on the street refer to this region as the Great Lakes Bay Region. As I’ve written about (at length)—it’s just not a great name. There’s no tongue appeal to it. It’s not sexy. It’s just…wordy. Try slipping Great Lakes Bay Region into casual conversation. It’s not easy to do without sounding like you’re selling something. What happens in a few years if this brand doesn’t catch on and people just stop using it? Do you change your name again?

This name change just seems like they are trying to fall in line with what the regional chambers of commerce want. Why let somebody from outside dictate what your identity is? What’s next? Give the chambers final editorial approval on the articles and ads? We’re not talking Woodward & Bernstein here, but tying a publication too tightly to local business interests takes away any appearance of journalistic integrity.

I think Tri-City would have done well to just leave it alone and keep their name. Or, if they are really committed to rebranding, take some time and actually come up with a solid identity. There are some really talented and creative folks working at the magazine, they could come up with something great if they were given the opportunity.