Does anybody remember when America Online was the 400-pound gorilla of the online world? There were many ways to go online, but AOL made the whole process very easy. AOL put together a marketing plan that included mailing CDs with their software to every man, woman, child and family pet in North America. The plan worked, though, as people were signing up as fast as AOL could send the CDs out. For years, this was the first thing you saw on the screen, just before hearing the ubiquitous, “You’ve got mail.”

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.

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then you can consider me quite flattered. Imagine my surprise recently when I saw a couple of ideas clearly lifted straight from the 989 Design portfolio.

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.

After last week’s entry about Spencer Fairey taking a little too little artistic license with another person’s image, let’s start this week off with a great example of taking someone else’s idea and doing something with it.

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.

No matter who you voted for, there is no denying that Barack Obama’s campaign easily came up with the most iconic and memorable images in the 2008 Presidential campaign. One of the images most frequently printed was done by graphic artist Shepard Fairey, who first became known for his Andre the Giant Has a Posse stickers created while he was a student at RISD in the late 1980s. Using an image of Andre the Giant, the stickers were widely distributed and began showing up all over the United States and, eventually, the world. Fairey described the stickers as a ”an experiment in phenomenology.”

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.

I received an e-mail a couple of weeks ago that Tri-City Monthly Lifestyle Magazine is changing its name to Great Lakes Bay Regional Lifestyle Magazine. This rebranding comes within a couple of years of the magazine’s previous rebranding project. Launched 5 or 6 years ago as Interlude, the magazine wanted a greater regional appeal so they settled on Tri-City Magazine. I never cared for the name Interlude, so even the unimaginative Tri-City Magazine was a change for the better.

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.