Last week, Verizon unveiled a logo “refresh” by Michael Beirut of Pentagram. The online consensus was ambivalent – Verizon’s refresh wasn’t a disaster, nor would it do much to turn the ship around for a reviled brand. The mixed feedback is odd if you consider that this logo looks an awful lot like the 2010 Gap logo redesign – the P.R. equivalent of an ocean liner colliding with an iceberg.

The similarities are numerous. Both logos are set in Helvetica or a close variation of it (the Verizon wordmark is set in Helvetica’s very close predecessor, Neue Haas Grotesk). Both relegate their iconographic elements (check mark and square) to sad-afterthought corner placements. Both of those icons are nearly primitive in their basic simplicity, and both use a primary color (red and blue, respectively). One of the only differences is that Gap is set in Title Case while Verizon opts for quiet, unassuming lowercase.

The Gap redesign was met with such unanimous derision that the brand reverted to the previous logo. So why hasn’t the Verizon logo met the same fate?

First of all, the Verizon logo is a “refresh” while the Gap logo was an overhaul – Verizon’s move is less shockingly new. Furthermore, Gap found out the hard way that its customers had brand loyalty and affection for their previous logo. In Verizon’s case, the brand is loathed and therefore consumers are less likely to take offense at any change (they’re too busy taking offense at bad customer service). While the Gap’s new logo felt like an utter disaster that didn’t fit a beloved brand, the Verizon redesign feels more like rearranging (or “refreshing”) the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Verizon revised their logo this week – but the revision does little to change the fact that their corporate identity looks like it was designed by a bored robot. In the landscape of corporate design and digital culture, it has the personality of a spindle of blank CDs.

What is it that makes this speck of visual furniture so mundane that is seems nearly invisible? The wordmark is set in Neue Haas Grotesk – a (very) close relative of Helvetica that will appear to be Helvetica itself to most viewers. Using Helvetica (or its ilk) in your logo is a Catch-22: it’s one of the only truly flawless typefaces in design history, but it is so overexposed in corporate identity usage that it blends in with the crowd like a golf ball in a bowl of rice. Then there’s the central motif that has been carried over from the old design: a red check mark. This symbol is a red check mark. The check mark is red. It symbolizes technoloZZZZZZZZZZ

In the new logo revision, the check has been moved to the right side of the wordmark. Verizon’s Chief Marketing Officer, Diego Scotti, offers the following explanation for the identity refresh: “Our goal was to define a brand identity that stands for simplicity, honesty, and even joy, in a category that has become overrun with confusion, disclaimers and frustration.”

Now there’s a perfectly distilled jewel of tone-deaf corporate brand-speak. First of all, consumers find Verizon incredibly frustrating. Furthermore, to say that this logo has an ounce of joy in it is akin to saying that it’s neon green. Unless you love check marks so much that you cry blissful tears every time you check “REFILL STAPLER” off your to-do list. If you want to see what a joyful logo looks like, check out Google’s new ultra-friendly, humanized identity.

The logo refresh was done by Pentagram – design heroes to anyone who’s ever touched an oil palette or a Photoshop filter. Pentagram partner Michael Beirut said of the revamped logo: “It isn’t intended to be clever or flashy. It’s really supposed to acknowledge its role as being ubiquitous as a kind of brand with a big footprint and one that isn’t trying to add to the visual noise around us.”

I can see that perspective. Verizon is so huge that it doesn’t need to visually announce itself with trumpets and fanfare. But the bottom line is this: Verizon’s visual identity cannot transcend the brand’s negative reputation as long as it is lugging that sterile, clinical, uninspired check mark around with it.

Infiniti is the luxury division of Nissan, a Japanese car manufacturer. According to Infiniti, their logo consists of “two central lines leading off into an infinite point on the horizon,” symbolizing this “luxury performance brand’s desire to be always looking forward – to new horizons, to infinity.” The Infiniti brand was launched in the USA in 1989. Lippincott “revitalized the visual identity” in 2004. [Read more…]

Yesterday, Jeb Bush unveiled his Presidential campaign logo (above) with a tweet. The logo’s exclamation point transforms the Governor’s first name into an enthusiastic slogan: “Jeb!” It harkens back to old campaign traditions and it’s easy to picture the logo on a button pinned to some Southern plutocrat’s corduroy jacket. However, the logo is also jubilant to the point of utter silliness.

In comparison to Hillary’s clever-yet-restrained logo design (below), Jeb’s logo looks amateur, over-excited, and conceptually one-dimensional. The slogan-y exclamation and Baskerville typeface make the design feel outdated rather than old-fashioned. The logo is also notable for excising the Governor’s maligned last name. That’s probably a smart move for a guy with a first name that’s memorable enough to go the Madonna route.

Perhaps Jeb’s primary demographic doesn’t care about clever Internet virality (Hillary’s logo inspired lots of memes and even its own font, Hillvetica), and that’s fine – but this feels like a logo that wasn’t built to compete in a modern campaign. I mean, out of these two choices, which logo would you vote for?

Can you think of any major brands that use a logo that was actually designed for a brand name other than their own? This is the case for popular women’s workout clothing retailer Lululemon Athletica. According to their website, “The lululemon name was chosen in a survey of 100 people from a list of 20 brand names and 20 logos. The logo is actually a stylized ‘A’ that was made for the first letter in the name ‘athletically hip’, a name which failed to make the grade.”

So the Lululemon logo is a stylized ‘A.’ When I noticed a friend carrying a Lululemon bag, I asked her what she thought the logo meant (after all, the consumer’s impression is a brand’s most important quality). She said it’s an ‘A’ for the Athletica in Lululemon Athletica, and it also represents a woman’s hair and face outline – the brand’s core demographic is young women. The brand describes their demographic thusly:

Our primary target customer is a sophisticated and educated woman who understands the importance of an active, healthy lifestyle. She is increasingly tasked with the dual responsibilities of career and family and is constantly challenged to balance her work, life and health. We believe she pursues exercise to achieve physical fitness and inner peace.”

The brand deserves a visual identity that reflects that consumer.

When I asked my girlfriend what the Lululemon logo was, she said, “I think it’s something to do with math.” That association comes from the Lululemon logo’s resemblance to the Greek letter Omega (pictured). The company’s bizarre logo just feels cryptic and quizzical: it makes the audience wonder, am I missing something here? 

After having recently written about the symbols of Scientology – which incorporate the Greek alphabet for dubious purposes – I don’t think an odd association like the Omega symbol does any favors for an athletics brand that has been accused of cult-like behavior. The Omega has nothing to do with Lululemon, of course – that’s the point. It just goes to show how muddled and confused the Lululemon logo is. It’s a big bowl of WTF.

The bottom line: this logo doesn’t bear much relation to Lululemon. The ‘A’ doesn’t represent their primary name, the ‘woman’s hair’ interpretation is a bit of a stretch, and the logo doesn’t communicate anything about athletics. In short, it feels like it was designed for a different name, because it was.

Lululemon has recently survived public fiascos (the sheer pants recall) and the feuds of embattled CEOs. It’s 2015, they have a new CEO (Laurent Potdevin), and their stock is thriving. They deserve a refreshing new brand identity to reflect their new beginnings – one that truly represents their customer for the first time.

Laurent Potdevin, if you’re reading this, get in touch! I would love to redesign your brand. Just think of the headline potential – CEO hires brand designer from a blog post. Side note: I will do away with the lowercase ‘lululemon’ spelling – it’s a cutesy brand affectation that makes the word seem too meek to perform even a downward dog pose.