My name is Michael Shumate and welcome to Logo Design Theory: How Branding Design Really Works.
Fads and fashions come and go in the world of logo design.
Sometimes those fads encourage inferior designs that cost their companies
more money than they should. A good example of that is AT&T. Let’s talk about it.
AT&T was founded in 1877 as the American Telephone
and Telegraph Company and they have had many different logos over the years.
In 1982 they got a very different looking logo designed by Saul Bass.
Fourteen years later, in 1996, Saul Bass simplified the logo, reducing the number of stripes from
12 to 8, which greatly improved its clarity, especially at small sizes. This logo was designed
according to the Core Principles of Logo Design, and as such, it could have lasted the corporation
forever. But in 2005, AT&T was bought out by Southwestern
Bell Corporation, a former subsidiary, and given a new identity.
It was intended to be an homage to the timeless Saul Bass logo, but it was inferior in many
ways. For a few years prior to this, the world of
branding was excited by many of the new transparent and “jelly” treatments of the Apple Computer
logo. It caused quite a stir in design circles. Many designers wanted to emulate that look.
But what the designers at Interbrand, who created the new AT&T logo, failed to grasp,
along with many others in the design world to this day, is that Apple’s transparent
and jelly treatments were built on top of a well-refined shape that looked good in solid
black, before any embellishment. That’s not the case with the 2005 AT&T logo,
which seems lacking if you strip away the color subtleties. As happens with many logos
today, designers get distracted with their visual whistles and bells and fail to really
refine their shapes before jazzing them up. It’s a case of all sizzle and no steak.
Another failing for this kind of logo is that it can’t be created for signage or vehicles
using solid cut vinyl and must use printed vinyl. While the initial costs are roughly
the same, printed vinyl only lasts from one half to one third the time when exposed to
the elements. This is not an inconsequential cost for a company that has such a huge fleet
of vehicles or as many signs as AT&T does. On top of that, the overall contrast of the
logo is barely adequate, while the internal contrast is insufficient. A separate fad that
weakened this design is the use of lower case letters where capitals should have been used,
making the name appear impotent. 9 Another unnecessary cost factor inflicted
on AT&T by this logo was in stationery. It’s one thing to print letterhead, envelope and
business card in color, but the other multitude of business forms, especially internal forms,
for a company this big, that would not have to be in full color, still have to be printed
in color, because the design didn’t look good in B&W.
They did make a black and white version of their identity. They had to use a clumsy ring
around it to make the design look finished. Understandably, they didn’t use it too often,
instead opting for the more expensive color version.
I told my students back in 2005, when this logo was introduced, that AT&T would discover
its shortcomings, because it broke three of the Seven Deadly Sins of Logo Design:
1: It can’t work in solid black 2: it had poor overall contrast as well as
poor internal contrast. 3: It has poorly refined shapes.
Sure enough, a few years after the 2005 logo was introduced, AT&T opted for limited use
of a different variation of their logo. It had somewhat stronger contrast by reversing
the light portions of the logo out of solid cyan and solid orange.
But finally, after struggling with this inferior logo for eleven years, AT&T gave up and had
it redesigned. Amazingly, they went back to Interbrand to have this done. Now, I may be
too unforgiving, but if I had been the CEO at the time, I would never have gone back
to the same design company that gave me such a flawed identity previously.
At first glance, this reworked AT&T logo looks like a simple reversal of the previous design,
but it is not. Here I have overlaid the 2005 AT&T design
with the new new and improved 2016 AT&T logo. You can see the previous shapes in cooler
blues and the new redrawn shapes in warmer colors. This only serves to show that every
one of the stripes had to be re-sculpted for better esthetic appeal.
But that new logo had to be implemented. Here’s what had to change:
Over 6,000 buildings Over 40,000 employee uniforms
Over 50,000 vehicles Finally, now AT&T has a solid logo, designed
according to the Core Principles. It could last them forever. But why does it have to
be such a costly pathway to a useful identity? Too much of logo design today is hit and miss,
trial and error, even with the biggest branding agencies in the world. And not just with solo
designers and smaller design firms. All because they do not understand the Core Principles
of logo design. But it doesn't have to be that way.
The Core Principles of logo design have finally been discovered. This is not yet widely known
in the design industry. But these principles transcend fad and fashion and always work.
Look how long some of these logos have been around. Logos that have looked good for decades—even
many decades—always conform to these Core Principles.
Designing logos according to the Core Principles does not guarantee an excellent logo every
time, but violating the Core Principles DOES guarantee a logo will NOT work and will need
to be replaced like the logo for AT&T. The Core Principles of Branding Design are
universal & immutable, like the law of gravity. They CAN NOT be ignored. Ignorance of the
Core Principles—just like with the law of gravity— will NOT protect you from the consequences
of violating them. But the Core Principles of Branding Design
can be learned. And they can be taught. That's what I do. That’s what you will learn in
these videos. For more information go to LogoDesignTheory.com.
If you found this useful, be sure to like this video, subscribe, and share it with anyone
who needs to know about logo design.