CO-OP
The 172 year-old organisation is returning to its classic clover-leaf design which first appeared across shops, produce and dividend stamps in the late 1960s.
North were asked to work on the redesign project in 2014 and, after considering a new identity and researching the company’s visual history, they pitched the idea of reinstating the 1968 logo. Returning to a previous identity is certainly an unusual move for a company, let alone going back to one that is nearly 50 years old.
“It’s a symbol and a wordmark and that’s impossible to beat for a graphic designer. It’s never dated”
NATWEST
FutureBrand has redesigned the visual identity and logo for NatWest, basing the revamp on the bank’s original 3D logo from 1968.
The logo was originally designed as three interlocking cubes to represent the coming together of three banks, the design agency explains, though the existing logo was a simplified and flattened version of that form.
FutureBrand has brought the icon back into 3D by adding shadows to the shapes, and has rolled out the cube concept across the rest of the branding. An illustrative cuboid typeface has been created to be used across the identity, using colourful, multifaceted forms to directly connect with the updated icon. The rest of the branding uses the colour scheme and blocky forms, linking to the design in a more subtle way.
WHAT THE STUDIOS THINK...
Dan Witchell, executive creative director at Futurebrand -
“You need a bloody good reason for a revolution”
Referencing the past was not a specific aim of the NatWest project. Looking into its archive was an opportunity to re-discover some long-forgotten brand assets, already owned and ripe for reinvention. Over the years the clarity of the cubes had been lost through simplification and modernisation, so we set out to re-establish that link.
I don’t think overtly emotional nostalgia or pastiches are healthy but not understanding your clients past is even more unforgivable. The internet has given us instant access to archival material which has made it easier and quicker to find content, but I don’t think nostalgia in design is necessarily more prevalent now. I like the idea of upcycling a brand – but perhaps that’s just another way of saying “evolution not revolution”. You need a bloody good reason for a revolution and when you’re dealing with a very recognisable consumer-facing brand, you’d be a stupid to throw all that brand equity away.
There is a purity to mid-century design that comes from its simplicity. Arguably, the simplicity was as much a product of less sophisticated manufacturing as it was by design. The advancements in design-led technology mean we now have the ability to create anything conceivable, but just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. We are consumed by over saturation of information and image; our personal choices are being defined by algorithms as often as they are by our brains. It’s overwhelming, so it’s not nostalgia we crave, it’s simplicity.
Stephen Gilmore, partner at North
“Designers in general are slightly guilty of romanticising design from the 60s and 70s”
It wasn’t our original intention to refer to Co-op’s past, the brief was to create a completely new identity. However, through our development process we came to appreciate that the original 1968 logo was tough to beat. It’s a timeless classic like the British Rail symbol or the Woolmark and has that rare quality of being both a logotype and a symbol at the same time. This seed of a thought then grew into a wider strategy of going “back to being Co-op”, which was hugely powerful as an internal rallying cry and a signifier of the changes across the organisation. This was a useful approach in the short term for launch but not something intended to linger in the minds of Co-op staff or customers.
Honestly, the idea of “nostalgia” in branding is something we would hate to become any kind of wider trend or go-to approach. The Co-op project was a one-off solution and not borne out of sentiment. It’s much more exciting and enjoyable for us to see brands move on and develop through new ideas.
I think designers in general are slightly guilty of romanticising design from the 60s and 70s, but it’s true, that period did produce some beautiful examples (Co-op, Natwest, Mastercard, Lance Wyman’s Mexico Olympics — all created in 1968 alone). Why was such enduring work created back then? Restrictions in technology probably played a big part, with pre-digital processes potentially forcing a greater economy of form, to try and do more with less. Graphic design was also a more specialised craft, which in turn afforded the designer more time and respect (no pdfs!).
Michael Johnson, creative director at johnson banks
“What we’re seeing with Co-op and Coca-Cola is a return to simplicity”
Traditionally branding that looked backwards made me more than a little queasy. I guess it’s watching too many beer ads claiming to have been hand distilled in obscure corners of the world, when actually brewed in massive vats in Stoke on Trent.
Maybe looking backwards to go forwards makes sense – it’s certainly easier to dig into a brand’s heritage for ‘inspiration’ because the legal hurdles of getting new symbols approved are now so onerous. Canny corporate identity designers have known for years that the easiest way to get an idea approved was to effectively ‘tweak’ what’s already there. What we’ve been seeing with Co-op, and arguably Coca-Cola before that, is a return to simplicity and a ‘stripping back’ of some of the clutter that some brands gather around themselves.
But it only works if there’s something there worth falling back to: ‘created’ nostalgia such as that pursued by the likes of Superdry strikes me as the height of cynical marketing (and a strangely gullible audience). I, for one, will be very happy to see some of the logo-clunkers of the past stay happily hidden for just a little while longer…
Tony Brook, creative director at Spin
“I don’t think mid-century design is ‘better’, it is familiar and that is comforting”
The use of nostalgia really depends on the rationale. Is it purely risk averse, and heading down the path of least resistance, or is it recognising a deep affection for the past and reviving that fondness? For the Co-op the treatment recalls a time when the brand was strong and forward looking, it has focused its offer and combined with the wider brand language has pulled off the neat trick of looking backwards and forwards at the same time. For NatWest, the mark is as iconic as they come, so hard to improve. However the visual language that supports it is strange, it doesn’t seem to fit with the mark and is trying too hard to be cool.
As for the wider industry, it’s too early to say that it’s a trend exactly. I see a lot of seemingly nostalgia-inspired design around (flowing scripts and muted colours, or Helvetica abuse). I guess it has always been here to some degree. I don’t think mid-century design is ‘better’, it is familiar and that is comforting. There is a wonderful opportunity for radical, contemporary identity design, that operates on many levels, animating on screen, in print and the environment. It’s a great area to work and to my mind the faster technology changes the more opportunities for expression there are.
Neil Cummings, creative director at Wolff Olins
“Heritage as a powerful statement of intent – I get it”
The heritage/nostalgia route is a bold choice. It’s asking your client to come out and say “we’ve lost our way, we’re going back to our roots”. It’s them admitting “what we had before was stronger and who we were back then was better”. It’s a big bold graphic commitment, it needs a why and it needs backing up.
The Co-op example is this done brilliantly. I’d lost sight of them as a business that helped people contribute to society and I lived above one of their supermarkets. Now they’ve given me something I can buy into again. The stripped-back blue membership ads stand out a mile, a simple bold identity alongside simple bold messaging about fairness. Heritage as a powerful statement of intent – I get it. The Natwest rebrand doesn’t carry as much clout. The relaunch of a mark that originally represented three banks joining forces doesn’t resonate with me. It’s not bad work at all, I like the pop, but as I stare at those Escher-esque cubes I miss the “why”?
So if, and it will no doubt happen, one of our clients suggests we look in the loft for a cool 60s logo I’ll ask “were you a fundamentally better business back then?” and if the answer’s no, I’ll suggest they look forward.
Tim Williams, creative director at DesignStudio
“Modernist design characteristics are more relevant than ever”
It’s a brave move to admit things were better before. Over time brands can often become lost or evolve in the wrong direction. Stripping back to the origin can be a good thing, as long as what you’re left with still holds the right meaning and is relevant to the audience. To me nostalgia is no more prevalent now than at any other time. Design has always been a process of reflection on the past and looking to improve things for the future.
I don’t think brands are nostalgic for mid-century design. Brands are interested in the ideals of 50s and 60s design – the power of design to change the world. Now that we can communicate to billions of people through a 5×3 inch screen, the modernist design characteristics of economy, simplicity and the use of new technology are more relevant than ever.
Upon asking the six design studios on there opinions of nostalgia in contemporary branding it was a mixed reply - many of them suggested how usually it would be a one-off solution and they don’t think it is necessarily more prevalent now than any other time. Tim Williams, creative director at DesignStudio, summarises it well with the point that “design has always been a process of reflection on the past and looking to improve things for the future” (Brewer, 2016), so the fact it can be seen as nostalgic is because it may provide that feeling of familiarity and comfort for the audience, luring them into consuming, which is what this postmodern culture is all about. This reflects the bigger picture of how today’s design process has evolved reflection, re-use and even parody into its core principles to inspire new things. But there will always be this argument of how we are becoming more and more of a lazy generation, this is supported when Michael Johnson, creative director at Johnson Banks, suggests how “looking backwards to go forwards makes sense – it’s certainly easier to dig into a brand’s heritage for ‘inspiration’ because the legal hurdles of getting new symbols approved are now so onerous.” (Brewer, 2016) So designers have learnt that the easiest way to get an idea approved was to effectively ‘tweak’ what was already there. It is viewing it with this mindset which fuels this un-original concept of reflection simply being an empty pastiche.
But it is this return to simplicity, ’stripping back’ some of the clutter that some brands gather around themselves, which can push the view of it being a considered reflection. This design style probably came from the restrictions in technology, with pre-digital processes potentially forcing a greater economy of form, to try and do more with less. Our advancements in design-led technology mean we now have the ability to create anything conceivable, but this doesn’t mean we should - “we are consumed by over saturation of information and image; our personal choices are being defined by algorithms as often as they are by our brains. It’s overwhelming, so it’s not nostalgia we crave, it’s simplicity” (D. Witchell of Futurebrand in Brewer, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment