Interesting. It appears that public outcry can change the minds of branding experts very quickly.

I’m not here to defend GAP’s new logo design (or, maybe I should refer to it as the old one, or the one that didn’t take). I’m pretty neutral on the original logo, but it does seem to have a little more personality than the latest version. And I certainly would never bash the use of Helvetica in the new logo (the font they’ve been using in GAP campaigns for quite some time).

But what I find curious about this matter is that the ill-fated new logo was most likely the result of a well-thought-out strategy for change by some smart and experienced branding folks. I can’t imagine a new logo for a $15 billion company being created in a vacuum. On the contrary, I would assume it was the result of some serious thinking, exploration, and scrutiny. Maybe even some user testing. Which makes it all the more disappointing that the brand underpinnings by which it was created can so quickly give way from the weight of public opinion (some of them are even GAP customers). It’s as if the premise for the new logo design never had merit to begin with.

Now I know that the kind of attention this logo received was nothing short of overwhelming (and nothing new for consumer brands changing long-time logos), and it would have been difficult for the VPs overseeing this endeavor to ignore the blogosphere, but it’s very disappointing that the public – in part made of up of us know-it-all design professionals – can reduce a process into a popularity contest. In GAP’s most recent press release, it states apologetically, “We recognize that we missed the opportunity to engage with the online community.” Whatever.

I would have been more enchanted with the GAP brand had they stuck to their guns on this one. Hmmm…I wonder what Steve Jobs would have done in this situation?

posted by: CK Anderson  |  category: the design life  |  make a comment

CK Anderson (left) greets the last word‘s very first contest winner.

Noted grammarian Susanna Weise correctly identified all of the errors—and then some—in this notice, winning a set of autographed AMD business cards and a bonus bag of Designer Blend coffee. Weise visited AMD World Headquarters last week to claim her prizes.

During her acceptance speech, Weise was pointed in her disapproval of bad writing. “Faith might save you from the bite of a timber rattler,” she said, “but it apparently can’t prevent random, inexplicable capitalization.”

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  comments(1)

As of this writing, no one has risen to the challenge issued here. There can be only two reasons for this: (1) nobody reads the last word, or (2) the reward offered to the winner is not enough to warrant the effort.

Since option no. 2 is clearly not within the realm of possibility, we are left to deduce that, in fact, nobody reads this blog. Which is a shame, really, given the wit and wisdom that fairly oozes from the screen.

In fact, where else where else would you discover that grunting can improve your tennis game? Or read about a “horse race” for women in bikinis? Or learn the ridiculously simple rule for forming a possessive?

So. In the unlikely instance that there is, in fact, some truth to the notion that the reward is somewhat…lacking, I’ve been authorized to sweeten the deal: I will personally call the winner and, using my radio voice, offer my heartiest congratulations.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

Take the Narcissistic Personality Quiz today! I scored a big fat “0,” though, to be fair, it’s remarkably easy to manipulate the results.

In related news, it turns out that narcissists think they’re creative. Go figure. What’s most surprising about that little nugget is that it took a pair of psychologists—one from Cornell, the other from Stanford—to figure it out. A quick call to AMD headquarters would’ve saved them some time.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  comments(2)

To a graphic designer, there are all kinds of interesting things about this story—upper- vs. lower-case letters, font selection, etc. But what really struck me was this line: “federal copy editors are demanding….”

Just think about that for a moment or two. Read it again. Now say it out loud.

There are positions in the U.S. government for copy editors? And they get to demand things? And people have to respond to those demands?

What an awesome country this is.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: random thoughts  |  make a comment

As someone who once scraped together a modest living as a music critic, I found the premise behind this diatribe intriguing—until the whole thing quickly became predictable.

The author relies on a single criterion for determining if art is worthy of his esteem: whether he likes it. That’s all well and good, I suppose, except that he points to Damien Hirst—the hack whose “art” includes the suspension of dead animals in solutions of formaldehyde—as one who creates “art for the ages.”

Then there’s the tiresome adulation of the Beatles, the self-aware “to me, [insert popular fiction writer here] is light reading,” the tendentious claim that art has to blow his mind in order for it to be considered “good.”

Yawn.

Here’s a good rule of thumb for aspiring critics: drop the pretense before you write. Oh, and get out more.

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment

I’m normally not a fan of burning books, but I think I’d make an exception for The Associated Press Stylebook (“More than 2 million copies sold!”). That so many otherwise serious institutions continue to abide by its arbitrary and specious rules is a continual source of amusement to me; that so many adults are unable to write clearly due to its predominance in public education is an unmitigated disaster.

Consider the possessive. Strunk & White treat it thusly:

Form the possessive of singular nouns by adding ‘s. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles’s friend
Burns’s poems
the witch’s malice

Simple. Elegant. And easily understood by the reader. Contrast that with the AP’s instructions, which, in my 2004 edition, contain no fewer than five variations for singular nouns alone (out of sixteen total, including “nouns plural in form, singular in meaning,” “quasi possessives,” and “inanimate objects”).

As is the case with the serial comma, the AP is chiefly interested in saving space in newspapers—creating room for more advertising—rather than in its journalists writing something that can actually be read.

Got a light?

posted by: Aaron Bragg  |  category: the writing life  |  make a comment