Hack Job
I really had to scratch my head on this one. To put it lightly, The Franklin Institute Science Museum’s new logo is a complete flop. Let’s compare the old with the new - shall we?
The Franklin Institute’s original mark was designed by Hans Allemann, a principle of Allemann Almquist & Jones. He’s been a leading graphic designer both here and abroad for over 40 years, a member of AGI, and very well respected within the design community.
The original mark depicted a solar eclipse with simplified clarity. It is both innovative and timeless. Its well crafted graphic treatment enables the logo to read in large and small applications with easy legibility. I could go on and on, but I the identity pretty much speaks for itself.
The “new and improved” logo is a widdled down version of the original identity and feels generic at best. I showed this to a few friends of mine and they thought it was an identity for a new condo development. Need I say more?
On a practical level the color choice was not thought out. The added colors are a printer’s nightmare which drives up printing costs for each application. The lack of design sensibility in the contrast of tones in the logo does not allow for quality representation when printed in one color and scaled down to smaller sizes. In short, on all fronts it was a huge step backwards.
Your Thoughts?
Don’t agree.
The new one is simpler, more elegant and more accurate both conceptually and literally.
Less is always more, more or less.
Comment by Ted — August 4, 2008 @ 10:59 am
I had to live with this one for a bit before I made any thoughts. Every logo has it’s good tenurs and bad tenurs. While I don’t think this is an epic fail it does have it’s flaws.
First off let’s skip the comparison to the previous mark. When one logo steps in, the other must unfortunately go by the wayside. Only with Nike have I seen the original mark never really stray, nor does it have too..I think. Truth is they never tried, and I doubt they ever will (or even would have too) If another logo stepped in there I’m sure we’d (as knowledgable designers) have backlash and immediately cry for blood. So let’s agree that their previous logo was very good for it’s time. It was very forward thinking, and really gave the Franklin Institute a recognizable brand within Philly and beyond.
Now let’s go out of Philly. Philly being the bastard child of NY, and currently every other city making waves on the design forefront, needs a facelift. From the vendors on the street to yes..the Museums on the strip. I commend The Franklin…..for giving this a shot. The logo they took on, while it has its problems, takes them at least a step forward into some sort of Avante Garde Philadelphian thing.
Will it take time to accept? Yes, a long time probably. Will people think it’s a new condo development before they think its a museum? Yes, for a long time probably. But just cause your starting rookie QB came out of the gate throwing interceptions doesn’t mean we bench him.
Breaking down the mark itself. Yes it’s a printing nightmare. its uncentered. it’s got a terrible typeface. But the thoughts are there. Sciency, but it can be interpreted in a number of ways, leaving me, dare I say, curious?
Now I would NEVER rebrand ANYONE based on a marketing initiative, but if anyone can attempt to pull it off, RedTettemer would be that company. The question is whether The Franklin has the money to back up their initiatives, if any.
Someone in Philly needs to make a tremendous step forward, in the public face of design. The comcast tower is nice and all, but not what I hope this city gets known for, let alone what gets people talking. We need a guggenheim, or a Met, or a MoMa. Is the Franklin it? Don’t know. I live in the city and am too closely associated with it.
Unfortunately everything in this city is named Franklin something, so naming it THE FRANKLIN (all caps) doesn’t do anything for me personally. I find it easier to type, but in conversation, I will probably still say the Franklin Institute. The mark itself doesnn’t bother me, yes there is no eye towards production value, but perhaps they are leaning towards the ..”well how much printed media will we be going forward with anymore?” Let’s face it the parabolic curve of non-printed media- v. printed media is accelerating. In our lifetime (not something I ever dreamed possible) we may scream buh-bye to such things. I highly doubt that was the thought process in designing this mark, as it seems like there was none, but I digress. Anyways, the colors..eh..I can take em or leave em. I think its actually the color scheme thats giving everyone their “designer condo” mystique, which I would agree with. But in a city were every abandoned storefront/warehouse is being turned into upscale living, it’s to be expected.
The typeface is trite and yes, the downfall of this “thought”. Had they pushed the modernity a little bit more and given them something more ownable, or even less of a visual mess, I would be behind this mark more. However, this came from a marketing agency and to be honest they probably don’t have the hours to invest in truly developing the concept like AAJ would have had. Their main goal is the rebranding the public face of TheFI not the “little things” like logos to go with it.
ok..done ranting..hi dave
Comment by giacomo — September 24, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
oh, and in response to it being more elegant, simpler blah blah blah..
This is a place that has Pink Flloyd laser light shows and puts the Dark Knight on Imax..not exactly the most elegant place in Philadelphia. However the The Franklin on the Parkway..where CEOs take their Thursday “lunch meetings”..THAT would be elegant..and dare I say a very posh fit.
Comment by giacomo — September 24, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Agree. The new logo does not communicate anything but a venn diagram which could mean anything other than solar eclipse. True, a picture is worth a thousand words but a logo is supposed to make a concisely-driven statement. Without the juxtaposition of the old logo, nobody is going to recognize what that is. Less is more, that is true. But simplistic is not simplicity. The new logo is not memorable, too frail, and easy to get disintegrated, both in terms of visibility and scalability.
Comment by owen — October 7, 2008 @ 2:39 am
there’s something as simple as knowing your client.
pretty much everyone at the franklin institute calls it ‘the tut’ (pronounced ‘the toot’) for short. I was one of those people very confused by ‘the franklin’ renaming/branding. also, the franklin institute is not a science museum in the sense of periodic tables and long equations and formulas. this place is teeming with families and young school age children 7 days a week.
so lets look at the logo again. I agree with the comment that suggested the mark looks like a real estate logo. high-end and clean. You can have good clean design that better represents the establishment.
Comment by samantha — October 7, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Oh My… missed opportunity for sure…The new logo is literally a printing nightmare. How does it work in black and white? How does it print digitally with those thin lines? Tints always make printers cringe. The Franklin Institue is a not-for-profit institution and this is an example of a designer NOT thinking about how this logo is going to be used and the clients needs or budget. This is an attempt at form over function but even the form is not very good. The Franklin Institute is a place for children to discover the world around them, to embrace science, to uncover mystery. There is an aha moment with the old logo, the kids get it! The new logo is so stripped down the lesson is lost. It is just another generic could be anything logo. Too bad, it would have be a fun job to do.
Comment by Kat — October 9, 2008 @ 9:11 am