“Negotiating” a New Identity

By Brett Traylor

There obviously wasn’t a designer in the room when the geniuses at United and Continental, negotiating the terms to create the world’s largest airline, settled on the meat-head approach of pairing the United name with the Continental look and feel. Brand identities are built strategically—or at least that’s the gospel we preach—carefully combining elements such as a name, a symbol, a typeface, a color palette, imagery, a tone-of-voice, to create a distinct personality. Pieces from one company’s identity can’t just be swapped with that from another’s, can they? But there it is, the eighth bullet point at the top of their press release “Name of Airline Will be United with Continental’s Logo and Livery.” That solves that, I suppose.

I spent a good chunk of my career working on the very identity that now seems destined for history books, so excuse my bitterness, but this is more of a corporate identity prenuptial agreement than it is the creation of a super brand.

The question of whether or not the merger is a good idea will be answered over the next few years—with the survival or demise of the airline. But as for the quality of the new identity, well, that won’t take but a minute. The Continental look and feel is tired. It’s aircraft paint scheme is pure vanilla. It’s “Work Hard” campaign has more than run its course. Its globe symbol is cliché, uncreative and unmemorable. And that typeface. Please, Lord, ANYTHING but that typeface! Don’t get me wrong. It’s not that the United identity is untouchable. It happens to be a hell of a lot better than Continental’s, but it’s certainly not beyond improvement. For starters they could throw out the 3 million styles of illustration they’ve accumulated over the past 5 or 6 years that never quite created the distinctive flavor it was meant to. But truly, if you had to choose one of the two identities, wouldn’t it be United’s? And if not, wouldn’t the smart thing be to sit down, take a deep breath, and consult someone with, say, a BFA instead of a JD to come up with something more appropriate?

It’s not hard to imagine what that meeting was like. A room full of unimaginative Suits armed with their PowerPoint decks, trying to rationalize their way to a solution that would “satisfy both parties”—despite being desperately unqualified to do so. I guess it’s no wonder that what they’ve ended up with feels more akin to outfitting the Boston Red Sox in Yankee pinstripes or typesetting the word “Helvetica” in Comic Sans. It looks—and feels—ridiculous, awkward and wrong.

Since 1997, United has retained Pentagram as its brand identity consultant. I spent eight years working on the United identity redesign and rollout and then another four years consulting alongside Michael Bierut and Daniel Weil—the partners in charge at Pentagram. To refuse to take advantage of an investment of that size—both in terms of money and braintrust—is irresponsible. Still, neither Bierut or Weil had any idea of the impending design change and found out along with the rest of us.

4 May 2010 in Design

16 Comments

Link 12 May 2010 4:32 pm

Lori McFadden says:

I swear I thought you photoshopped that plane shot! It looks like a hoax. What were they thinking?

Link 13 May 2010 4:26 am

Rob Wood says:

My guess is they’ll have to develop a new one from scratch in a couple of years, having wasted millions on rebranding all of their brand touchpoints.

Link 17 May 2010 4:57 am

Céline Chaverot says:

And what about the MarCom Director?
Is there any in the Company to make the Top Management aware of the HUGE mistake it is not to have any consideration for the corporate identity?
Or is it just a question of money? in that case, they will pay for it even more when the turnover will be affected… Then it might be too late for an effective and efficient rebirth of the brand identity…!!!!

Link 28 May 2010 2:13 pm

Kim Kiser says:

And how about that kerning? “Un ited.” I’m glad they’re not “ited”.

Link 28 May 2010 3:45 pm

Tim Rawls says:

When I first saw the “logo” I immediately thought of you. “Oh no… what is Brett going to say?!”

I could your feel pain in every word you wrote. This has gotta feel like a paper cuts under your fingernails. How could this get approve? Which Exec’s “son in art school” put this bad boy together.

Certainly not what I expected from the “World’s Largest Airline”. But then again…

Keep up the great work, Brett!

Link 15 June 2010 1:52 pm

Ann Hoff Scott says:

It’s almost as if Continental brand managers are the force behind the whole merger! They will take over the world (insert evil laugh and hand wringing here).

I agree with Kim Kiser, it looks like someone didn’t get their kerning right if the above photograph is real.

Sad. Thanks, Brett, for bringing this to us; we are so sorry to hear it.

Link 15 June 2010 2:27 pm

STORYTELLERS says:

I agree this isn’t the prettiest of identities, but if you do a little research you would probably understand.

For starters, both Continental and United websites are still operational. These airlines probably have huge customer loyalty so they can’t just change their identities from one day to the next. There is also a site called http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com which explains the details of the merger.

So I would consider this a temporary image. In marketing, PR comes way before graphics, kerning and all those other things we creatives worry about. To the suits, letting people know how reliable and how much better United and Continental will be together is the most important thing.

I’m not a fan of slapping different brands together either (“Frankensteining”), but in this case, it makes a little sense. The name “United” and the “World” glyph work well together if you give it some thought. Actually, it’s a no brainer!

BTW, the new planes carry an updated yellow logo which looks a lot better that the photo above. In my opinion, this isn’t half as bad as say Suthwest, AirTran or Delta.

Link 15 June 2010 3:11 pm

Lars-Erik Olson says:

Sorry Brett, but I don’t agree with you. The current snow-capped mountain livery of United does not hold up as well as Continental’s. It was destined to have a short shelf life. If I had been the “designer in the room,” I would have also recommended keeping Continental’s livery/branding (but would have also been strongly inclined to change/update the typeface). The revolving globe symbol was indeed creative (it conveys the sense that it is revolving, a kind of motion blur), and has PROVEN in focus group after focus group to be memorable.

Link 15 June 2010 5:28 pm

Lisa says:

A lazy effort. Period.

Link 15 June 2010 5:51 pm

Michael Stanard says:

Are you kidding me? You fret about the letter spacing of a tube traveling at 35,000 feet at 600 miles per hour?

Why is it that everyone who knows everything about everything is either driving a cab, cutting hair or doing . . . graphic design.

It’s no wonder we designers are so ineffective and clients hold us as they do. Do you really think that Glen Tilden cares what you think? Worse yet, do YOU really think your opinion matters? ( It doesn’t. )

Plus, do you honestly think graphics on those planes makes any difference at all? ” Oh, I’m definitely not going to Cleveland with those bums: “Have you seen the terrible kerning on their logotype?

Plus, commenting on the potential success or failure of the merger is down-right goofy. I’m entirely embarrassed to be a designer when I read nonsense like that.

I happen to think that the Continental identity, done by the con artists who were living off the fumes of the formerly great Lippincott & Margolies. . . really sucked. I thought it then and I think it now. ( BTW, Walter died a long time ago but it’s taking a while for his firm to do the same.)

Our primary worry is about letter spacing? Kill me already. Designers simply do not understand the context and purpose of the work they do for clients. I wish we did.

The reason there were no designers in the room is because we are entirely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Get real. Moreover, the reason designers make no difference whatsoever is simple. . . we do not control the content. Never have. Never will.

Mostly we are a bunch of mamby pamby liberals and exotic menials who are simply not playing in the same game as the big boys and girls.

That is, even the largest design firms are smaller, in terms of revenue and employees, than your local Applebee’s. Most of us can’t even run little design shops, but we somehow thing we know what United Airlines is doing wrong. Astounding!

Plus, a lot of us really suck at design, to tell the god’s honest truth.

Why do we think we are so darn important? I don’t get it.

Seems like being a designer is a nice way of life. Can’t we just let it go at that?

Grrrrrrr.

Michael

Link 15 June 2010 7:07 pm

John Alexander says:

To understand how this happens try thinking like a business person.

The new airline is going to be called “United.” The planes will only be painted when they need to be as it is quite expensive to do. So, by changing only the Continental logotype to United the least amount of repainting is done.

After all, the United planes need no repainting. They are already “United.”

Now, time has been bought to effect a redesign. Or to leave things as they are as you repaint the United liveried planes on an as-needed basis.

HTH.

Link 16 June 2010 12:32 pm

Melissa says:

@Michael. Thank you. I have been doing this “graphic design” thing for over 30 years and I still need a reminder every now and then that I am not a major cog in the wheel. It’s enough for me to enjoy what I do every day and actually get paid for it. “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. No one, except for the people in the room, knows what took place in this decision-making process (if there was one). And really, who cares? Sit down at your computer, put in a solid 8 hours, go to Starbucks for a latté, pay your mortage and thank your lucky stars…

Link 16 June 2010 3:04 pm

Amy says:

I agree with Lars (and to some extent, Michael. Though I’m not quite as dismissive about my chosen profession’s worth.)

The Continental brand is one of the most enduring out there. It was strong then and it’s strong now. Type is emotional, so if the typeface bugs you, it may just as well please someone else.

Truth be told, I can’t even bring United’s branding to mind. Just saying…

Link 16 June 2010 4:22 pm

Brett Traylor says:

Wow. A lot of good commentary. And even the not-so-good commentary is still pretty entertaining.

Michael, with all due respect, I don’t know who you work for (or who might work for you) but if I followed your line of reasoning I don’t think I’d have clients OR employees. Design is more than decorating a page from 9 to 5. It’s business strategy. It’s the combination of art and logic. It requires one to think and yes, to actually form an opinion. That’s what our clients pay us to do. At least [most] of mine do, anyway. Nobody said that kerning was the “primary” worry. It’s just symptomatic of the larger disregard for design.

Of course, to a large degree, how you feel about the current CO and UA identities is completely subjective. But if you’re going to bring up focus group testing, I PROMISE you that the Saul Bass-designed United symbol completely eclipses the Continental wireframe globe in terms of rate of recognition. So, was it really a no-brainer?

Still, thanks everyone for adding to the conversation. Now if you’ll excuse me I’ve got run. My cab is double-parked.

;)

Link 16 June 2010 5:42 pm

Alberto Cristancho says:

@Michael – Hey, I’m pretty sure you don’t remember me, but I met you many years ago at a cocktail party in Chicago and you were just as obnoxious, opinionated and rude then as you seem to be in this post. Having said that, I think your perspective on the design profession is spot on, and designers deserve a good kick in the pants by rude, obnoxious and opinionated colleagues every now and then.

Obviously, there’s something that you love about what you do or you would have packed it in long ago (or maybe you’re just batshit crazy, I dunno). And that’s where I think you and Brett are really more in agreement than your glib dismissal may seem to indicate at first glance. Yes, we all agree that the logo on the outer skin of a jet is not important in the grand scheme of things. And designers do tend to obsess about minutiae or foment anxiety and outrage where none is warranted. But there is little doubt that an airline’s brand is a really important part of their business strategy. Otherwise every airline would be commoditized into oblivion (actually, that’s what’s happening to much of the industry because the powers-that-be have no idea how to develop, nurture and leverage a brand to gain market advantage).

I think Brett’s point was that very little thought went into this solution, and he was bemoaning the fact that, once again, corporate decision-makers missed an opportunity to actually forge an advantage for this new and, frankly, “Hail Mary” merger. Maybe it came across as a tempest in a teapot…but come on, when you visit a graphic designer’s blog, don’t you expect to be inundated by designerly obsessions and snobbery? At least in this post, Brett alluded to the fact that these companies squandered the equity of a classic brand and, damn it, it’s a crying shame!

You imply that you think designers can be great, but within the confines of the services that they provide, not in the Martin Luther King tradition of greatness. I agree. For most of us, it’s enough that we have the opportunity to bring a little clarity and beauty into the commercial world.

It’s oddly reassuring to observe that some things just don’t change. You may have blasted some of the illusions of my red-faced, ignorant youth all those years ago over scotch-and-sodas, but I came away thinking, “That Michael Stanard, I kinda like the bastard!”

Link 17 June 2010 4:29 pm

Michael Stanard says:

Alberto,

Ouch! However, your description of me is right on the money.

Gordon Kaye, by contrast, once referred to me as “One of the astute observers of American graphic design”. ( Of course, he doesn’t know me all that well. )

I suppose being willing to deliver some straight talk, and being a conservative, in the midst of the young & innocent who mostly populate the liberal design community, sets me apart and doesn’t help matters.

In response to what Brett had to say, what he doesn’t know that I’ve been signing the front of the check for many years, since 1978 to be exact, and provided a livelihood for many designers over the past 32 years. So there!

I recall reading Michael Bierut’s remarks, after discovering his much younger client’s bonus was more than his entire annual salary. . . He thought to himself. . . ” Oh yea? Well I’ll bet ya didn’t get anything into the Print Regional Annual.”

Funny, but doesn’t that about sum it up?

Regarding the airline conversation, having owned a 175 acre airport for eleven years, being an instrument rated, multi-engine pilot, as well as an aircraft owner, ( Vintage 1957 Piper Apache ) I know a bit about aviation and the business of aviation. That is, I’ve been deeply involved in flying and aviation marketing for many years. I’m not a “guy in the diner” on the subject.

In any event, yes, I’ve committed my career to design with few regrets if any. I think I love it, but maybe I’m just a junkie with a habit.

I must admit that I find it difficult to have a dialog with most of my peers, who seem unaware of the context of what we do. It certainly is not into to get into the Print Regional Annual, as nice that may be to satisfy the “neediness” we all seem to share, yours truly included. I mean, can you think of a more insecure group?

I have an entirely different rant on the topic of “Problem Solving” I
‘ll spare you and ask only. . . “If designers are “problem solvers”, how do we explain all those little yellow post-it-notes sticking out of those magazines and design annuals Patrick Coyne sends us ?

I wish we were as important and influential as we thing we are.

We ain’t, but It’s okay.

Being a designer is a lot better than selling insurance, being a dentist or practicing law. Ask Gordon Kaye. Gordon knows what time it is.

Post a Comment