Featured cases
- ABM Industries 2012
- AkzoNobel 2008
- Alcatel-Lucent 2006
- Alliance Boots 2006
- Apple 2007
- Aramark 1994
- ArcelorMittal 2007
- Assurant 2004
- Bausch & Lomb 2004
- BDO International 2010
- Belgacom 2003
- Boise Cascade 2002
- BP 2000
- Broadview Security 2009
- Brocade 2007
- CA 2005
- Cardinal Health 2003
- CEC Bank 2008
- Chemtura 2005
- Cisco Systems 2006
- Cision 2007
- Computer Associates 2001
- Covidien 2007
- Credit Suisse 2006
- CSC 2008
- Daimler 2007
- Delta Air Lines 2007
- Devon Energy 2007
- DSM 2011
- Eastman Kodak 2006
- EDF 2005
- Experian 2007
- Federal Express 1994
- FedEx Corporation 2000
- FICO 2009
- Fiserv Inc. 2009
- Fortis 1998
- Fortis 2006
- Fortis 1991
- Genworth 2004
- Gillette 1993
- Grant Thornton 2008
- Harcourt General 1993
- Harlan Laboratories 2008
- Hyperion 2006
- Ingersoll Rand 2005
- Intel 2006
- Invista 2003
- Johnson Controls 2007
- Kemper 2011
- Lineage Logistics 2012
- LM Wind Power 2010
- Lucent Technologies 1996
- Marathon Oil Corporation 2011
- Marsh & McLennan Companies 2011
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 2003
- McGladrey 2010
- Meredith Corporation 2009
- MFS Investment Management 2012
- Morgan Stanley 2006
- Nielsen 2007
- Nokia Siemens Networks 2007
- Novartis 1997
- NXP Semiconductors 2006
- Outward Bound USA 2005
- Polycom 2012
- Princeton University Press 2007
- Reliance ADAG 2006
- Rockwell Collins 2006
- Samsung 1993
- Sensata Technologies 2006
- Shipley Energy 2011
- Sistema Telecom 2006
- Smith & Nephew 2003
- Sprint (Sprint Nextel) 2005
- Starbucks 2011
- Tenneco 1995
- Texenergo 2011
- The Joint Commission 2007
- The Paley Center for Media 2007
- The Phoenix Companies 2006
- Thomson Reuters 2008
- Tyco Electronics 2007
- Umicore 2001
- Unilever 2004
- Unum Group 2007
- Vale 2007
- Vantiv 2011
- Velfina 2004
- Wolters Kluwer 2005
- Wyeth Pharmaceuticals 2002
- Xerox 2008
Case: Ingersoll Rand 2005
2005 2000 In 2000, newly arrived CEO Herbert Henkel was concerned by Ingersoll Rand's narrow industrial image. ("We still have the image of being the rock-drill company"). He commissioned a redesign. A New York firm, DMCD, provided an "IR" symbol that at least initially replaced Ingersoll Rand's old wordmark. The new symbol, we said at the time, was "direct and strong, easy to work with, and only as original as it needs to be." Across The Board, March-April 2001 But little else changed, and a logo change alone is a shallow rebranding. So in 2005, Henkel retained Siegel & Gale to extend and complete the rebranding. Actions taken were first, to provide a conceptual foundation ("We inspire progress by unleashing the potential in people and technologies") and then, to Since the rebranding was extension more than revision, the launch event was of medium visibility and principally internal. Tony Spaeth 7 feb 2007 CREDITS 2000 DMCD CASE INFO Submitted by: Tony Spaeth, 7/02/2007 |
MATRIX DATA
DRIVERS | TOOLS | ||
Strategic driver: 100% | |||
Broaden scope/scale/visibility Remove limiting category association | 25% | x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Principal unit names or competence list |
x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Tag lines | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Mixed | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Industry definition | ||
x | Situation facts: Subcorporate facts: Defining units | ||
x | Change event : Medium visibility: Launch event | ||
Broaden scope/scale/visibility Elevate public profile | 25% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Tag lines | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Industry definition | ||
x | Change event : Medium visibility: Launch event | ||
Change internal culture Refresh & redirect competitive energy | 15% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Tag lines | ||
x | Change event : Medium visibility: Launch event | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Employee behaviour | ||
Change internal culture Transfer affiliation from unit to parent | 15% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Principal unit names or competence list | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Mixed | ||
x | Situation facts: Subcorporate facts: Defining units | ||
x | Change event : Medium visibility: Launch event | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Employee behaviour | ||
Change perceived composition Redefine the defining units | 10% | x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Principal unit names or competence list |
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Mixed | ||
x | Situation facts: Subcorporate facts: Defining units | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
Change perceived composition Modify parental 'umbrella' presence | 10% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Symbol-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Graphic devices | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Principal unit names or competence list | ||
x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Mixed | ||
x | Situation facts: Subcorporate facts: Defining units | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Employee behaviour | ||