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: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 2003
Traditionally, education leaders are reluctant to be seen as concerned with such matters as branding, and generally are thus poor design clients. In 2000, MIT's President Charles Vest was no exception. MIT's reputation was stellar; why should it need a logo? Its school and department brands (some of which had created logos) were felt to be more important. But MIT's Publishing Services Bureau, newly organized to centralize design as well as printing and forced to reinvent the wheel with every assignment, saw the waste in the lack of a central logo, indeed of any established graphic identity. Patiently, they built a leadership constituency headed by Vice President Kathryn Willmore and in time, won approval to create a central visual brand. By April 2003, when the resulting system of design tools (suberbly presented on-line) was launched, it was still defended as saving "significant cost in staff hours and vendor expenses." But it had come to be seen more importantly, as a means to increase and refresh MIT's overall presence, and to accomodate a non-mandatory process of brand centralization. MIT now talks of the logo's purposes as "Ambassador, Unifier, Economizer." Director Bernstein convened impressive teams of guiding sponsors, planners and designers, the latter including the principals of three Boston design agencies (Kathleen Forsythe, Alice Hecht and John Kramer) as well as the famous type designer Matthew Carter. The end products: a strikingly forceful wordmark (a monogram), a simple color palette and materials templates. (Departments still retain their own signatures, however; there's no new signature system.) Launch was scaled and timed for maximum on-campus impact. When he retired, President Vest surprised the team by claiming the 2003 branding as a significant event on his watch. CREDITS Internal, managed by Bruce Bernstein, founding director of MIT Publishing Services Bureau, and his successor Monica Lee. Design by Tim Blackburn, in collaboration with Matthew Carter. CASE INFO Submitted by: Tony Spaeth, 7/05/2007 |
MATRIX DATA
DRIVERS | TOOLS | ||
Strategic driver: 70% | |||
Broaden scope/scale/visibility Elevate public profile | 10% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
Change internal culture Enhance pride & confidence | 10% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
Change internal culture Transfer affiliation from unit to parent | 40% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
Change expressed personality Renew/refresh public image | 10% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||
x | Change event : Low visibility: Memo | ||
Functional driver: 30% | |||
Design weakness Increase visual strength/quality | 30% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Typography | ||
x | Identity system elements: Visual system: Palette | ||