Classic news magazines get redesign

NYT magazine and Newsweek redesignsTwo magazines got a facelift in March—Newsweek and The New York Times Magazine. Jack Shafer reported on Slate that Newsweek editor Tina Brown initiated a complete design and content overhaul. At first glance, the cover line above the nameplate contains the usual list (“150 Women Who Shake the World”), with a cover story featuring Hillary Clinton rife with plaudits for the Secretary of State. Shafer opines Newsweek foolishly squanders pages that rave about Melinda Gates and her attempts to eradicate polio. He feels her efforts would have been impossible without clout from her husband, Bill. Tina Brown’s Newsweek draws the wrong lessons from the decline of print and the rise of the Web. In her introductory note, Brown attempts to build a case that Newsweek will “sift out what’s important, [and] pause to learn things that the Web has no time to explain.” Shafer feels the paper magazine failed to add anything apart from the web content, and feels underwhelmed by Newsweek‘s overall redesign, and disappointment by Brown’s efforts.

On the other hand, the first redesigned issue of The New York Times Magazine appears to be a triumph. Design director Arem Duplessis had the difficult task of taking an iconic weekly, already known for its fine design, and elevating it further. Duplessis raided the NYT archives and found inspiration in issues from the 1960s and ’70s—I liken them to Woody Allen’s timeless scrolling film titles. The design team chose a monochromatic color palette, and loaded its pages with typographic detail. My only complaint would be with its cover, which insists on cluttering with cover lines. (Remember, the magazine is distributed with issues of the New York Times, not as a stand-alone on the newsstand.) The cover layout feels tabloid-like, rather than the sharp and sophisticated cover we are accustomed to.

It is no doubt a work in progress and we shall anticipate each new issue with interest.

Urban Outfitters’ new “branding”

Urban Outfitters websiteHot on the heels of the Gap’s infamous lazy logo redesign (since withdrawn) comes another epic fail, Urban Outfitters. Usually reliable for being ahead of trends in clothing design, merchandising and communication, the apparel giant unveiled a clunky new look for its logo and website. The logo is a masterpiece of asymmetry and plainness, while the website’s sidebar navigation willfully mixes extended and condensed typefaces. Many critics have cited the logo’s similarity with Word Art examples found inside Microsoft’s Office suite, enabling amateurs everywhere to curve and bend type to create their own corporate logotype.

I would bet that by year’s end there will be an “emergency” logo design revamp, because this dog won’t hunt!

UPDATE
Since this was posted, UO has changed to a similarly bizarre branding scheme—at least for its website. This time round, clearly the same retail marketing team are conjuring 1991 with all its dots and squiggles. What do you think? Leave a comment below…
—Scott

Urban Outfitters 2013 home page

Aol. Struggling to remain relevant

AOL "blue monster" logoAOL’s late-2009 corporate logotype redesign was its first move away from former parent company, Time Warner. The new logo is simply “Aol.”—upper and lowercase, and with a period, as if to state that it is the last word in online content—set in a sans serif typeface (perhaps a slightly tweaked Futura Bold?), and “revealed” through different backgrounds (the “blue monster” shown above being an example). Designed by Wolff Olins, the letterform remains fixed while the background will change continuously by the hundreds, ostensibly symbolizing AOL’s commitment to changing content. Other backgrounds include a headbanger rock fan, a fish, a beetle, a leaf, and a woman’s shoe. (Visit AOL’s site and click “Refresh Page” at the top navigation to see it in action.)

Maureen Marquess, chief of staff at AOL in New York, is wrestling with the monumental task of making the AOL service relevant again, as “having an AOL account” is seen as a nostalgic reminder of the early days of the Internet. “We have to give people a reason to care again” about AOL, Ms. Marquess said. The designer in me admits relief for the retirement of AOL’s frozen-in-time triangle logo. But despite the press release mapping the complex thought process behind the redesign, about remaining “flexible” while AOL sorts out exactly what services it wishes to provide, it is difficult for a critic to get past the laziness of the rebranding. I am immediately reminded of the children’s cable television network developed in the 1980s, Nickelodeon, who employed changing orange backgrounds (a blimp, a dog bone, a splat) with the “Nickelodeon” mark knocked out in white. Whether viewed in a promo spot or seen on a child’s toy, the logo was instantly recognizable in all of its guises.

However, an effective brand must start with an instantly-recognizable symbol—the brand identifier—to provide profound meaning. I doubt adding a colorful fish behind the simple typesetting of “Aol.” will help to allay the brand’s woes.