VERIZON:
Good name (my call), less-good logo
A use of identity, by a leader
New: Verizon name and logo
Launched: Announced April 3, 2000;
advertising broke August 1
Story in brief:
With global aspirations, Bell Atlantic was overdue for a name change... and thought about it in 1997 when they acquired NYNEX, but backed off. In 2000, acquisition of GTE provided another opportunity.
Strategically, renaming was a no-brainer. That doesn't make it easy. Three agencies were engaged and 8000 names looked at before Verizon, from a 1997 list, cleared.
Credits:
C.E.O. - As co-CEOs, Charles R. Lee and Ivan Seidenberg share the credit.
Naming - Lippincott & Margulies, Landor and DeSola Group were all involved.
Identity design -Landor Associates designed the red V and black wordmark. DeSola Group designed the red Z and the implementation.
First Impressions:
Although many people love to hate the name, it is technically functional, effective and personally I find it appealing.
The logo is a different matter. Because the V and Z compete for both attention and esthetic influence, the mark itself is cluttered; it tends to degrade rather than enhance anything it appears on. A lesser concern: consistency is problematic, in both shape and color. In horizontal spaces, the V moves to the left, resulting in a different shape and relationship. Red and black look great on a white field (like the trucks) but in reverse, the mark collapses: the white forms 'pop' while the red ones recede, leaving us with 'veri on.' For reverse applications, the all-white version works better.
The mark has been further prostituted by use of the V in advertising as merely a checkmark, robbing it of more imaginative significance (and distorting its shape in the process.)
|