IDENTITYWORKS.COM Reviews NotedProBonoIssuesArticlesToolsIdentity ForumSpaethContact
Home > Reviews > 2002 Programs > Cargill

Overview

2013 Programs

2012 Programs

2011 Programs

2010 Programs

2009 Programs

2008 Programs

2007 Programs

2006 Programs

2005 Programs

2004 Programs

2003 Programs

2002 Programs

2001 Programs

2000 Programs

1999 Programs

1998 Programs

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 



[ Site Map ]

CARGILL: A new leaf!

A use of identity, by a leader

New: Cargill logo, a wordmark with symbol incorporated.

Launched: February 20, 2002

Story in brief:
It's not easy to turn a huge enterprise. This logo change expresses and effects the strategic redirection, and recommitment to a new mission, of this privately owned giant ($50 billion). Cargill's image was 'commodities;' its new intent is to provide food chain solutions, aiming at the position "global leader in nourishing people." Identity is the best available tool to reach 97,000 employees in 59 countries with this message.

Credits:
C.E.O. - Warren R. Staley
Identity design - Franke+Fiorella, Minneapolis

First Impressions:
Excellent work. Note how the new leaf device is half the old 'C' symbol, a preservation of equity (if only conceptually). Note too that it now embellishes "Cargill," neither overwhelming nor visually competing with it. Easier to use, and with a good green message.

The old mark, designed by my good friend Don Ervin (in 1966, for Sandgren & Murtha) was beautiful, and I'll miss it. But it had technical drawbacks. Its very rare two-option configuration (wordmark-in- shape, or symbol plus wordmark) bought flexibility at the cost of consistency. More importantly, a freestanding symbol (whatever its advantages) competes for attention with the name. If not needed for other purposes (to endorse other names, or to decorate a car hood are classic symbol functions) wordmarks alone, or with compactly integrated symbols like Cargill's new leaf, are generally the better strategy, because the name is the hero.



















 
^ top of page Other 2002 reviews >