Unum Group

New:  Logo, and name truncation

Launched:  April 11, 2007

Story in brief:
In 1999 Unum and Provident, leaders in corporate-benefit disability insurance in U.S./U.K. markets (and a competitor to Aflac), merged to become "UnumProvident." It was a name noteworthy for its awkwardness; and, if the cultures were uncomfortable with one another (as they were), it was guaranteed to prolong their mutual discomfort.  To make matters worse, the name decision was wrapped in American stripes... not too smart, for a enterprise with international growth aspirations.

In 2003 a new CEO took charge, Tom Watjen, and tackled such cultural problems as disunity, bloat, arrogance in the marketplace,  poor-pricing discipline, and a challenged benefit-delivery reputation. Four years later, he could say "Given the progress we have made both operationally and financially in recent years, we are essentially a new company." Late in 2006 he commissioned a rebranding, to mark the transition from fix to grow.

The New York office of 'The Gate' won the competitive assignment (vs. Interbrand and S+G). The parent name decision, from UnumProvident Corporation to Unum Group, was announced in January, followed in April by the logo launch and a new ad campaign. Beau Fraser of The Gate says "The logo walks a fine line between the stature and strength investors want to see, and the softer and more human side of the business, the company's focus on people."

Credits:
C.E.O. - Thomas R. Watjen
Identity counsel and design - The Gate Worldwide
Consultant Beau Fraser, creative director David Bernstein

First Impressions:
Good job overall. Name decision: Excellent, if overdue; why is it that anyone thought adding Provident to Unum was such a good idea? It was more likely the path of least resistance, at the time.
Design: It is distinctive and fully functional. Yes, the wordmark is solid and confident, and yes, the dots evoke people.  Why is it, then, that it leaves me a little uncomfortable? Is there a feeling of a logo staring at me?

Other Comments:
Which is stronger, the one color version, or two-color with tinted dots? And come to think of it, is it perhaps even better with one dot (pick one), two dots or  no dots? The name itself is powerfully distinctive, and the letterforms alone do honor to the name, though subject perhaps to some kerning. Reminds me of rule 4 -- one dingbat per logo, and the more unique the name the simpler the graphic needs  to be.

Michael Townsend, 19 April:  My instant reaction was positive, but almost immediately I tried to figure out what the three people are doing. The first one seems to be standing looking at you; the third one might be holding arms out. What’s the middle one doing? Not holding up arms (they’re below the head). Maybe that’s what bothers me about it now. I shouldn’t be worrying about what the “picture” is. So now, the dots seem superfluous and distracting.