Xerox

New:  Logo and visual system

Launched:  January 7, 2008

Story in brief:
It's frustration-driven rebranding. For forty-six years, Xerox has struggled with its name's overpowering association with "copier."  The last big pushback was in 1994. As I wrote then, "To change a meaning so deeply seated in our minds requires heroic efforts. In another case it might be cheaper in the long run simply to change the name. A second-best strategy would be to change the logo." But instead, in 1994 "Landor proposed shouting a slogan 'The Document Company,'  and to hedge that bet proposed a new X, kind of a second logo for promotional uses -- the identity equivalent of an employee on trial." 

Well, the X was never really fired; nor was it given a real job to do, and ultimately it just faded into retirement. Almost by default, Xerox then reverted to the proudly corporate posture of its classic presence, the  1961 Lippincott logo as redesigned by Chermayeff  & Geismar in 1968 . The "copier" problem remained.

 According to brand officer Richard Wergan,  "Our business had evolved; our brand, a $6 billion asset, had not. Our visual system, although well designed, was designed for print media; customers now access us via the Internet. We needed a brand we could protect and leverage in the digital environment, the key to the future of Xerox." 

This was not rushed. Interviews, planning, design and deliberation took a full two years, with CEO Anne Mulcahey "engaged and supportive."  In the end, a mark with a symbol was chosen "to disrupt the mental model," and in hopes of finding a more emotional connection with employees and customers. The symbol itself, a monogram disguised as a ball, was rounded in part to enhance its 'button' utility. Its x-crossed lines (called "the connectors") provide the basis for the wavy-lines graphic device that dominates a new visual system  (which also features "one of the broadest color palettes of any Fortune 5oo company").

Corporate Brand Matrix ratings: 100% strategic

Credits:
C.E.O. - Anne Mulcahey
C.B.O. - Richard Wergan, VP Global Branding  & Advertising
Identity counsel and design - Interbrand;  Q. Malandrino, team leader

First Impressions:
Strategy:  Can't argue with it; rebranding was called for. To make us rethink "Xerox," from outside or inside, we needed a jolt. We needed to be in effect distracted from the name -- hard to do, with another wordmark.
Execution:  A symbol, yes; but this one? ...to me an illustration more than a symbol - and a playful, toy-like illustration at that (beach ball? croquet? bocce?). I'm not sure I want this much coziness from a technology leader.  And I am puzzled by the choice of letterforms whose most distinctive feature is shared with Kodak, historically a direct competitor; what's the intention here? 
Emotion:  A sense of loss, for the proud and confident corporate Xerox I once knew and respected.  It had stature, expressed in the restrained symmetry of its 1968 logo. The new brand feels... diminished; just another player. But maybe that's the point: as a player, it has a fighting chance.

Other Comments:
Bob Wolf:   Is there an apparent concept? Not to me. Is it distinctive and memorable? Not to me. Can I look at it and say ‘I wish I did that’? You know my answer to that one.
Michael Bierut:  I wish I was dead.

Responding for Xerox:
Richard Wergan

[In the choice of symbol, a perhaps toy-like ball; was there an intent to lighten up the businesslike personality?]

From a design perspective our intent is to assure, and research demonstrates that we have done so, that we have an overall identity system which is capable now of talking to a very broad audience. We have our significant capability in the enterprise space, and thus the decision makers that we deal with in that environment. Increasingly our identity also needs to span the SMB space [small or medium business] and be relevant and motivating to that audience too.

Overall we did a lot of research to understand the breadth of the community and the different roles the brand need to have in communicating with quite different target audiences. So absolutely, when we came to the design piece, it’s been critical in our minds that we make the brand and the overall design elements more approachable and more human, slightly less formal. As we’ve done that, we haven’t sacrificed any of the professional, dependable image which Xerox has historically had, in spades. [But] the SMB audiences need to understand that the Xerox brand is appropriate and relevant for them, that we are not a business brand solely for big business.

The previous identity did not communicate that notion as clearly as our new identity. We found the old identity system was not capable of communicating some of the messages we wanted, or communicating in the media we needed to reach that audience. The identity needs to live in that [Internet] environment more than in the two-dimensional environment, and that will be increasingly important. The introduction of a marketing symbol, and a whole visual language associated with that marketing symbol that can communicate different emotions and different attributes, has been absolutely critical to specifying the new Xerox.

[And the similarity of letterforms to the Kodak wordmark?]

The wordmark went through considerable research and creative studies. This modification is solely to communicate what Xerox is about, the attributes that we need to project, with the focus on the Xerox brand and not any other. I can certainly say that when you review the different creative routes and studies, I think one needs to be cognizant of the competitive environment that you are in; and we are very comfortable with our new wordmark and the competitive context both within and outside our industry that this new logo will reside in.

[What would you like to say to the generally negative design critics?]

The important thing with these types of evolutions is to ensure that there is a proper grounding, through research, to establish the types of attributes and emotions that are attached to a new identity. Certainly the research that we have undertaken suggests that the attributes we need to have as a brand, and to communicate to audiences, are communicated very effectively by this design.

To that end, as an organization we need to detach ourselves from some of the more subjective views of the branding which are inevitable when you are in an emotive, subjective space.