Story in brief:
New leaders, working for new owners to apply new strategies, now from a new HQ location -- all of these changes were tied together and expressed, finally, by this addition of a new corporate-level identity above the existing Hilton Hotels brand.

Background: In April, 2007 the Blackstone investment group bought Hilton Hotels Corporation (for $20 billion) and in October, installed CEO Chris Nassetta. Sweeping changes followed, most dramatically a culture-changing headquarters relocation. From the September 23 release, here's the official line:

“'This is an incredibly dynamic time in our company’s history. On the heels of a successful move into our new global headquarters, we’re excited to launch our corporate identity that better represents who we are today and our aspirations for the company going forward,' said Christopher J. Nassetta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hilton Worldwide. The new corporate name and logo follow the company’s recent relocation of its global headquarters from Beverly Hills, Calif., to McLean, Va. These changes have also been mirrored by the internal launch of a refreshed company vision, mission, values and key strategic priorities..."

"With the addition of the word 'worldwide,' the new logo unites all members of the organization across all parts of the globe with one shared vision for success. The platinum and gold stylized H evokes quality, stature and the richness of Hilton’s heritage. The two halves are reflective, which are a reminder of the company’s storied past and vibrant future, and the open curves are welcoming, symbolizing the world of travel by suggesting the round edges of the globe, the arch of a bridge and posts of a bed."

Early in 2009, Landor was retained to develop a more clearly differentiated corporate umbrella brand for all ten category brands (including the several Hilton flavors as well as Doubletree, Homewood, Hampton Inn and Waldorf Astoria) -- in effect, an innkeeper holding company identity. Creative director Chris Lehmann, represented earlier this year by the Broadview identity, told us that the decision to retain "Hilton" with the simple addition of "Worldwide" was preceded by a full-fledged naming exercise. Similarly, logo explorations included completely new directions, until rotation of the 1992 symbol was seen to honor "the richness of Hilton's heritage." It was also more recognizably an H, yet with senses of global scope, and aspiration, and travel/leisure associations. (And as the release confirms, the "bedposts" perception was acknowledged and welcomed.)

As for color, blues were considered too close to Hilton Hotels and reds as better for retail than corporate branding; the client sought "a new color space" and found the silver/gold or gray/tan solution to be appropriately quieter and of more stature. (An interesting design detail: Recognizing that 3D marks are not always best, Landor provided a flat-colors symbol as well as a one-color version.)

Credits:
C.E.O. - Christopher J. Nassetta
C.B.O. - Paul Brown, President Global Brands and Commercial Svcs.
Identity counsel and design - Landor

First Impressions:
Strategy: Good. When your corporate name is also one of your marketing brands, it is almost always helpful to differerentiate them, making it clear whether you speak as the product's marketer or as the parent institution. By increasing the visibility of their combined assets and common leadership, this can strengthen each subsidiary brand's image. It also levels the playing field for all subsidiary brands, and promotes development of a common culture.

It is also true that a degree of brand dilution is risked, for example by associating Waldorf Astoria with (say) Hampton Inn, through the shared HHonors program as well as through common corporate endorsement. But this is a reasonable trade-off, necessary to build equity in the whole.

Execution (naming): Given that all subsidiary brands are in the hospitality/travel/leisure space appropriately associated with "Hilton," and assuming no intention to build out of that space, an "Altria" solution would indeed be overkill. Adding "Worldwide" makes good sense, especially in the light of lingering confusion from the 1998-2006 [*] coexistence of two Hiltons in the world (see story in Powerbrands, 1998, page 26).

Execution (design): We can all see the logic in each individual design decision (form, type selection, alignments, colors). Yet to me the resulting whole feels unresolved, and adds up to less than a compelling presence. It is indeed quieter and more reserved, but at cost of authority. Technically the symbol and letterforms seem unrelated (in sharp contrast to the 1998 mark), out of balance in size, and unaligned as well. The second type size (though again understandable) nevertheless adds clutter and complicates alignment. And for me, the perception of a bed makes the mark cartoonish, trivializing rather than humanizing the brand.

Other Comments:
Tony, your comments regarding the Hilton identity from 1998 to 2006 [*] are not quite correct.

An important aspect of the development of the 1998 Hilton identity strategy was the total agreement between the Ladbroke Group and Hilton (US) to adopt the new identity worldwide and to implement a single symbol across all properties. All other logos were eliminated. The new identity did a great deal to bring the two separate Boards of Directors together from an identity and marketing point of view.

However, it was not until 2006 that the two separate boards formally joined to create one global management team.

My first reaction to the [newest] addition of the "worldwide" was that most of the traveling public knows that Hilton is worldwide; why add more baggage? (PUN)

As far as the symbol is concerned, it is clever that the old "H" was flipped to create a new one; it is certainly retro. However, I really don't know what is so valuable about recalling Hilton's forgotten heritage of the 60's.Was there really any visual equity in the 60's logo? I'm hearing a lot of rationale to support a somewhat banal solution.
Gene Grossman, 8 October 2009

Corporate Brand Matrix ratings:
0% structural, 100% strategic, 0% functional (est.)