J. C. Penney, JCPenney... jcpenney?  

New:  Logo, and unpunctuated name in text
           

Launched:  February 22, 2011

Story in brief:
In 1969, the J. C. Penney company was rebranded by the pioneering design firm Unimark. As told in Jan Conradi's wonderful book "Unimark," consultant Ralph Eckerstrom advised replacing both the corporate name and the neighborly nickname "Penney's" consistently with "JCPenney." (I  should note however that Bill Bonnell, who was there, attributes this counsel to Jay Doblin.)  Designer Heinz Waibl and a team of stars (including Phil Seefeld and my friend Steve Dunne) created a Helvetica-dominated visual system anchored by a JCPenney wordmark, which came in three weights (you see here Regular, the default). This mark may have been the single purest exploitation of the excitement Helvetica generated in that era. But more than the logo, it was probably the Helvetica-driven visual system (especially in packaging) that gave Penney a recognized corporate design leadership position in the early 70s. (Ironically, in 1970 Unimark then redesigned Target, which in time would usurp Penney's design-leader positioning.)

Fast-forward forty-two years, to 2011;  Helvetica per se is no longer that exciting, and the JCPenney wordmark (excessively-kerned, and we must admit really never in itself a thing of beauty) now feels generic, even stale.

 What's more logical, then -- for a company seeking to renew and refresh its image, and to reposition itself as "a style authority" -- than to rebrand? And that indeed is Penney's expressed rebranding intention:  the new logo is "a move symbolizing jcpenney's transformation" and its "emergence into an exciting new future."

The Process decision:
Ullman's rebranding team was led by Ruby Anik, SVP Brand Marketing and Greg Clark, VP Creative Leadership. Their  next decision, design-sourcing, was unorthodox and creative. In addition to commissioning not one but two design firms, they invited a class from Rhode Island School of Design, and another from the University of Cincinnati, to respond to their brief.  According to Luke Langhus, the fourth-year Cincinnati student  credited for the ultimately chosen logo, by engaging young designers Penney's sought "to stay true to their heritage but go younger."

The designer's story:
It was not a "contest," Luke told me; for adjunct professor Stan Brod's 20-some students it was a class assignment.  While Penney's initial brief encouraged "outside the box" ideas, it also called for continuity (without specifically requiring Helvetica).  The students' work began with "look & feel" boards, sampling (for example) customer life styles and retail environments. After a first round of logo explorations, a visiting Penney team provided in-person feedback and further direction (including the idea of seeding "JCP," thought to be more youthful).  Students were encouraged to develop and refine as many directional ideas they thought viable (and most presented three or four possible solutions).

Luke's winning idea could hardly have been more straightforward. He preserved Helvetica (and red, though a bit warmer?), lower-cased the JCP and dropped it out of a tight red box simply because that worked (and growing up, he felt and his generation had often seen JCPenney in a red box; see example.)  The Penney team loved this (we can safely assume) for its improved visual impact, its minimal equity risk, and its dual functionality as both "jcpenney" and "jcp."  (Langhus had not, incidentally, presented a freestanding "jcp" icon;  he first saw it, as did I, on Penney's Facebook page.)

The name decision:
Evidently, the lower-cased logo was so loved that someone decided that in text, everywhere, the world should now know Penney's  as jcpenney --  even at the start of a sentence.  Indeed the 22 February launch release was titled "jcpenney Transformation Takes Place With Bold New Logo."

The launch:
Perhaps having learned from The Gap how not to launch (tentatively), Penney's news release was confident and comprehensive, included designer credit, and was followed within the week by new commercials on the Oscar Awards broadcast featuring the new logo. It looked terrific.

Credits:
C.E.O. - Myron (Mike) Ullman, III
C.B.Os. - Ruby Anik, SVP Brand Mktg; Greg Clark, VP Creative Leadership
Identity design - Luke Langhus (student, Univ. of Cincinnati)
 

First Impressions:
Strategy:  Solid. Even overdue. Ullman's leadership achievements have gained enough traction to be both celebrated and further accelerated by a rebranding event.
Design:  Though not ideal, a significant improvement. It's not particularly youthful, indeed it's quite conservative, and that's fine. The solid square adds needed weight and acceptable distinctiveness. The solution, though, remains logo-centric; we'll have to see how skillfully its presence will be extended through design of the accompanying visual system. (Luke has accepted Penney's invitation to intern this summer; I hope, Luke, this is your internship assignment.)
Nomenclature:  "jcpenney?" My spell-checker and I oppose;  see "How not to punctuate corporate names." In that post Phil Corbett, standards editor of The New York Times, agrees: “Our practice has usually been to avoid rendering company names all lowercase. We think it looks awkward and distracting, and worse yet, is likely to confuse readers who might not realize they’re seeing a proper noun." Accordingly, the February 26 story in the Times  on Penney's earnings opens correctly with "The J. C. Penney Company posted..." followed by "Penney announced" and "Penney's reported." I dare say customers too will stubbornly continue to relate to Penney's, in preference to jcpenney (or even JCPenney).  To pretend otherwise is to impose an internal inconvenience on outside audiences; this merely assures brand inconsistency, and ultimately -- it just doesn't work.

And forget "JCP." That's strictly for insiders, and excludes the rest of us.

 
Other Comments:
Jerry Kuyper (on BrandNew):  I believe the new JCPenney logo is clearly better than the previous version designed by seasoned veterans. The capital letters JCP were particularly awkward in that version of Helvetica. The all-lowercase logotype is much more harmonious from a visual perspective (...) I would simply describe this as a brand revitalization that retains the visual equities of the font and color, while making subtle improvements to the design and increasing the overall visual presence.  

Luke Langhus: I read every comment on BrandNew, and I appreciate everyone's feedback on the logo both positive and negative. 

Luis Herrera/MBLM:  With due acknowledgment to the effort of  Cincinnati’s student –  The risk of creating these sort of crowd-sourcing contests open to students or agencies with limited experience on strategic branding, is precisely that they miss the strategic component and as a result, they end up pursuing a graphic challenge, instead of looking for a solution that serves as a vehicle to achieve a marketing or a business objective.

In the JCP case, it feels like they missed  key cues for this project:
A) “JCP” doesn’t have the power of a “UPS” name, not in terms of positioning, even less in terms of awareness. Although acronyms are part of today’s networking language, the equity of the J.C. Penney name seems to be on the last part of the name and not in the initials, which probably only a handful shoppers know what they stand for. By framing the ‘jcp’ letterforms into the red square Langhus is jeopardizing the legibility of the full name, and putting at risk the most important equity of the brand –  its name.

B) Far beyond the graphic/name discussion, the project – in my perspective – should have been focused rather on conveying the new values of the brand as “the ultimate style leader” looking to appeal to a younger audience who is eager for change, freshness and who embraces brands that dare to go beyond. If that was anywhere in the brief, keeping Helvetica and fragmenting the name are not doing the job – it feels more like the typical ‘safe bet’ where emotional attachment is placed ahead of business determination.

I’m not against Helvetica, acronyms nor lowercase brands – however in this case it feels like the exercise could have used further analysis of: audiences (beyond youngsters), business objective/opportunity, and branding basics that are “risking more for less”.

Thanks for opening the door to different points of view all these years...

 

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