The city has recently updated its logo which was a $75,000 gift from Macy's, designed by local branding firm giant LPK...
There is an interesting discussion going on at Brand New about this logo. It's interesting to point out that many commenters are lamenting the fact that the new logo doesn't reflect the architectural history of the city, and these are people that don't live here. I'm just sayin'...
Here are some of the comments:
"I think that for a city trying to show its forward thinking as well as rich history the logo leaves something to be desired."
"...it definitely does not capture Cincy very well. Cincinnati is a a city rich with architecture and history and this logo doesn't convey that to me."
"As far as a city logo goes, this one is much better than most I've seen. I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but it's certainly better than, say, Nashville's."
"It definitely doesn't feel 'Cincinnati' to me. This city's full of great things that are unknown even to people that live there (outstanding architecture, robust history, distinct and homey neighborhoods, great food, and an awesome downtown area considering the city size to name a few off the tip of my tounge). Seems like a missed opportunity to communicate these."
I don't think the new logo is THAT bad. It's much better than using some sort of boring crest or shield. What do you think?
Wow, what meh. I agree with some of the comments on that site about it looking vaguely pharmaceutical or IT, or perhaps like an industrial giant that's trying to emphasize how tech and green it now is.
Posted by: visualingual | 15 June 2009 at 02:15 PM
When I saw it this morning my immediate first response was that it (as mentioned above) looked both techy and drug company-ish. If the logo is for the purpose of true branding, meaning to position itself in a field of other competitors, perhaps it's spot-on. Cincy is very corporately-driven (remember the whole Digital Rhine project?).
The disconnect comes in that people who live/have lived/know the town don't feel the logo represents anything outside of the downtown area. I have a hard time thinking that mark represents Mt. Lookout and Mt. Washington at the same time, in both the people and the culture/history.
It's a corporate logo, and not much more. The mark itself is passable, if not unremarkable in my humble opinion.
Posted by: Brian | 15 June 2009 at 02:30 PM
I think this logo is just fine for what it is. It isn't a tourism logo, so it's not how people will see the city represented from afar. It's only going to be used for things like city vehicles, websites, forms and possibly signage at some city owned buildings. I think most people are missing that very important distinction.
Take a look around at other cities around the region (be prepared for some pretty awful websites). Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, Lexington, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia all use some version of the city seal. Indianapolis uses a sketch of one of the main city icons, but the logo itself is nothing great.
If implemented right, this will create a nice, unified look for the city and puts us light years ahead of the rest of the cities in our region.
Posted by: Chris Thompson | 15 June 2009 at 03:47 PM
Interesting - I am kind of in between about it. After reading the previous comment, though (Chris Thompson), I do see more of the practical application for it.
I'm not sure how it captures the 'brand' of Cincinnati but, then again, not entirely sure how you would brand a city anyway - especially one like Cincinnati that loves to be so diverse.
It will grow on me, I'm sure. If anything, the colors are nice! ;)
Posted by: Amanda Rosen | 15 June 2009 at 05:40 PM
Here's another point, though -- is this the real/only version that will be applied to all city materials that need it? Will everyone who works for the city now get a three-color business card? Or, is there a more fiscally sensitive version that will also be used? If not, it just doesn't seem to work in its context.
Posted by: visualingual | 15 June 2009 at 07:22 PM
I think the overall change will be most significant. It is much more than this logo, but the type face and so on is changing and will change the look of most things the City owns/operates.
I think it does accomplish giving the city a contemporary feel and something a bit techy and edgy if you will...and I think that is a good thing for a city trying to distance itself from the tarnished Rust Belt brand.
I also like the blues on the C as it reminds me of the curve of the Ohio River. The lighter blue part is accentuated right at the curve, which to me signifies the location of the center city and highlights it as such.
Posted by: Randy Simes | 15 June 2009 at 07:23 PM
boring; and safe. i saw this on BA too.
what would have been nice, and a bit more forward thinking... might have been something similar to copenhagen's new branding scheme...
http://www.opencopenhagen.com/Open.aspx
cOPENhagen; open for (fill in blank; tourism, business, living, ect)
or this: http://www.iamsterdam.com/
cINcinnati.
oh god. i love typology.
Posted by: john | 15 June 2009 at 08:09 PM
I want to have an opinion about this, but its honestly hard to take it seriously given the small amount of information that Brand New article. (and I loves me some BrandNew).
In some ways I feel like this idea is outdated, marketing a city with a logo.
It's not _how_ you're branded, it's what you do/say/make.
Whether or not a logo is attached is unrelated.
What city has a logo you can remember? I can't think of one (outside of geographic or architectural features, and I think those are called icons).
If this logo means sprucing up a (much bigger) message to potential residents and businesses, then great. I love it.
And I don't mean taglines.
Otherwise? Whatevs.
Posted by: Glass | 16 June 2009 at 12:31 AM