From Voice ~ Topics: branding/identity, criticism

Jack, We Hardly Knew Ye

The little orange symbol on the shell of my cell phone has almost entirely worn off, thanks to years of jostling around in my pocket with loose change and keys. That abrasion is an apt symbol for the end of Jack, the Cingular Wireless logo. The brand still feels new—seems like just last week that they put up the orange Cingular signs in place of the old AT&T Wireless ones at the phone store near my home. They even inflated a 3-D Jack in front of the building, a former fast-food outlet.

Soon-to-be-deflated Jack.

In fact, Cingular and Jack are only six years old. The company was created in 2000, and it was only in 2004 that Cingular took over AT&T Wireless, my previous carrier, which pretty much forced me to get a new phone.

Now Cingular is vanishing into AT&T—I mean at&t, in lowercase, please. “Cingular is now the new ‘at&t,’” they tell us. Go figure.

Only now that he is about to go away have I realized how much I’ve grown to like Jack. At first I called him Asterisk Man, but when the promotional, balloon versions appeared, his pumpkin-colored body began to more closely resemble the jack of the children’s game of yore, especially when juxtaposed with the AT&T globe, or rubber ball. In black-and-white Jack reminded me of the outline of an old-fashioned, four-pronged bathtub faucet handle. Study him some more and he begins to come alive, waving at you as if to say, “Stop, traffic!” Or, with his extended limbs, a parody of Leonardo's iconic Vitruvian Man. He’s fresh as an ink splotch and silly as a smiley—an asterisk from which someone has plucked petals like a lover would a daisy. As a piece of design he is quite shrewd: he is “scalable,” in that he can be employed on the four-point interface of a cell phone controller or blown up to parade float-scale to suggest corporate character. He balances the graphic and the anthropomorphic quite nicely.

But say goodbye to Jack. In mid-January the process of his demise began with that boastful declaration heralding “the new ‘at&t.’” Thanks to the merger of Bell South and AT&T, it’s time for Jack to hit the road. The first ads mutating Jack to the new AT&T logo began during the NFL playoffs, while just a few digital channels away, Cingular was still touting itself old-style on college basketball. The first print ads appeared at the same time—then a billboard popped up a couple of days later.

Jack has to go to save money. Integrating brands is more efficient and will cut advertising costs, AT&T says. Some 20 percent of the projected savings of the merger will come from reduction in ad budgets. The tortured sequence of mergers that led Cingular to replace AT&T, and then AT&T to replace Cingular, is traced in a corporate timeline [see Fig. 1], as well as in an amusing TV report by Stephen Colbert.

Cingular’s original logo was developed in just two months by corporate branding firm VSA Partners, and they did a very good job. They lent a younger, more personal image to an outfit previously associated with a cold, corporate giant. When I spoke to Jamie Koval, Cingular’s creative director and principal at VSA in Chicago, he was surprisingly calm about Jack’s end. “I tend not to get too attached, ” he said. “We did it all in two months. In just 60 days, they had widespread brand awareness. ” As a result, VSA got a lot of attention for the success of the program, and the Cingular brand took off.

Jack and the Cingular brand identity contrasted with other phone brands. According to Koval, its competitors “were about all about [airtime] minutes and sound quality. We made it about linking and communication and self-expression. We wanted a human symbol and made it a character.” When Jack arrived, mobile phone logos “were stiff and bold and italicized, red and blue. We took a totally different approach—soft and lowercase and orange. ” Jack’s replacement is the blue marble, the kinder, gentler AT&T globe logo introduced in 2005. The maker of the marble, which replaced the previous, two-decade-old AT&T logo, is the firm Interbrand, whose parent company wears the sinister Hollywood moniker Omnicom. That original orb, by Saul Bass, was nicknamed the “Death Star” as soon as it arrived on the scene in 1985. But that was because AT&T was already seen as an empire, not the lethal weapon menacing Princess Leia’s republic. AT&T is an old-line company, with roots in the 19th century—a company, after all, that still has the word “telegraph” embedded somewhere behind its initials.

Saul Bass' Death Star logo

The fate of Jack—and the relatively short life span of the Saul Bass globe itself—suggests that we are now throwing away logos as rapidly and wastefully as we throw away our mobile phones.

In one sense, the short life span of cell phone logos might seem to be good news for graphic designers. More logos and branding campaigns mean more work. But as a customer, I wish more of the companies’ energies would go into improving the quality of sound and service on my phone and less on mergers and brand buffing. Cingular claims to have the best system—“the fewest dropped calls,” “raising the bar”—and consumer surveys support the statement, but the sound is often still dreadful on my phone, and I often encounter gaps in service, as is typical of all American wireless systems.

My phone, like most cell phones, also has functionally and aesthetically hideous interfaces, with entangled and ambiguous menus, and tasteless screen images. (I can only choose to display a clock on my Samsung if I also chose an idiotic graphic of bouncing blueberry-like balls.)

By sad irony, Jack’s end came just as he was poised for a big role—appearing on stage with the Apple logo, as part of Cingular’s deal with Steve Jobs for the iPhone. What a break for a young logo that would have been—to get to work with such an established, classic icon!

But if I were Steve Jobs, I would worry about tying the fate of the iPhone to Cingular or any existing phone network. How successful would the iPod have been if the sound it generated resembled 1930s radio, as the sound of my cell phone does?

Now, the Apple logo will pair with the globe, we can assume.

So, what happens to Jack? What does one do with a still new, barely worn logo? A slightly used corporate identity can’t be sold like a low-mileage secondhand car. Will Jack go off to the land of lost logos, to languish beside NeXT and Enron, beside EO (the still born AT&T/Motorola PDA phone startup), the Pan Am globe and the Eastern Airlines wings? (There are many more, please submit your favorites in comments.)

How many logos outlive the companies they identify?

There are procedures for dealing with old obsolete cell phones, but none for recycling logos. Do we need to worry about this? No, the logos do not contain mercury, cadmium or other worrisome chemicals we should keep out of landfills. Can we donate the old logos to charities, the way we donate old cell phones to, say, shelters for victims of domestic violence?

But old logos have their fans. Perhaps all those Jack-branded phones and other items will become collectible, like vintage Pan Am and Braniff gear.

Old logos have value. Pan Am’s appeared on nostalgic products long after its planes ceased to fly. Bugatti’s wonderful logo earned money for its owners even during the decades when no Bugatti automobiles were produced. News accounts of the financial travails of the Ford Motor Company report that the company has secured loans with its capital—its factories, its inventories, even its “blue oval” logo, too. Some banker must have attached a number to the value of that Ford emblem before the papers were signed.

Could another company materialize behind the Cingular logo? Could the company hope for revival, like AT&T?

For me, Jack will live on, safe inside the clamshell of my Samsung, at least until AT&T persuades me that I need a new phone. He will be our little secret. I’ve come to like how the phone’s exterior has acquired a nice patina of wear, a rough and tumble surface with a few bits of paint clinging to it. With every day the phone spends jangling with my pocket change, the faint orange memory of the logo will grow thinner, leaving a mere ghost of Jack, literally nickel-and-dimed to death.

About the Author: Phil Patton is the author of Dreamland: Inside the Secret World of Roswell and Area 51, Made in USA, Open Road and other books. He writes regularly for the “Design Notebook,” “Public Eye,” and automotive columns of The New York Times, and is a contributing editor of I.D. Magazine, Wired, and Esquire, for which he writes on design and automobiles. More can be found at http://www.philpatton.com.

  1. link to this comment by Craig Schlanser Wed Feb 07, 2007

    AT&T, then cingular, then at&t. Let me guess, next it will be CINGULAR. They might not get branding, but they do get patterns.

  2. link to this comment by Annoyed Designer Wed Feb 07, 2007

    If AT&T insists on keeping their new logo and saturating the world with it could they at least get rid of the lines in the back that don't line up? Please just pretend like the person that designed it has some sense of perspective.

    I am a little sad to see the Cingular guy go, I liked it from the beginning when VSA created it. To me it seemed to have a sense of personality that most logos lack.

  3. link to this comment by ryan Fri Feb 09, 2007

    First of all lowercase at&t is only used in the logo. when you type it its 'AT&T'. Also the "lines in the back" of the globe are the back of the globe, the blue parts are transparent. so it only makes sense that those lines are there, i mean they're waves so they wouldn't line up on the back, so your prospective remark is not valid.

  4. link to this comment by Mo Sun Feb 11, 2007

    i always loved Jack. I don't have Cingular as my carrier, but I always wanted to switch because I fell in the trap of marketing....i liked Cingular not for their service but because Jack made them appear cool. I should know better...I'll miss Jack. He was quite the logo.

  5. link to this comment by Joseph Mon Feb 12, 2007

    Perspective mark is completely valid. Not to mention there is absolutely NO reason to have the bulging in the "transparent" lines anymore. They were a graphical representation of three dimensional light. Considering this has been photoshop effected to oblivion, they have no purpose.

    This has got to be one of the WORST rebrands of the last decade or two.

    PS. The type is blase too.

  6. link to this comment by Shane Mon Feb 12, 2007

    I agree with Joseph; "one of the WORST rebrands of the last decade or two." ...easily.

    Hopefully with the integration will come a new logo. But I doubt it.

  7. link to this comment by David Tue Feb 13, 2007

    The blase type in AT&T's mark is the same font they are now using to create new US Road signs - Clearview...what a boring choice.

    I wish AT&T became Cingular...poor ole Jumpin' Jack Flash. I'll be giving a eulogy at his funeral.

  8. link to this comment by jmocity Tue Feb 13, 2007

    clearview is so irritating, especially in towns where it and interstate co-exist. of all the typefaces that could have become the new standard in american highway signs, why clearview? it's ridiculously bulbous shapes and high x-heights make it way too cuddly for the rigors of daily commuting and travel. is there something wrong with helvetica neue? is news gothic so detestable? interstate wasn't that great either, but why clearview? yuck.

  9. link to this comment by Tom Thu Mar 01, 2007

    Why keep AT&T? sure it has brand, but does it have a _good_ brand?

  10. link to this comment by Bryan Thu Mar 01, 2007

    I love Saul Bass' work in general, but I always hated the 'death star,' mainly because you really couldn't look at it without thinking of the Death Star, but also because the "1984 Olympic Stripe" thing was so overdone back then. So despite the fact that 3-D transparent logos are overdone these days, I actually like the new at&t logo better, aside from the questionable useablity of a 3-D shaded transparent logo. It still beats the useability of the awkwardly-shaped-and-gradated Verizon logo.

    All that said, I'll miss Jack, too.

    And don't forget that somewhere in there, AT&T wireless was "Cingular One" which had that terrible spaceless logo that said "CINGULARONE" which whas apparently some sort of pasta.

  11. link to this comment by Bryan Thu Mar 01, 2007

    Also, the "Saul Bass" logo depicted in the story is not the original 1983 logo, but some sort of intermediary 3-D version with fewer horizontal stripes. I have no idea if Bass was involved in that version, he may have been, but the original Bass version is flat with no drop shadow and 12 stripes. The original is somehow both better-designed AND less appealing to me, personally. The new Interbrand version is not that great, but (IMHO) better than either of the older versions.

  12. link to this comment by johndiggity Thu Mar 01, 2007

    that typeface is not clearview btw. it was custom drawn for the logo.

  13. link to this comment by Andrew Fri Mar 02, 2007

    I still can't believe anyone would kill a brand that so successfully captured a younger demographic and replace it with such an old outdated brand that only WWII veterans can relate too.

  14. link to this comment by visitor Fri Mar 02, 2007

    http://www.identityworks.com/reviews/2005/at&t.htm

    has all three AT&T logos side by side: Death Star I, dated as 1984; 1999, Death Star II; and 2005, the current version.

  15. link to this comment by Corey Sat Mar 03, 2007

    I agree with Andrew. The cingular name is much more reputable today than at&t. Personally, I've never been a fan of AT&T since not only is more difficult to say, and write/type, but it also doesn't lend itself to sleek, design-conscious advertisements. The ampersand really kills it.

    I think that the switch in the name will kill off the reputation that cingular has earned with people and give companies like Sprint a nice padding in their 2007/2008 earnings.

    Like Tom said, AT&T doesn't really have a _good_ brand.

  16. link to this comment by Tod Sat Mar 03, 2007

    Write AT&T. Tell them they're making a mistake. I mean really, have you heard a single person say, "Well that's a smart idea, turning Cingular into AT&T." More likely you've heard people wonder why they didn't change AT&T to Cingular.

    Save Jack. Smart design needs a voice. Be that voice.

  17. link to this comment by David Tue Mar 06, 2007

    I'll be saddened to see the little orange man go away as well. I always liked that logo, both in color, shape and attitude. The at&t one is horrible. The blue reminds me of medicine, and sickness. The transparency seems out of place in print since it begs to be in a 3 dimensional space.

  18. link to this comment by Better Things To do Tue Mar 06, 2007

    awww... how sweet
    maybe at&t + cingular can have a little violin logo playing a sad little song.

    Haven't you all got better things to do?

  19. link to this comment by Frankie Wed Mar 07, 2007

    Sprint is not a good example of a brand in that they are not preforming well. They look great, but not doing well in the market. I'm guessing AT&T wants to use Cingular stores to sell other AT&T products and bundles like Verizon. Fedex-Kinko's is a better example. The name AT&T Cingular seems pointless on a store. Why juggle brand when you can make one stronger?

  20. link to this comment by Travis Fleck Mon Mar 12, 2007

    I rather like the new AT&T logo. The lines in back are pretty close if not exactly in perspective. I'd guess they used a 3D rendering program to do this. The new logo is modern if not all that interesting and gets away from the 'Death Star' look.

    I for one am glad to see 'Jack' go. Regardless of how successful the ad campaign was (maybe too much for my taste). We've been inundated with 'Jack' for the last 6 years. He is annoyingly whimsical. The colors and typography have always said 'plastic' and 'low quality' to me.

    "Haven't you all got better things to do?"

    You tell me. These comments are always so poignantly ironic.

  21. link to this comment by boytoyclassics Tue Mar 13, 2007

    thus is true. What becomes of these logos. Ummmm I miss the Nextel logo.

  22. link to this comment by Tim Fri Mar 16, 2007

    The retirement of Jack reminds me slightly of the death of the Pets.com dog after the dot com bust. I realize that the dog was more of an advertisement than a logo but he brought the same, and very much needed, whimsical nature to the dot com world that Jack brought to cell phones. Maybe Jack will manage to live on in the same way that the puppet was resurrected for a Super Bowl advertisement.

  23. link to this comment by Russell Mon Mar 19, 2007

    Jack was a better logo. Its to bad he is getting kicked out of the mix. The logo appealed to the younger demographic and I fall into that demographic. I used to have cingular for my phone and I felt the logo was more for the times for a newly merged company.

  24. link to this comment by Anthony Franzino Thu Mar 22, 2007

    I think we are all going to miss the little guy. I wish more phone companies would try and touch upon what jack did. He made his brand more personable and simply more relaxed and cool.So long jack!

  25. link to this comment by Amanda Kuchman Fri Mar 23, 2007

    I remember getting my first cell phone which had cingular service. Cingular and Jack were brand new and their marketing was just becoming well known. My phone and the equipment came in a paper bag with a huge Jack on it that said, "I'm Cingular and I believe you are too." I'm pretty sure I still have that bag in my room somewhere, keeping it because I thought Jack looked fun and that cingular was a brand that could appeal to a lot of people. Even now after going to school for branding and logos, I still think Jack and Cingular had a good thing going, and I am definately sad to see the personable and friendly Jack replaced by the cold and corporate at&t logo.

  26. link to this comment by Sean Fri May 11, 2007

    I'm also in favor of the Cingular logo, but I also think its a moot point. The life expectancy of a great mark, or a poorly designed mark, is unpredictable. Look at the Verizon logo–in my opinion it has to be the worst logo...ever, and it still graces that building in lower Manhattan. An eye-sore to say the very least. When will that die?

Add a Comment

AIGA encourages thoughtful, responsible discourse. Please add comments judiciously, and refrain from maligning any individual, institution or body of work.