AT&T Inc.
Formerly SBC Communications (born Southwestern Bell Co.)
New:
Identity, history, name and logo
Launched:
November 21, 2005
Story in brief:
The Baby Bell finally becomes the parent, by acquiring the remnants of AT&T and adopting its identity (significantly tweaked).
Starting life in 1984 as Southwestern Bell, the smallest of the seven 'baby Bells' from the breakup of AT&T mandated by Judge Greene, SBC outgrew its siblings in part by acquiring two of them, Pacific Telesis and Ameritech. By then acquiring AT&T Corporation, it would surpass Verizon, the biggest other Bell descendant, to become America's largest telecom company.
Ed Whitacre has reason to be proud of this achievement. And it was time to rebrand anyway, to become a more global player; Whitacre had dropped the provincial “Southwestern” for “SBC” in 1995 but never really escaped it, and with very few exceptions initials are a weak option. “AT&T” is one of those exceptions.
I'll bet Whitacre, once an AT&T employee, always wanted to be AT&T. When the acquisition was announced last January, he said “The AT&T brand is terrific, and I'm certain it will live on in a way that makes them proud and us proud.” Brand-bloggers mostly agreed it was the better name choice, but debated whether the 1984 Bass Yager globe (or its 1999 shadow) should also survive, or whether it would be more honest and effective to design a truly new “AT&T.” Whitacre, apparently, made the call. I imagine he might have said “The globe is the brand, and it says what we want to say, but let's have a change event and while we're at it, let's make it friendlier. I don't want to hear 'Death Star' any more.”
Credits:
C.E.O. - Edward E. Whitacre, Jr.
Identity counsel and design - Interbrand
First Impressions:
Strategy: High Pass, but not Distinction. The name decision, I think, was a no-brainer. Even after split-outs like Lucent and NCR, spin-offs like AT&T Wireless and other diminutions, the AT&T name retained greater luster than “SBC.” And SBC has performed well enough to have earned that luster, so that calling itself AT&T is not unduly deceptive. (But see Fred Burt comment below.)
But I would have preferred a more aggressive design decision… courageously, and more honestly, a new AT&T.
Execution: When we see the new advertising (and animation), I suspect this mark will start to look better; the first impression, though, is not strong. It's certainly not a death star; but is it a sliced apple? a candy ball? A bit too friendly, perhaps. I, for one, want my telecom/internet provider to be strong, reliable and technically sharp.
“Transparency” is a feature of the new globe added “to represent clarity and vision.” A nice thought but perhaps more verbal than visual. Visually, in too many applications the mottled and shadowed see-through patterns are more likely to effect muddiness and confusion.
If you look at the three globes side by side (I chose the 12-line version of the 1984 globe), I suggest the clarity, vision and graphic strength of the original are still hard to beat. In the new mark, the widening of the white lines no longer effects a highlight; they are arbitrary fattenings that can be understood only as allusions to a remembered mark.
Other Comments:
Fred Burt, project director at Interbrand: “Actually, the name decision was by no means a no-brainer. Consider that we would be bolting a $50 billion SBC residential franchise onto an increasingly business-focused AT&T brand. Not easy, and a significant softening in AT&T personality would be required. The idea of transparency, too, would help renew a corporate promise of dependability.”
Source:
identityworks
