This is the new logo for Al Gore’s organisation Alliance for Climate Protection. New York Times has dedicated an article to it’s creation by Collins, and there are various comments about it, Advertising Age’s Ken Wheaton points out that it’s very familiar to a Converse ad but that’s not really relevant. The issue here is whether it will be effective or not.
The logo, always the face of ones brand is, needless to say, of utter importance and in this case it’s striking in many regards. My first reaction is that it’s quite ingenious, the play with me and we and the point that there’s no difference in the struggle for our earth, on the other hand, no one will remember the organisation unless it in a fast time gains much coverage and becomes synonymous with the logo. The problem is that branding like that takes time, it cannot be done with press releases.
My other concern is the humorous, naive connotations, it looks like the logo of a toy company or kid’s fashion brand, not an environmental organisation. The trend that has lasted for, I don’t know, the last 20 years that, Silly/ Funny equals effective is tiresome. I don’t know if ACP will benefit a bit from being connoted with child’s games and puns.
The last concern, as Wheaton points out, Green? For an environmental cause? When all car brands, petrol companies and coal mines around the world has gone green it’s the worst possible colour for this logo. There’s many reports on how blue is the new green and probably ones I haven’t read that tells us what is the new blue. Perhaps Collins claims that it’s green.
Is silly a good way to go here? Are the public immune to green? Will this work?