Mad Men is a hit show — we love it. It’s about advertising, vaguely, and the characters have become quite iconic in only a few short years. So naturally, they’ve been made into Barbie Dolls. What?

Four characters from the show are being made into Barbies. But my immediate WTF reaction stems from the disconnect between the show’s very not-adult themes, and Barbie, which is generally a young girl’s toy. Apparently, Mattel addresses this by saying they’re not for kids.

Mattel is marketing the dolls for adults through their Barbie Fashion Model Collection. While they certainly have an adult pricetag of $74.95 each, according to The NY Times they won’t come with grown-up accessories like martinis and cigarettes.

In my opinion, the move to merchandise Mad Men is not a smart one for AMC and for the show’s brand. There is, throughout, an air of sophistication and class — even if it is only based on nostalgia and the fashions of yesteryear. Barbie cheapens the show and the characters, whether or not the craftsmanship is slightly increased.

But maybe I’m overthinking it. Maybe these are for doll collectors and hardcore fanatics of the show only. To the rest of us, it’s a non-issue, absorbing almost no marketing dollars and making very little impact on the show’s general reputation. Yea, I think that’s it.

But I have to admit, the Joan doll is looking good! [insert remarks about the recurring debate of Barbie and unrealistic body image issues.]

Amid this story, we almost overlooked that Barbie turned 51! Having debuted 9 March, 1959. Perhaps we’ll see Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce pitching to advertise the fledgeling toy on the upcoming season 4.

There was also the Mad Men Suit from Brooks Brothers, which I wrote about a while back. That wasn’t such a bad brand extension because the costumer from the show helped produce the product line. I just don’t think folks want to have the clothing of a tv show is all. Especially not folks who wear Brooks Brothers suits.

via Gothamist »

Recently, I had the honour of having my portfolio featured in a book about portfolios. Armin and Bryon of UnderConsideration have published Flaunt: designing effective, compelling and memorable portfolios of creative work. The book highlights how designers from around the world showcase their work.

I always giggle a little when I see my name in print or in a book, and so far it’s been almost universally accompanied by my remarking “ugh, did I really say that?” Perhaps I should proofread my sentiments better. You know, so they actually make sense when read. Oy.

Here are a few shots of my spread. But I recommend you go out and buy the book. Or at least the e-book PDF version.

Spotted the illustrations of Tavis Coburn on Design Work Life (one of the best blogs out there, by the way). Here the images are promoting the BAFTAs, Britains equivalent of The Academy Awards. Love how a single style is applied across multiple movies titles — we need more of this.

See the series here »

This is a clever idea and I’m surprised someone didn’t think of it earlier. But I can’t help but wonder why the company producing these didn’t just go ahead and make them black or white. Or why doesn’t Apple themselves start giving these away at the Apple stores — what a great brand-bolstering giveaway.

via Brand Infection »

You understand, right?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Clearly, I haven’t written much in February. There are four main reasons for this: First, I got fake laid off from my fake job, which reshuffled my life in all general sense. Second, it’s rugby pre-season, which has already started to take up some time. Third, I’ve been sick already for more than a week, including a few proper sick days where I sat slumped on the couch all day. And fourth, the Olympics!

Man, is there a larger sinkhole of productivity? The Olympics are addicting and every time I sit down to watch, I end up losing track of hours, if not days. This weekend, for example, saw me getting nothing done. I did watch the women’s cross-country ski races, though. Oy.

I’m basically gonna scratch the whole of February and resume blogging when the Olympics are over. As I did after Beijing 2008, I’m planning to write a large-scale review of the games from a graphics and branding point of view. Stay tuned.

A while back, the NYC Department of Health had a call for entries to redesign the wrapper for the NYC Condom. Not that the previous wrapper was bad, per se, but they wanted to engage the community and try to get more folks to use said condoms. So the call went out.

And now the finalists have been announced. A write-up in the New York Times features the artwork for five potential designs. My favourite is the top hat concept (above) followed by the “colour blind” concept (below). The others aren’t so great.

finalist Yujin Lee

I had an idea, but obviously never got around to sending it in. My idea is to include photos of close-cropped body parts. That is, all you see is skin, but can’t actually tell what part of the body it is. Just a curve or a crease, y’know? Oh well.

So what are your thoughts? Does the design of a condom wrapper even make a difference? And are these “NYC” enough to bear the initials for our fair city?

Remember the New York neighbor money? That could tie in to this project. Maybe it’s time to secede and form the People’s Republic of New York.

The scheme hopes to add credibility to the graphics profession, in a similar manner to architects, accountants, lawyers, and other “chartered” professions. For example, once the designer has received their CDes badge, they would, like other chartered professionals, be obliged to undertake mandatory annual continuing professional development training. But will regulation save the graphic design trade?

The question has been posed to the readers of Creative Review, who are commenting in both directions. The points for and against are quite clear, but designers are falling on both sides of the divide.

Some points for:
• Other professions are accorded status at least in part through a commitment to providing a level of service that is guaranteed by their chartered status. Graphic design could benefit similarly
• By acting now, designers can take responsibility into their own hands before the UK government does it for them. In a lengthy reply on Davidthedesigner’s blog, Peters raises this, pointing out that the Government has recently sought to licence estate agents and landlords: could designers be next?
• It will enhance the sense of community, bringing together a disparate occupation
• It will distance ‘proper’ designers from cut-price, ‘knock out a logo for £50’ merchants – graphic design will no longer be something that ‘anyone’ can do.

Some points against:
• Designers may not trust the assessment criteria and process
• Clients won’t care about it
• It will load extra cost onto already stretched businesses
• It will make design too exclusive. Some of the most interesting designers did not originally take formal design qualifications – Erik Spiekermann, for example, studied art history as his first degree, Michael Wolff was an architect, Adrian Shaughnessy describes himself as a ’self-taught’ graphic designer. If CDes status insists on a graphic design degree will it exclude some of our more original thinkers?
• Being ‘certified’ is just not very cool. This latter point may sound frivolous but there are very many small design practices who will look on the idea of ‘certification’ with horror. Designers are not natural ‘joiners’ and may prefer to try to raise the status of what they do through a less prescriptive, formal approach.

Head over to the CR blog and join the debate »

While famous for so many things, London [still] lacks a unifying, cohesive graphic brand identity under which all sectors can co-exist. The Mayor, and other officials, sought to bring together the previously branded elements of transport, tourism, government, the Olympics, and other public programmes with the creation of a new branding effort.

Back in September, I wrote about London auditioning design firms in an effort to create an all-seeing, all-knowing identity to define the city. To recap, the whole thing has become a fiasco, with design industry folks sniping about the process, the fees, the secrecy, the whole notion of free pitching, and the dubious need for such a project in the first place.

One of the main criticisms for the whole effort to was the fact that only a handful of design firms were allowed to bid in the first place. You could almost name them before the competition started. City officials determined a minimum standard of size, billings, compliance, insurance, health & safety, and other criteria which immediately ruled out so many of the very-talented 3-person agencies in the UK. (For example, how many design firms have a policy of community outreach for LGBT people, or have calculated their carbon footprint accurately?) Two firms were rumoured to be finalists, but that proved to be just a rumour, and the true winners has emerged in a recent article in Design Week.

Saffron, the international branding and design agency headed by [British] brand identity guru Wally Olins, has been chosen as the agency to tackle the challenge. As of yet, no actual design work has emerged, leaving us all in suspense. And while design geeks in London and worldwide are awaiting the shiny new brand identity, we’re also wondering if the project will ever happen. The whole thing was supposed to be wrapped by November.

But a number of folks have taken it upon themselves to produce their own solution for how they feel a branding and design scheme for London might go down. A quick visit to A Brand For London will reveal a number of genuinely viable options, many with redone typography and logos. Here are a few that immediately caught my eye:

Combining established icons of London/Britain is the most obvious route

I like the simple circle. London is, after all, a circular, concentric metropolis

Another simple marque that is expanded across a “system”

This is clever because it speaks to me as “overground” and “underground”. There is room to expand this too, and to use the shapes as graphic elements (for example, to create a pattern)

Sartorialist images create a series of posters illustrating the interplay between upper, middle, and working class culture in London. A city for everyone.

These are sharp, but the whole reason for this post, today, is that I too created a brand for London. I’d been working on it for a while — at a less-than-tireless pace — and have finally achieved with this self-initiated effort a level of believability I think now warrants public consumption. I’ve already put it up on my portfolio page.

My effort takes advantage of London’s graphic DNA, consisting of bright colours, simple shapes, clean typography, whitespace, and the general notion that you can combine anything. My motivation, as I imagined others felt, was to create something expandable from the start, something that creates a system, rather than one beautiful symbol crowbarred into every application.

“A Rectangle?” you’re probably saying. Yes, you’re right. But like many large-scale branding schemes, the strength of the logo itself only goes so far. The logo is part of a greater system, and expands to fit the particular needs.

Logos will be created for various departments and services. Those entities with legacy logos will retain the iconic marque, but will largely be associated with colours. Additional departments and offerings can be extended with either new colour categories, or within an existing framework

The identity is hinged on an updated version of the classic British typeface Gill Sans. This new version, which I’m temporarily calling “Giww” has simplified some of the characters, especially those with curves. It exists now only as an upper-case font, but may be expanded as needs emerge.

The comparison to Gill is seen here, with new forms in Blue, and old ones in Red. Clearly, some characters have been retooled more than others.

I wasn’t the first to suggest using Gill and Johnston, on which it is based. Having become the unofficial and official typeface of Britain, it seems obvious. But does a typeface from the 1930s best reflect a 21st century city? And London, no less? (That’s perhaps a debate for another time. Obviously, I decided it does … sort of.)

I also created a few poster designs demonstrating the overall visual style — large photography with overlaid text. A white base offers the logo and allows the viewer to associate the appropriate colour and sector. This will become a recurring graphic device that can identify communications.

example of livery design, in this case, for Transport. More associations with colour.

London loves to ruin classical architecture with posters and ads

examples of fashion week ads, using street photography rather than posed studio shots. (photos via The Sartorialist.)

Olympics branding on banners, buses, etc.

examples of ads aimed at locals, promoting Parks & Museums

above posters how they might look in the Tube.

examples of stationery, obviously using colour to separate departments and identity programmes

***

So there we have it, my proposal for London’s new brand. It’s an option, of course, and since I’m not working at Saffron, it’s probably going to be radically different from the actual design that will debut soon. I did it by myself, but received a bit of feedback along the way.

Now the big questions: what do you think? Could it work in practice? What would critics — who love to criticise — have to say about it? Following the backlash of London 2012 Olympics Logo, are the British welcoming for such a design scheme? Is it recognisable, unique, ownable enough for your tastes? Leave your comments, I welcome them!

Oh, and Saffron, I’m available, so call me.