Story in brief:
Having shelled out $37 billion for MCI, Worldcom's chairman and CEO Bernard Ebbers must have decided to save a little money on identity consultants. The naming decision was made by CEOs Ebbers and MCI's Gerald H. Taylor (who has since resigned), reasoning that both brands' equities could thus be retained.

Interbrand, who so effectively redesigned MCI's logo only two years ago, was consulted but not retained for design. Instead, advertising agency Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG (I'm not kidding!) got the design assignment.

Credits:
C.E.O. - Worldcom's Bernard Ebbers
Naming - Interbrand
Design - Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG

First Impressions:
This retrofitted version of Interbrand's 1996 work has been applied in a manner it was not designed for. The possibly unintended message created by swiveling and extending MCI's 'starburst' over the Worldcom adjunct is that MCI has acquired Worldcom which, in motion to the right, may be trying to escape. The star, however, now moves leftwards. By so clearly combining two still distinct brands, this logo will always points to their separate past rather than their unified future. Draining both brands of their prior equity, it is the opposite of a powerbrand.

There are good reasons why ad agencies seldom do corporate identity work, don't get it, and shouldn't be asked to. Others disagree, but I believe these are essentially incompatible businesses with wholly different relationship dynamics. Agencies are in the long-term relationship business, while identity work is inherently episodic and healthily so. Agencies focus, properly, on the message of the moment while identity focuses on the enduring. And no one agency contains a big enough client base to afford, on staff, world-class identity design and consulting experts.

Any arguments?

^ top of page

Other 1998 reviews >