Citi

New:  Corporate logo and formal name

Launched:  February 13, 2007

Story in brief:
Since 1999, when its Citibank division rebranded as Citi, the Citigroup parent lived with a fractured brand... waiting, in effect, for a coherent vision. It was also waiting, in a more personal sense, for CEO Charles Prince to exorcise finally the ghost of Sanford Weill, who had made the Travelers umbrella his personal icon. It must have been with special glee that Mr. Prince accepted the St. Paul Travelers company's offer to buy back the umbrella, and to claim this would pay for Citi's rebranding.

Prince's stated goal is to better integrate the group's diverse parts, after years of acquisition, into a more unified whole: "Our unified brand represents the promise to serve our clients as one company, as one Citi."

Landor won the competition for this coveted assignment in November 2005. Its ultimate work product is a tribute not so much to Landor's creativity, but to common sense:
1. Eliminate "Citigroup" as a communicative and formal name to be just     "Citi" everywhere (Citigroup remains, however, the legal name);
2. Add "Citi" to all unit names, even "Citi Smith Barney;"
3. Apply the retail bank's blue-red "Citi" mark to (almost) all unit  signatures, but with gray ("silver") letterforms.

The result:  a modified monolithic signature system,  the exceptions being the Mexican Banamex (potentially Citi Banamex) and the outlying unit Primerica (which some will remember was once American Can, now an agent field force selling insurance and mutual funds).

Pete Harleman, who headed the Landor team, suggests this is better called a 'brand consolidation' than a rebranding; it is less important to external than to internal audiences, and even then impacts relatively few employees. The launch event was indeed notably quiet; the NYTimes and WSJ stories featured sale of  "the umbrella logo," rather than strategic change.
 

Credits:
C.E.O. - Charles Prince
Identity counsel & design - Landor, teaming NY & SF offices

First Impressions:
Frankly, I never much admired the 1999 Citi mark -- friendlier, but with its umbrella-handle pun a bit flippant for my taste, and lacking the authority (and the visual retail presence) I'd want in my bank. I missed Gene Grossman's confident 1973 wordmark and compass rose, far more impact-full on any given fascia. So I see this "consolidation" as a missed opportunity to weight up the Citi brand, in visual presence  and in stature. (It's now, if anything, even lighter.)

But that would require retail rebranding, again: hugely expensive. It will happen in time, but it will have to wait for a more fundamental driving purpose. For today, common sense prevails.

Other comments:
Agreed, the use of one name and logo unifies the brand. And agreed, no need to change the blue-red retail bank colors. And agreed, investment banking and private banking and the corporate umbrella want a more discreet, reserved personality than the consumer businesses, and gray/silver expresses the distinction. But I am also struck by how powerfully this color-coding could work against unity, could indeed institutionalize and further perpetuate a two-cultures perception. (It doesn't help that, to many Americans, blue versus gray evokes our Civil War.)