The original title of this post was going to be about the value of logos that are abstract vs. ones that are representational. In other words, does it look like a squiggle or do I see something in it? The particular case I was going to use is The Prudential. The Rock of Gibraltar is a wonderful metaphor, one that perfectly illustrates the power of metaphors. Not only is it a visual metaphor but they also use it verbally — “Own a piece of the Rock” “Rock Solid” and so on in advertising campaigns for over 100 years.
Instead this has become a mystery story. How or why did Prudential rewrite their official history of logo design?
Early in my career I was a market research analyst at Ted Bates Advertising. For five years I had The Prudential (and Prudential Bache and Prudential Real Estate) as my client. Starting in 1984, and at a great cost, Prudential introduced a new logo that was a highly stylized version of the Rock of Gibraltar.
This is what it looked like:
The Missing Rock?
Almost immediately the company began to have problems with their branding. Life insurance agents — the lifeblood of the company — were in an uproar about the new logo. Market research revealed that customers and prospective customers were having the same problem. There was an interesting bit of co-creation going on. People thought it looked like a piano or the wing of a new jet plane — or worse. This was true in qualitative research and in quantitative research. At the same time it scored very well on desirable attributes of modern, innovative, forward moving and so forth. On attributes it was great. In people’s minds it was, well, not a disaster, but certainly nothing to write home about.
So, again at great cost, the company set about to redesign the logo and make it more representational of the Rock of Gibraltar. Or at least of a rock of any sort. Once the new “old” logo went up, the problems went away. Quickly, quite quickly in fact, people forgot all about the short-lived abstraction.
After much looking, I finally found it at the Cooper-Hewitt website.
Now finding this wasn’t easy. In fact, if you go to the official “Rock Collection” on the Prudential website, you’ll see no trace of the 1984 version. Instead you’ll see the following history.
The official rock collection
Which brings me back to the title of this post. Why did Prudential leave out the 1984 design? I don’t want to read minds. It may just be an innocent decision based on the amount of space they had. What would George Orwell say?
Add "Narrative Branding"
Narrative Branding ® 
Maybe they find it easier to pretend it didn’t exist if they don’t actually have to look at it.
I remember that mis-conceived logo, as well as some of the other ones, since the company my Dad and (later) I worked for had their insurance administered by Prudential. (I wish Prudential had dated them in the official collection.) It’s also interesting to see that there have been TWO post-abstraction logos. I like the current one; it looks stronger and more grounded and stable, but at the same time more graceful, than the second-to-last.
Interesting that “modern, innovative, forward moving and so forth” is explicitly assumed to be more “desirable,” particularly with respect to an insurance company. Trendiness and “change for the sake of change” while itself all-too-popular these days, is not very “rock-like.”
Obviously, the Wimbledon Tennis sponsorship is stirring debate as Pru shows off the logos over the years–and, yes 1984’s logo is missing. I recall the insurance portfolio I received in had the 1984 logo. The other modern logos closely resemble rocks–the outline and shadows closely follow those of the predecessor rocks.
Another disaster from 1984-85 era of note–“New Coke” vs. Classic Coke. Try finding that history blurb on the Coke website.
But, there’s no accounting for tastes influenced by disco-drugs snorted the night before.
Guess I don’t know where I’ve been, but I’ve just noticed what I thought was a recent return to a more traditional logo. Did they redesign it again shortly after 1984. I hated the nearly abstract logo. Whenever the latest version came into existence I’m happy to see it!
I guess I’m going against the trend here, but I loved the modernist version. That logo depended on the public’s awareness of the old logo. If you new the old logo, you saw the rock, if you didn’t, well…
BUT for those who were unfamiliar with the old Gibralter, it was very easy to make the connection in all marketing materials and commercials – dissolve the film of Gibralter into the logo for example. Every minimalist representation pays a price in recognition, but gains a great deal of connotative, expressive and practical benefit – if the company desires to be seen as progressive and fresh. Departure from the familiar always resisted.They should have stuck it out. Same with Quaker Oats.
Umm that should be “(k)new the old logo” not “new the old logo”!! Sorry…