Increasingly Generic/Bland Quality of Broadway Artwork and Show Logos?

[BroadwayConcierge]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 11:23am

So, I just clicked on this BWW article to see the cast of Tootsie standing under their new marquee. I noticed pretty quickly that the show artwork on the marquee is, frankly, fugly AF.



I got curious which firm is doing Tootsie's marketing, and found out it's AKA. I then realized who AKA's other clients are. They include The Prom, which went from this beautiful initial artwork...



...to this.



AKA also represents Anastasia, a show which changed its PR campaign from a pretty picture...



...to a big, ol' "A."



AKA is also behind the new, strange Be More Chill artwork:

 

...as well as the Once on This Island logo rebranding, which... speaks for itself.

Before:



After:



Am I the only one noticing an decline in good, unique marketing visuals? These new logos and campaigns... aren't good, no?

Updated On: 11/29/18 at 11:23 AM

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 11:34am

I do have issues with this new tootsie artwork. While the out of town artwork was also bland it was also MUCH more vibrant.
AKA seems like they need new employees or be let go altogether.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 12:04pm

It will simply never be as good as Dewynters in the 80s and that's the truth. Cats, Les Miserables, The Phantom of the Opera and Miss Saigon. All brilliant, iconic pieces of art that have stood the test of time.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 12:24pm

the starting point, from the producer's standpoint, is simple: what sells tickets? Pretty artwork, we know, does not. Busy art work does not. Images that catch random attention in the image assault that is the theatre district do. There is also a difference between the function of established images and aborning ones. AKA and the producers who engage them do not need backseat drivers. 

[darquegk]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 12:25pm

But isn't that in part BECAUSE those shows became iconic that the images (good as they were) became equally iconic? It's a tail-wagging-the-dog scenario. There are no legendary, iconic images associated with shows that didn't become legendary themselves- the current OOTI logo is a bit weak, but it's not as if the original logo is a mainstay anywhere other than MTI's "Buy a show T-Shirt" page.

Look at the past two decades. Only two shows have had logos become recognizable and iconic theatrical images: Wicked to a certain extent, and Hamilton to a definite extent. (Despite its fifteen year head start, nobody ever redesigned their unrelated merchandise logos to look more Wicked-esque.) Could it simply be that only two shows have really broken out of the musical-theatre ghetto enough to produce instantly recognizable marketing images?

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 1:01pm

yes, darquegk, exactly. Chicken and egg. And the iconic images evolved. These are all "reinforcement" images, designed to keep something known in the public consciousness. Tootsie's artwork, on the other hand, is intended to elicit "Oh wow, did you know Tootsie is on Broadway?" Ditto King Kong etc etc etc. Especially today, in a world of name recognition as the driving motivation for a big chunk of Broadway production, this makes total sense.

The only other one of the last 2 decades that comes quickly to mind, and I think it is more of a New York thing, is Avenue Q.

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 1:27pm

(Disclosure: I have a graphic design degree but haven't worked as a designer in several years.)

Yes, there is a current crop of really boring typography being used. I picked up a Prom flyer the other day and was surprised at how it looked like something you'd see on a karaoke CD when the designer wasn't allowed to use anything too close to the original design. I don't think it's necessarily a wave of blandness, but I miss art that really pops. The King Kong brand ID is pretty fun.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 1:34pm

HogansHero said: "the starting point, from the producer's standpoint, is simple: what sells tickets? Pretty artwork, we know, does not. Busy art work does not. Images that catch random attention in theimage assaultthat is the theatre district do. There is also a difference between the function of established images and aborning ones. AKA and the producers who engage them do not need backseat drivers."

This is demonstrated in the aforementioned artwork of Dewynters' work in the 80's. Cats, Phantom, Les Miz, Miss Saigon all had simple but eye-catching designs (and if you ever watch the Making of Miss Saigon, they go through a bunch of showcards with the proposed artwork, most of which was awful). They represented the show well, without being obnoxious. Even Sunset Boulevards design was brilliantly simple.  

Posted: 11/29/18 at 1:37pm

Don’t forget the West End production of CHESS!

[AC126748]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 1:53pm

The playbill/poster/marquee for LIFESPAN OF A FACT is literally just three random images of the stars.

[kelsey1389]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 2:22pm

Also throwing the playbill for The Waverly Gallery in here, the original playbill was pretty good looking in my opinion, but the newest one.. I am not a huge fan of. I feel like Elaine May is staring at me from my wall. (still better than the middle one of her with the purse)

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 2:24pm

to repeat (really necessary?) all of these images are designed to trigger sales to different demographics, for a short run show.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 2:29pm

Increasingly generic quality of Broadway logos/artwork?

Absolutely, to match the increasingly generic quality of Broadway SHOWS

Updated On: 11/29/18 at 02:29 PM

[GreasedLightning]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 7:14pm

AC126748 said: "The playbill/poster/marquee for LIFESPAN OF A FACT is literally just three random images of the stars."

Also AKA, I believe. 

[Blue_Lotus]

Posted: 11/29/18 at 11:20pm

Call_me_jorge said: "I do have issues with this new tootsie artwork. While the out of town artwork was also bland it was also MUCH more vibrant.
AKA seems like they need new employees or be let go altogether."

Something cannot be bland and vibrant at the same time...it’s either/or....

[trentsketch]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 9:12am

The other element (aside from appealing to multiple demographics with distinct yet simple imagery) is the licensing aspect. Most of the major theatrical licensing companies also offer the option to license the original promotional art for your production. So if I want to license A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder, I can pay an additional fee to get the rights to use the graphic of the falling piano with the show name on it. I plug in my show information (theater location, dates, etc.) and I get to reuse the assets designed to get eyes on the show. These licensing deals usually use the same typography if not the same imagery, but tend to avoid actor-specific artwork like the iconic Tracy Turnblad half-face Hairspray poster. In the Heights is a hilarious exception as you, too, can have Lin-Manuel Miranda raising his arm to the sky as part of your production's marketing campaign. 

Anyway, depending on the company, these designs are licensed ala carte (pick just the poster, the print ad, web ads) or all-in-one. Rates vary depending on what you want, but all-in-one packages to just get everything start around $400. A show that's licensed a lot (like Beauty and the Beast) has an additional revenue source from simpler logos that look slick and present a simple memorable image. Tootsie with a wig for the dot on the eye might not look like much, but it's a clean design that can be used by any future production very easily.

[greenifyme2]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 10:07am

As someone who works in the creative marketing agency, I wouldn’t be so quick to blame AKA. I’ve worked with dozens of talented designers whose ideas and illustrations get watered down and “uglified” due to situations out of their control. My team would be crushed they knew they were being blamed for ugly artwork when all they are doing is fulfilling the end client’s requests. They are the ones who are paying for it, after all.

[Tag]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 10:43am

The playbill/poster/marquee for LIFESPAN OF A FACT is literally just three random images of the stars.

Jones especially looks like she was cut and paste from a step & repeat opening red carpet.

[veronicamae]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 11:42am

greenifyme2 said: "As someone who works in the creative marketing agency, I wouldn’t be so quick to blame AKA. I’ve worked with dozens of talented designers whose ideas and illustrations get watered down and “uglified” due to situations out of their control. My team would be crushed they knew they were being blamed for ugly artwork when all they are doing is fulfilling the end client’s requests. They are the ones who are paying for it, after all."

Ditto this. The work artists put out during an art exploration can be ASTOUNDINGLY BEAUTIFUL and you'll have a client pick the absolutely worst one (which was only created to fulfill their really specific, bad request they came up with in a fever dream) and that's what they end up using. The show makes the decision. Not the agency.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 11:52am

I'll try once more. "Beautiful" is barely a part of the equation. The art department does its job creating a range of images, but are not involved in the strategic choice, which is reached by the account folks and the producers. "Impactful" is, or at least should be, the driving adjective, 

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 12:22pm

HogansHero, you brought up an excellent point regarding why Tootsie chose that particular logo/artwork. No picture or art is going to convey what the producers want people to see. The name itself is the marquee. So, when people see Tootsie written in HUGE font, people seeing it will be put on notice that there is now a musical adaptation of the movie. The movie's fame and name is what they want marketed.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 1:24pm

They still use the original Anastasia artwork for the tour and international productions (at the moment). I assume that will be the artwork used for licensing as well.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 1:41pm

ScottyDoesn'tKnow2 said: "HogansHero, you brought up an excellent point regarding whyTootsiechose that particular logo/artwork. No picture or art is going to convey what the producers want people to see. The name itself is the marquee. So, when people seeTootsiewritten in HUGE font, people seeing it will be put on notice that there is now a musical adaptation of the movie. The movie's fame and name is what they want marketed."

Um no. There's no excuse for bad design.

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 1:52pm

A design is only "bad" if it fails at its job to get people's attention and to make them interested in seeing the show. It's like how better designed subway map that is used in almost every major city in the world with a subway system was rejected by New Yorkers and we're still using the "uglier" version. A good map is one that people will use. So in this case, this design is only meant to make people want to see the show. Obviously, the biggest selling point to Tootsie is that people remember the film and would want to see it a musical version of it.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 11/30/18 at 1:53pm

FANtomFollies said: "Um no. There's no excuse for bad design."

Accepting that proposition as true, you are seemingly oblivious to what makes a design "good." In the context of someone who has millions of dollars on the line, the best design is the one that sells the most tickets.