Does The New Advertising Age Logo Miss The Mark?

Let me start by saying that I read Ad Age way too much, and – as a result – I was a tad shocked by the introduction of a new logo.

It comes from Laura Fallon, a second-year art direction at VCU Brandcenter. She told us the insight driving the design was the "importance of starting conversations with Advertising. Whatever we do or create as advertising people, is nothing unless it can spur a conversation. Also, Ad Age is full of constant conversations of what's happening now, what different agencies are up to, articles and opinions from many different people. Being constantly engaged in conversations is crucial to creating work that is meaningful to people."

- Ad Age

To a certain extent I agree with Ms. Fallon because the conversation is a key element to creating not only a campaign but also a movement. However, the conversation is not the only element.

Plus, is the editorial theme of the publication purely about starting a conversation?

When I ask that question, I feel that the logo diminishes the meaning of publication as a piece of journalism. Yes, Ad Age is “full of conversations” but it does not cover only conversations. Moreover, the acceptance of the logo by the publishers illustrates the point that they may by more eager to let this magazine become another digital forum where idiots like me can wax philosophic on minor issues that no important human being would or should really care about.

I, for one, don’t need that. One of the important elements of having a trade publication is having a place to gain information across the industry (about new trends, new ideas, competitors, etc.). Believing that Ad Age is just a forum will lock anyone working in the industry down even more as everything we do is covered in NDAs.

Am I making too much about this? Of course. Am I going to cancel my subscription? No. Am I going to read the comments at the bottom of each story? (Time to answer a question with a question.) Why start now?