Field Fisher Waterhouse's much anticipated rebrand was announced this week. The firm is now referred to as Fieldfisher. Or the even more diminutive "fieldfisher" when it comes to its logo. Very 2011.
Dropping the "Waterhouse" was to be expected, and echoes countless law firm rebrands. But it's not clear why Mssrs Field and Fisher have now been joined at the hip (slaughtermay anyone?), why it is only occasionally capitalised, or why the new logo looks like there was a problem with the printer's ink cartridge.
The legal sector has a long history of handing over wads of cash in return for a truncated name and a slightly different font. Both
Ashurst and
Nabarro spent a fortune in return, respectively, for a fleet of branded taxis and a
migraine-inducing new logo. BPP spent a rumoured £300,000 on a
cartoon lion when one of its own students
did a better job for free. And
Taylor Wessing was
roundly criticised by its staff for engaging in a costly rebrand at the same time as cutting salaries. Possibly the only firm to have emerged with any credit was
Travers Smith - one partner said that dropping the 'Braithwaite' cost the firm "
about 50p".
The announcement failed to explain the reasoning behind the rebrand. But RollOnFriday's man with red-rimmed glasses and a massive coke habit reckons the firm has missed a trick and has come up with some alternatives.
 |
|
How it looks
|
 |
|
Going for the client's inner child
|
 |
|
The clumsy-fingered GC might google you by mistake
|
 |
|
Or just thinking outside the box
|
The firm did not comment.
Comments
67
81
61
84
77
77
85
83
81
81
"From a creative point of view, initially we want it to achieve three things:
•Be authentic and reflective of the firm: it is very important that at a time when clients and consumers are demanding an authenticity from brands that the Bond Dickinson brand truly reflects the strategy, vision, values and personality - an organisation that is confident, bold, astute, human and sophisticated.
•A compelling differentiation in the marketplace: it also has to stand out visually from the competitors and own a space in people's minds.
•An evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary approach: by bringing two firms together with a rich heritage it was important it retain some aspects of the heritage from both firms, no matter how small
We reviewed the professional services and competitor landscapes by way of a colour spectrum and found that whilst there were a lot of brands using blue, black and red colour palettes, there was an opportunity to use yellow. In much the same way as we approached the colour, we reviewed the competitor trends in logo design. We found logos using simple type and fonts, graphic icons and interesting typographic ligatures. We discovered there was no one using a signature. So we created a bespoke piece of typography in the form of a signature. One that has a modernity to it. We felt that the combination of these two strong elements reflected what we initially set out to achieve: to create differentiation, reflect our personality with authenticity and retain some part of our heritage.
This is the start and we look forward to continuing to develop the Bond Dickinson brand."
Note to Bond Dicks ; nobody is using yellow or a signature because (a) they look weak and (b) the yellow was associated with woeful law firm Dickie Dees
85
84
65
82
81
86
87
57
81
78
As for the BD comment, I'm bored of the self-pitying comments which seem to come from their marketing team. If you don't want people laughing at your firm, stop making over the top statements. Just admit that you're a fairly good firm. Factor in reality.
84
81
82
72