ForeWord Publishing Insider
Industry leaders highlight current trends and the latest headlines
 Wednesday, December 19, 2007
About two years ago, the tribal elders at Princeton University Press gathered and concluded that the Press could stand a face-lift--that is, that our graphic identity needed some sprucing up.  I was pleased to hear this news because, having worked as an editor at the Press for many years, I felt the same, as did many of my colleagues. As the recently appointed Director, suddenly I was in a position to do something about this.  As I thought about the challenge ahead, I guessed this was how sports teams got new uniforms (although they seemed to gain cartoonish mascots in the process—not exactly something we were in the market for).  So we consulted with our advisors and commissioned a new logo and graphic identity.  An example of the resulting logo appears in action on our new homepage: http://press.princeton.edu/

The lessons from this exercise, though not yielding a mascot, certainly went well beyond the artwork and typefaces that form the finished expression of our new graphic identity.

 

First, the designers forced us to think hard about who we were as a publisher and as an organization.  Ivan Chermayeff and Tom Geismar, whose firm, Chermayeff & Geismar Studio we hired to commission our new look, were tough interrogators—identity detectives, first; identity analysts throughout; and identity architects, later

 

Following several meetings with Ivan and Tom—we visited them at their offices in New York and they hopped New Jersey Transit to pay a house call on us in Princeton—they succeeded in cajoling from us a concrete sense of who we thought we were: a scholarly press with a public face, a traditional Ivy League press with an eye towards the future, a print publisher with an electronic presence, an American company active globally, and a partner of Princeton University, a distinguished institution with a celebrated identity all its own.  Each of these elements, as well as a more intangible sense of our personality, had to be engineered into our graphic identity.  Its eventual combination of classical and modern type, imaginative use of the letter “P,” and deployment of universally recognized Princeton colors, black and orange, united these elements.  

 

Second, we learned that there is more to a logo than window dressing.  Properly used, it becomes a leadership tool.  Yes, leadership.  Leadership entails many characteristics, among them intelligence, toughness, courage, diplomacy, equanimity, and adaptability.  Not least, however, it means vision; and vision—an idea in service of a goal—can be represented visually.  The idea at PUP is that we publish the major scholarly books throughout the arts and sciences and enlist the informed imagination of our colleagues at every stage to support this greater goal.  Chermayeff and Geismar attempted to capture this vision in the boldness and clarity of the graphics they incorporated in our logotype.    

 

To speak of the devil, the ultimate source of information and inspiration on logos as leadership tools is Tony Spaeth, whose firm, Identityworks, is a treasure trove of useful knowledge on logos of all kinds, how they are supposed to work and why, how they really do work, and how to develop one: http://www.identityworks.com/

 

Third, the development of a new graphic identity is messy--an exercise in group grope.  That is, it required the participation of the entire press, from inception through deployment.  We purposely engaged the participation of all departments of the Press as well as the advice of one of our trustees in choosing the basic imagery developed for us by Chermayeff and Geismar.  Although this exercise in organizational democracy hardly guarantees artistic inspiration, it certainly helped sharpen our judgment in this case.  It also provided an initial groundswell of support for a new feature of the firm’s culture that everyone at the Press would have to live with for a long time. 

 

Integrating the new logo and identity into the graphic materials of the Press was no picnic.  It took about a year, it tested the patience and imagination of everyone from our marketers through our book designers, our IT specialists, and web architects (to say nothing of our financial managers).  Every conceivable graphic element, from business cards through catalogs, book spines, web pages, exhibit stands, email signatures, even checks had to be revised.  Old stock had to be used up and discarded, new stock, ordered.  But in the end, a new visual iconography—modern and classical, black and orange, print and pixel--was born.  And although it fails to include a mascot, a baseball hat came with the program.  The elements of our graphic identity, baseball hat included, appear in the attached guidebook: http://www.identityworks.com/tools/PrUnivPress.pdf

 

How effective is PUP’s new graphic identity?  That depends on how faithful we are in adhering to its standards, but only time will tell.  For what it’s worth, more than a few of Chermayeff and Geismar’s logotypes have held up for decades and have become iconic symbols of the world’s most prominent and successful organizations.  Many of these logos, from The Museum of Modern Art through PBS and beyond, can be seen on their website: http://www.cgstudionyc.com/  

 

But you won't find any mascots.   

Posted by: Peter Dougherty

posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 3:48:51 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [0]
 Tuesday, December 11, 2007

A little over two-and-a-half years ago, the scholarly publisher for whom I work, Princeton University Press, achieved the unlikely goal of placing one of our titles at the top of the New York Times bestseller list: Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit. Weighing in at 80 pages in a small 4x6 format, Frankfurt’s book became an instant classic, and its author, an elderly and distinguished philosopher and teacher, something of a pop culture icon.

But for those of us at PUP, some of the most interesting action on this title has since occurred far from the roar of the American bestseller lists, and the media, including The Daily Show, and 60 Minutes, that popularized this book: that is, on the translation front. Now appearing in some twenty-five translated editions, On Bullshit has quietly achieved the status of an international publishing phenomenon.

Appearing in languages as diverse as Finnish, Hebrew, Portuguese, Catalan, Japanese, German, Czech, Korean, Indonesian, Serbian, and Italian, On Bullshit now travels under a remarkable variety of titles and covers. The Italian edition sports my favorite Euro-title, the expressive, Stronzate; the Finnish edition, Paskapuheesta; the French, De l’art de dire des conneries; the Portuguese, Da Treta; and the Brazilian Portuguese, Sobre Falar Merda.

And yet, according to my colleague Ben Tate, PUP’s Director of Subsidiary Rights and Translations Editor, many of the foreign editions have retained the English term, “bullshit,” either as their title or in their title of their respective editions. Some of these include the German, Danish, Swedish, and Dutch.

Adds Tate, “among the those editions which conveyed the book’s title in the local language, only the Italian comes closest to a straightforward translation, as “stronzate” means bullshit in the literal sense of cow excrement, but also in the sense which Frankfurt is considering. The rest of those publishers who sought to localize the title either had to approximate the expression using several words or had to settle for something close but inexact, such as the Brazilian Portuguese edition, Sobre falar Merda (On talking Shit) or the French edition, De l’art de dire des conneries (On the Art of Saying Crap) . Indeed, that is the reason so many of the publishers left the word untranslated. It’s a unique word with a specific history, and its meaning as addressed by Frankfurt is underpinned by the crassness and vulgarity of its literal meaning. It’s a special word.”

And while many of the international editions have emulated PUP’s sober, monochromatic cover, some of our foreign co-publishers bravely chose to go the graphic route, in the process rendering some pretty imaginative cover art. The Dutch edition is a shocking pink, the Portuguese edition sports stripes. Truly amazing is the Japanese edition which features anatomical images.

What are the lessons for publishers and authors in this international story? First, size—in this case, brevity—matters. Since time immemorial, book editors have encouraged authors to keep their books brief, partly—though not entirely—because foreign publishers find it easier (cheaper and faster) to translate shorter books. This is an object lesson in that sage bit of editorial advice.

Second, ideas matter. Say what you will about the nature of the subject, bullshit is an idea and Harry Frankfurt treats it as such—that is, philosophically. Ideas, if they are engaging, travel to the far corners of the earth, and so do good books about ideas.

Third, on a more anthropological note, the global popularity of Harry Frankfurt’s book suggests, and to put it more emphatically, confirms, that “bullshit” as a cultural feature knows no boundaries. We Americans have no monopoly on it. It is everywhere.

Last, but not least, the fact that so many of our foreign co-publishers used the English-language title, On Bullshit, attests to the enormous power of global English as an all-pervasive cultural force and, I suspect, of the enduring power of American popular culture.

So much for my brief publishing disquisition on the international aspects of this remarkable little book. I’d better stop now, lest I find myself engaging in more stronzate than I’d like to be accused of.

Posted by: Peter Dougherty

posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 9:35:55 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Comments [0]