Funny how 40 years swoosh by: June 1971 is the date the Nike Swoosh was launched. Designed by Carolyn Davidson for $35 - a "Bargain Brand," the Dept. of Nike Archives notes in its extraordinarily understated tabloid-sized newsprint history of the mark (produced for the "benefit of Nike employees"). What others might take an entire book (and many trees) to convey - explaining the origin and history of the Swoosh logo - the "DNA" accomplished in a mere 28 pages.
Included are commentaries by designers and design critics, former employees and recollections by Phil Knight, the co-founder of Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS) that evolved into Nike.
The origin of the mark goes like this: Knight wanted to differentiate BRS's custom product from the ones they were importing from Onituska in Japan: "...so Knight turned to a graphic design student he met at Portland State University two years earlier." One day in 1969, the student, Carolyn Davidson, was approached by Knight and offered $2 per hour "to make charts and graphics" for his business. For the next two years Davidson managed the design work on BRS. "Then one day Phil asked me if I wanted to work on a shoe stripe," Davidson recalled. The only advice she received was to "Make the stripe supportive of the shoe." Davidson came up with half a dozen options. None of the options "captivated anyone" so it came down to "which was the least awful."
Well, the rest is history. And the Swoosh emerged from "the stripe" and is one of the most recognized logos in the world.
{ 48 trackbacks }
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Steven Heller, thanks so much for this post. Facinating article with amazing "historic" images to boot! (Pun intended.) Will definitely share this via Twitter mañana! @whitbeckweb
Great post Steve. Phil Knight rarely does TV interviews, but did Oprah in her final season. When discussing the infamous Nike logo the fee was mentioned, which gave the entire audience a laugh. (though painful to many designers who could relate) When Oprah followed up about that, Knight, who seems a very fair man, said he went back and "made it right" with the designer, hinting at a much bigger number in the long run. We can only hope it was. Davidson has created one of the most recognizable identities on the planet, on her own, well before the days of the major branding consultancies.
I've heard that Knight offered her a quantity of Nike stock years later to "make it right."
i never understand peoples problems with the whole $35 fee,
there was no garantee that nike whoudl become massive, also $35 back then must equate to a few hundrad now. she was paid a fee to do her job, thats how it works.
Yes, she received stock (approx. 2 mil worth) among other things.
Correction: OregonLive.com estimates the gift of 500 shares of Nike stock she received as a result of her design is now worth $643,035, and she has never sold any.
Her name is also well known to students of design and professionals in the field.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004273/Woman-designed-Nike-swoosh-explains-story-inception-40-years-ago.html#ixzz1U4tZ8yR2
Where can one buy this?
It's gratifying that the creative fee was only $35, not $35,000, because I have always pointed to the Nike logo as an example of "missing the opportunity" for excellent design. If a designer would just analyze a creation before casting in stone (or printing ink), a superb rendition might result. In this case, rotating the mark just 180 degrees would render the perfect mark: an "N." I believe a logo should not only convey a feeling, but represent the name, if possible. Here it's possible! So the upside-down mark would no longer feel like it's bouncing off the floor; it would instead look like it's leaping into air. When Nike realizes the value of this simple change, I'll send them a bill for $35,000. No, make that $350,000.
Nike has always had it's share of armchair quarterbacks, good luck with that Chaz!
Let it be learned :
Always seek a precentage in equity anytime you create intellectual properties and marks.
Industry standard for visual design is the "fee" +6%
And the quote in the book about the mark being less signifigant thatn it's use is BS.
Without the mark, there is nothing to use.
Protect ya neck!
Sean,
If a designer had charged me 6% of my company's equity for creating a logo when starting my companies, I would have laughed and hired someone else (and would do the same even moreso today).
So what is an acceptable percentage to you Matt and what industry are you in?
I have to agree with Matt on this one. To expect a percentage of a companies equity for a design is a little rediculous. Who is going to want a cut next? Your Landscaper because your store front looks welcoming?
A logo design does not make a company - it only helps with recognition. The logo is only as valuable as the value of the product it represents. If Nike was run poorly all those many years ago we would not be having this conversation now. The most valuable thing the designer probably gained was recognition. Which may be linked to the reason that she did not sell her $600,000 worth of shares.
Milton Glasser is a good example of this. Although he was doing just fine previously, he recieved $0 for his I Love NY logo. However, the recognition shot him from successful to famous and likely ended up equaling much more income in the long run than the logo itself was worth.
We, as designers, charge an rate based on our experience and abilities. Not the performance of our clients.
@graeme That $35 fee would be ~$200 today, which seems low. I've seen online logo mills that charge more than that.
Charging 6% of a companies equity?? Really? I would love to pull that off. Lol.