Living Organism

Originally introduced in 1984 (designed by Scott Nash and Tom Corey for Fred/Alan), Nickelodeon’s flexible identity was an icon that defined the network for over 2 decades.

Though the new brand hasn’t been rolled out completely nor officially-aired, a new Nickelodeon wordmark has been appearing on random promotional bumpers and merchandising. According to Variety: “Branding will connect Nickelodeon, Nick at Nite, Nicktoons, Nick Jr. (formerly Noggin) and TeenNick (formerly the N), all of which will use similar-looking lower-case logos.” President of Nick and MTV Networks’ Kids and Family Group, Cyma Zarghami cited the reason to make the move was to streamline all of the Nick brands and unite them under the Nickelodeon name, which couldn’t be done under the “splat”. Currently, each of the sister channels has it’s own unique identity that doesn’t necessarily reflect the parent company.

While many critics of the mark have been complaining about losing their childhood, the nostalgia, etc., they are missing the bigger picture. Don’t get us wrong, we love the “splat” at Vitamin, but, there is something to be said about unifying the network under the “Nick” moniker. Not only does it tie each channel together in name but it also offers up an opportunity to align them stylistically. There is huge opportunity here to create a dynamic and well-connected identity system.

At first blush, the mark comes off trendy, but there are some subtle nuances that add real value to the wordmark. While the splat has been abandoned, some of that character has been brought back into the wordmark: the dot on the i (reminiscent of the splat), the oblong counters of the “o”, “e”, “c”, and “d” also allude to the idiosyncratic outline of the splat. There is one facet of this re-brand that has been overlooked and that is how it will work into Nick’s current bumpers and motion graphics. This is where that “splat”equity lives now, not in the mark. Look at all of the allusion to the countless iterations of the “splat” identity. The creatures, the colors, the FUN. The importance of the mark is clearly second to how these animations embody the Nickelodeon brand. Perhaps the real discussion is not: should have Nickelodeon tossed their iconic “splat”, but does it really matter? Is there real value there for the audience? For the brand itself?