I remember, back in the heady, optimistic days of the late 1990s and early 2000s, when Volkswagen had just started to build and sell the New Beetle, just how excited I was. This icon of my childhood was back, something I always wanted to happen, and I was pretty giddy. But that’s a story for another time; today I just want to show you a little relic of this era, because it has an interesting detail.
It’s a detail that’s about the absence of something as opposed to the presence of something, so keep that in mind if you’re scrutinizing this picture, desperately looking for whatever the hell it is I’m talking about.


The picture is of a promotional postcard Volkswagen sent out for the New Beetle; these were actually pretty common back in the day, and I remember getting some of these – there were a number of different kinds – in the mail.
Let’s look at this postcard. Here’s the front:

… and here’s the back:

…so, you get the joke, of course: there’s a huge space shuttle stack right there, but you’re focused on that yellow New Beetle parked nearby. I mean, it makes some sense; shuttles had been around since 1981, and in 2001, a New Beetle was perhaps a more novel sight. I mean, not really, but whatever, you get the idea.
Anyway, what actually caught my eye here was the base of the shuttle’s wings, because they’re missing something: the NASA logo and shuttle name. Here, look:

See that? The postcard erases any branding from the shuttle. Why is that? It’s not like NASA is a private commercial organization, right? They’re a government agency. Does that mean anything when it comes to use of their logo?
It sort of does! NASA has plenty of restrictions about how their branding can be used, just like any corporation would, which shouldn’t be too surprising. And of course to use any NASA logo in a commercial context requires permission, which sometimes may be worth trying to get for a company, and sometimes not. In VW’s case here, it seems not.
There are some notable times that NASA does seem to have given permission for logo use, like in the 2000 movie Space Cowboys:

… but I think it’s almost more interesting to see the contexts where NASA does not seem to have given permission, which is usually in movies that involve disasters, which is most space movies, because movies are boring without some disasters, right?
In the 2013 movie Gravity, there was a fictional shuttle called Explorer, and they seemed to have gotten around logo restrictions by just never quite showing the part with the logos:

The name is fine, especially a fictional one, but the shuttle there never really quite was in position to see any logos. More fun is how the excellent AppleTV series For All Mankind handles the logo issue, because they made their own slightly modified NASA logos:

This fits especially well because that whole series is about an alternate timeline/universe version of NASA anyway, so why not have a slightly different logo? The changes are pretty subtle, but I suspect that was enough to meet the letter of the law there.
Man, what tangent from New Beetles! Also, if you can think of any other good not-quite-NASA logos you’ve seen to dodge the restrictions, please show me in the comments, because I love this kind of crap.
Arnold Advertising out of Boston had the VW account at that time. I was interning at National Boston Video Center’s new Rumblestrip audio division (the two top guys from Soundtrack across town, who mixed ALL the spots out of BOS, had been lured over and they built new audio suites with Fairlight DAWs and Yamaha O2R desks).
It was exciting to have a tertiary brush with the outstanding work this direct mail is also a part of.
“You promised to bring the iconic Beetle back and what you give us is a funny looking Golf with the wrong kind of engine in the wrong place. We definitely don’t want our logo associated with this.”
-NASA probably
I thought “US Flag” so I request half credit.
NASA. Still a few bugs in the system.
Removing the logos here is really just a formality though. Even for space nerds who know about the Buran, it’s not like people are going see a Shuttle and think, “Wow, Ford styling is really out of this world these days!”
It’s not everyday you see a Buran.
I can appreciate why NASA might specifically not give permission to VW here. Unlike countless other examples where the Shuttle is still “promoting” the agency, in this postcard the Shuttle is basically the punchline of a dad joke.
On a related note, back when I was in architecture school in the early ’90s, looking through monographs of Frank Lloyd Wright projects, I delighted in how often a Beetle was parked in the carport (ol’ Frank didn’t really believe in garages). Like, there was absolutely a tie between the sorts of people who’d choose an idiosyncratic house and a weird import. It helped that my best friend/classmate had a ’73 Super Beetle at home.
Well not exactly a garage , but Frank Lloyd Wright designed Max Hoffman‘s showroom for Hoffman motors on Park Avenue. It’s possibly the most beautiful automobile showroom ever, although Bernard Maybeck‘s San Francisco showrooms on Van Ness were pretty neat too. The Hoffman showroom was also sort of a dry run for the Guggenheim Museum.
http://www.steinerag.com/flw/Artifact%20Pages/PhRtS380.htm
Eventually, it came to be owned by BMW and for years my wife produced the video-walls that displayed a history of BMW. I listened to her editing the soundtrack for those and the running gag apparently was a long list of accomplishments for some year and the last one would always be “and the tourist trophy.” Around the apartment when there was a bunch of unrelated stuff that needed to be talked about it would be enumerated, and the tourist trophy would be appended to the end of the list.
When there was talk of the showroom being landmark for its beauty and historical significance, BMW immediately demolished it.
In the linked article there’s a photo of Frank Lloyd Wright posing with two Mercedes that Max Hoffman gave him one is a 300 limousine and the other is a Gullwing coupe.
Reminded of how there was a bit of a kerfuffle with NASA about Chevrolet trying to capitalize on the astronauts driving Corvettes.
(All the more reason to appreciate how John Glenn drove a NSU Prinz instead of a Corvette.)
Wondering about Yuri Gagarin and his Matra Djet which was apparently given to him by the French government & whether there were concerns at Kosmicheskaya programma SSSR about ethics à la NASA’s concerns re: the Corvettes though things would have been perceived differently in a society not necessarily based on capitalism…
Re the altered NASA logo in the “For All Mankind” series: Ok, they kept the NASA as is, they reversed the white orbit ellipse, and they reversed the red swoosh thing. Waitaminute, did they reverse the stars?? Are they in a right-handed universe?
It’s not reversed, it’s just a different star field altogether. Here is a better picture of it-
https://www.reddit.com/r/ForAllMankindTV/comments/e127up/for_all_mankind_meatball_oc/
PS- if you like space/sci-fi/alternate histories this show is fantastic and highly recommended. Get through the episode Nixon’s Women before deciding on it.
I remember this ad as a two-page spread in magazines.
That film was essentially a tribute to NASA, which is quite appropriate IMO.
Now I need to rewatch ‘The Martian’ (2015) to see how they handled the issue. IIRC they did use genuine logos; a quick image search seems to support that, but I’m going to watch it again anyway.
definitely somewhat of a dad movie…but I remember watching it in the theater back then and enjoyed it for sure. It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, though. i wonder how well it holds up.
That movie is one of three on our middle school’s “Movie curriculum” around the space program (along with Apollo 13 and Hidden Figures). Yes, it’s during the last two weeks of school, not a coincidence or anything. 🙂
That is one excellent space triple feature.
I think it should hold up pretty well. IIRC there weren’t a lot of overt time-period-specific references aside from the Cold War items, and they did describe that stuff as being ancient.
And yeah, it was dad-oriented. 🙂
IIRC, their logo hit Public Domain status at some point in the last several years, which is why Target now sells NASA t-shirts when they couldn’t before.
Also, can you imagine the fallout if VW put one of the actual Shuttle names on there and it went down a couple years later? Wait…
Interesting! I didn’t know about the public domain angle.
Generally anything paid for by the government is in the public domain, but there’s specific legislation about NASA logos. They aren’t copyrighted or trademarked, they are a thing unto themselves.
Lots of catch 22 situations, so it’s easier to not show them in any comers context.
Nasa has filed trademark applications on their logos for use in many goods and services categories. They also likely enjoy common law trademark protections in many states. You’re right that there is an additional federal statute that covers the use of various govt IP. The broad statement that anything created or paid for by the government is in the public domain is incorrect.
Forgot the link
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-V/part-1221
NASA is special, as in the law is specifically different for NASA.
Sorry, but according to NASA’s website, that is not true. My understanding is that trademarked logos remain protected for as long as the owner uses it as a business/trade symbol. After 5(?) years of non-use, then it is public domain.
So apparently Target licensed or otherwise was granted approval to use it.
The internet is so sadly full of garbage news, AI, and sales pitches now, searching has gotten really hard. I realize it’s not public domain, I was remembering incorrectly — I’m 90% sure it was just that at one point in the last 5-7 years NASA relaxed their licensing as part of their push to become cool again, which is why the Meatball started appearing in pop culture all over the place. It made the news at the time, but searching for this now is just a wormhole of crap 🙂
It actually really makes me concerned for the future of the internet as a research/news tool at all. It’s been such a devoution.
There’s a shuttle in that photo? Sorry… didn’t notice. I was focused on that blue van.
NASA got a lot pickier with use of their brand after the release of the Oscar-winning film Armageddon, because the sheer cinematic genius and award-winning character study prowess of Michael Bay was just something NASA couldn’t compete with.
NASA’s budget had been shrinking for years. It’s well known that they were able to hire Stanley Kubrick to film the moon landing AND do it on-location.
Great, nerdy debunking of the whole fake moon landing thing.
And, I also worked with S.G. Collins while I was interning at NBVC (see my other comment…)
I remember being disappointed when the New Beetle was announced, everything about it was the antithesis of the original Beetles of my childhood.
It was fun design-wise and cashed in on the retro fad of the era.
It also introduced a whole generation of people to VW build ‘qualtiy’.
“You change ze coil packs ven you change ze oil” (which is sludgy)
You change ze window regulator
You change ze brake light switch
You change ze other window regulator
Ze brake light switch gets recalled…
Weird. You’d think they’d grab onto all the free positive advertising they could get
Today it’s much easier: “We can take stuff to space, and without all the baggage of that Nazi guy or the obnoxious billionaire retailer!”
Scaled composites: “What about us?”
Us: “Who?”
Burt Rutan is a steely-eyed missile man.
Unfortunately, my first thought was that you were talking about Werner von Braun.
His baggage pervades ALL space flight, for better or worse. But we’ll let it slide because we sort of made him come work for us. 🙂
NASA is terminally worried about its budget. They have to make sure that lending their brand to VW won’t somehow offend some random Senator who would then vote to cut their funding.
The solution to that is simply offer that random Senator and family a free ride into space. Call it a “fact finding mission”, they love those.
Then, once in orbit announce the funding cut.
“I’m sorry Senator, but since our budget cuts kicked in we just can’t afford round trips anymore. Enjoy the view!”
Thank you Senator for freeing us from the scourge of government funding and showing us the light of the free market capitalism.
Cans of Perri-air are available for only $93.99 each.
The investment in giving Bill “Ballast” Nelson a ride worked out.
It’s possible the VW marketing just didn’t think it was worth the paperwork
Its a bureaucracy. They THRIVE on paperwork!