Yesterday, when I was writing about Bentley’s logo re-design, I used the Ford logo as an example of just how long-lived automotive brand logos could be; remember, Ford has been using essentially the same logo for 116 years. That little fact reminded me about that one time that Ford at least considered changing their storied logo, and the creator of that unselected new logo was one of the greatest graphic designers of all time: Paul Rand.
Paul Rand, definitely not to be confused with Rand Paul, was the designer of such famous logos for companies as diverse as Cummins, Colorforms, the famous IBM logo, the NeXT logo, and even the now-infamous Enron logo. The man was one of the best logo designers ever, so it seems reasonable that if there’s anyone Ford would have approached about a logo update in the mid-1960s, it’d be Paul Rand.


We should talk for a moment about the Ford logo, before we really look at the updated version Rand proposed; the Ford logo, so associated with that company now, started out as really kind of a generic and expected logo of its era. Let’s take a look at it:

That ornate script was quite common for logotypes of the era, and you can still see evidence of this trend in some logos that were first crafted in the early 1900s and, somehow, stuck around all this time, unchanged. I can think of two massive companies that have logos that fit this description, and I’m pretty sure you’ve heard of them:

Coca-Cola, makers of New Coke, has a logo that uses a script quite similar to Ford’s. What is essentially that version of Coke’s logo is from 1903. In 1909, another very famous company trademarked this logo:

General Electric, makers of the LMS100 Aeroderivative Gas Turbine and like, a snacktillion clock radios, is a bit different but uses the same general concepts of ornate script text forming the logotype.
If we’re honest, the Ford logo is an old, very outdated logo design, and one that didn’t really have a lot of thought put into it at the time, mostly just following the trends of the era. It’s become something iconic, though, and that has to be respected.
Rand did respect that, and I think the logo he created for Ford manages to reference and pay homage to the original, while updating the design significantly. Let’s take a look at it:

All of the same, expected elements are still present, just streamlined and tweaked. The Ford name is still script, still suggests the same sort of ornate quality, but now cleaner and more modern feeling. The white border around the logo remains, but is now integrated into the typography in a seamless and elegant way.

The blue oval of the logo has been altered into a sort of pill shape, still suggesting an oval, but avoiding the pitfalls of ovals, which Rand described in the document that introduced and explained his design choices:
“The oval shape in which the signature is housed is not distinctive; it is merely another oval which is not unique to any one time or period. It is a common geometric figure, found in nature in such things as almonds, eggs, and faces.
In spite of its geometric origin, the oval (or ellipse) is a graphic device which is difficult to use. It is not visually stable, in that it seems to wobble back and forth. Further, it may be misread as a circle in perspective, creating a conflicting visual plane between signature and frame.”
That same book-sized document included a lot more explanations and advocacy for that new logo, including detailed breakdowns like this:
“The salient features of the proposed Ford house mark are:
- the emphatic F
- the elongated oval frame
- the upper and lower case
- the slanted letters
- the break in the o
- the o, r and d ligatures
These features, basically, are also distinguishing characteristics of the present Ford mark, but in the proposed version they have been translated into contemporary visual terms. This has been achieved by substituting an even stroked letter for the Copperplate script (the chief distinction of which is a marked contrast between thick and thin strokes). Further, the design adheres generally to the “word form” of the original.”
Personally, I really like this take on the Ford logo; I always found the original Ford logo sort of fussy, and this retains the key characteristics while recasting it into a much bolder and cleaner design.

The big pitch book shows the logo in various contexts, like on the side of that truck up there, and on ship smokestacks:

…and I think it works well in these large-scale contexts, as well as on signage:

It also works well on letterheads and business cards, demonstrating a flexibility of scale that’s no easy feat for a logo.
I think this would have worked great for Ford; and I think between the ’50s and ’70s there was a real push at Ford to find something more modern, as in this period the Blue Oval was used less and other simplified not-quite-official logos like wide-spaced F O R D chrome badging was used and simpler logos like the one used on British Ford escorts of the late ’60s:

Still, despite what seemed to be a latent desire and a very well-realized logo concept from a design superstar, Ford decided to stick with their old standby.
Maybe this was the right call, but I still can’t help but to imagine what if, and I still really like Rand’s 1966 proposal. Maybe they still have it in a vault somewhere, and are just waiting for the right time to spring it. That’d be pretty exciting, at least for us design geeks.
I like it, and it would probably look better on certain Ford vehicles.
I get that everyone here likes the staying power of the original logo, but I wouldn’t mind if Ford used multiple logos, like a lot of companies do now. For instance, you could keep the original logo for F-150s, which are big and tacky anyway, but maybe use something closer to this modified version for more modern form factors. It does it’s job that it still reads as a Ford logo, unlike say, the Kia logo, which I think we all agree totally sucks and looks like KN.
Hamilton watches does this – uses a variety of logos from its (long) history to generally match the style of a given watch. It’s pretty cool, and still allows brand continuity.
I’m amazed at how many companies will throw six, even seven figures at consultants to add a hyphen or some other small, usually instantly forgettable tweak to their logo.
The “new” GM logo comes to mind. There wasn’t anything wrong with it.
There’s a new one?
Yeah, it’s lower case letters in the square.
The old one was better.
Besides reminding me of the old GE logo, my main gripe is how the letter “R” is treated. They tried to retain the general proportions and weight of the original, but by simplifying the upper section to a dot, makes it read as a cursive “I”.
It’s an interesting concept. I also suspect it would have been later replaced during the RADICAL XTREME 90’s graphic design era.
A RADICAL XTREME Ford logo would have been fun lol. I’m thinking that it would resemble the Cherry Coke logo from the 90’s
Had a Focus and a Fiesta, always admired the Ford badge while cleaning for two reasons: 1. Good looking and hardly changed indicating proud heritage. 2. Easy to remove wax, no nooks or crannies.
The Ford Paperclip™
Introducing the new Ford Clippy! An economy car that’s your friend, whether you like it or not.
I’m not a marketing guy but even I know the Ford logo is timeless. Everyone on earth knows what it is. You just cannot mess with it.
I’m not so sure a person in a full tuck riding a motor cycle is a great logo for a car company, possibly even worse than an elephant standing on a box in a box.
Ok I’m not the only one who saw that person, although rather than a motorcycle I see someone in the process of falling out of a wheelchair. Which is a rather worse image.
Yeah now that you mention it, it does look more like a wheel chair user taking a face plant, which of course is even worse.
Wasn’t my first reaction, but now I can’t unsee that.
Yep, I see the same thing. Not quite sure what he/she is banging their head on (another wheelchair?) but it’s not a good look.
I see the wheel chair racer more so, but with you on the ‘not automobile’ transportation
How strange. I see none of those things.
Makes me wonder how you’d do on a Rorschach test:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E2CCOCkKzpI
Absolutely not.
It reminds me of what GM has done with its logo of late. It feels similarly informal, which might be an asset for an online “we’re not a bank but kinda like it and hey we’re fun so give us your money!” company, but perhaps less so for a business making complex mechanical things that weigh thousands of pounds?
It was a mistake for GM to change its logo. At first I thought it was a joke.
The lower case lettering is what gets me. Just seems wrong.
Why change?
People recognize the OG Ford logo, and that’s what well-designed logos are meant to do. Rand’s redesign would have had a short shelf life, IMO, and would have eventually been redesigned.
Same goes for gimmicky renaming. How long is “Stellantis” going to last?
Until it’s sold again. That name just screams “placeholder.”
Slatibartfast would have approved.
Marvin, of course, would not.
Try as I might, I cannot find am umlaut R, probably been pirated.
Foid
I always thought the logo was adapted from Henry Ford’s signature. After about a minute’s research, it’s a little inconclusive, but maybe?
That’s the story I heard, too.
Most Americans think Ford invented the car and I’m sure Ford is happy to let them. In the eyes of these people this is the first logo on the first car. Ford would be crazy to change it.
I was today years old when I realized the “o” wasn’t fully enclosed, so people not well-versed in cursive could plausibly read this as “Turd.”
“Bart, would you like to read the following sentence?”
“Um….two…wentin…”
“That’s ‘Quentin'”
Foid?
In parts of Philly, Brooklyn, yes.
I’m a big fan of Paul Rand and believe most companies that have dropped or redesigned his logos over the years have done so to their detriment, but, in this case, I think Ford probably made the right choice – the new one would have actually aged worse and faster than the classic one, which has been in use long enough to be considered timeless
That’s a fun and clever design! But I have to prefer the original, simpler because I appreciate the staying power!
This logo simply didn’t have the same gravitas that much of his other work had. I’m glad that Ford didn’t go after this one. If they would have, it would be a very short run before they would have switched back due to the motoring public seeking out the Ford family in person with torches and pitchforks demanding they revert.
While I’m not a Ford fanboi by any stretch of the imagination, the logo they’ve been using for the past umpteen decades is perfectly cromulent.
After Ford passed on this logo did Rand Paul, sorry, Paul Rand turn around and sell this same logo to the Benadryl folks?
Ha! And there’s another logo that I’m half-remembering that I think is somewhere in the health space that this made me think of.
The one thing that irks me is the break in the “r”. Everything else flows so nicely together and can be imagined as a network of streets with gentle bends and forks; just that little hole destroys what could have been a really neat logo. A different type of “r” glyph might save the design.
It looks more like a set of abstract drawings crammed together than actual letters. It’s not easy for me to read the “Ford” word, at all. And the pill shape makes it generic. It looks visually heavy around the “F”, and incomplete and weak at the end of the surrounding line.
I confess am not a fan of changing a good logo whatsoever, and in this case it would equal to eliminate a visual artifact that you don’t need to “read” in order to understand what it means, for a generic design that forces you to make double takes for the first 24 years until you get used to it.
I’m gonna have to disagree with you here, it does not look good and I don’t think it would still be in use now. It is very much of its time.
But what do I know, I’m not a designer of things, only a consumer.
I am NOT an artist or designer, but for some reason the “rd” ligature just pulls my eye in the wrong direction (putting the R’s loop on the D). I for one am glad they didn’t do it.
And now all I can think of are 70s/80s Colorforms. I loved those things. Like felt boards, only shiny and plastic, as the 1970s intended.
I had a GI Joe colorforms set – and not the 80s version we all love, but the hairy 70s guy in the jumpsuit.
To my modern eyes, it looks terrible. Not only is this “new” one now very dated to its own time, but because Ford barely changed their logo, ever, anything else looks like it was just made up for Back To The Future II or something.
If they did adopt it at the time, it probably would have been fine (the pill shape is weird to me though); and they would have more freedom to do something more modern now.
This is a great point- once you change your logo in any appreciable way, you have to keep changing it, otherwise it’ll seem dated eventually. By hanging on to the original, sure, you go through some less than great times, but eventually it becomes iconic.
The never-changing Coca-Cola copperplate contrasted to Pepsi’s logo redesigns every 15 years or so, the latest of which seems to reach back to elements of their logo from the same era as this Ford proposal (which iirc was done by Saul Bass, another of the all-time greats).
Jason brings up in the article that Ford was going through a stretch of using the blue oval less and less on the cars themselves and more strictly as corporate identification in this era. The Escorts he showed are actually from the mid-’70s and part of their midcycle facelift around 1978 was returning the oval to the center of the grille and the trunk lid (boot lid? Heckklappe?) which wouldn’t happen on American Fords until 1982 model year.
I’ve always thought for vehicles like the Mustang that don’t have oval logo badging, Ford should bring back the F O R D hood lettering, just stamped in instead of trim bolted on. A nice vintage touch.