‘We Love NYC’ Ad Blitz Gets No Love From Residents—and That’s OK With Its Creators

The Partnership sees the unexpectedly passionate wave of commentary as proof that the new campaign has resonated with its target audience of New Yorkers, “even if we just annoyed them,” said

Kathryn Wylde,

the group’s president and CEO. 

“We read all the comments, obviously, because we love opinions,” added Ms. Banikarim. “We didn’t set out to replace that logo. It’s an iconic mark; who would do that?”

Theirs is hardly the only recent revamp to inspire backlash. In 2016, the Metropolitan Museum of Art replaced its iconic “M” logo with “The Met,” leading to a chorus of heated commentary from professional designers and amateur critics. 

In recent days, “We Love NYC” has responded to its critics on social media by posting an image of a mock billboard to address the lack of love for the logo. The group’s leaders and partners would also like to dispel some misconceptions about the campaign, such as the belief that the new logo is intended to supplant the original rather than living alongside it, said Ms. Banikarim.

The older logo will remain the symbol of state tourism, for example, according to Ms. Wylde. The New York State Department of Economic Development, which owns both trademarks, didn’t grant permission for the group to use this newer variation for commercial purposes, so it won’t be popping up on T-shirts for sale in Times Square, either, though the group has produced some branded merchandise to give away as part of the campaign.

Unlike the 1977 effort, this one is not designed to revive the New York tourism industry, which approached prepandemic rates in terms of total visitors last year, according to official tourism group NYC & Company. Nor is it an attempt to completely rebrand New York City itself, according to Ms. Banikarim, though Ms. Wylde did say her group wants to “burnish” the city’s image.

Its primary aim is to boost civic engagement and general optimism. A February survey conducted by research firm Morning Consult for the project found that 52% of New York residents believe the city is on the wrong track, citing rising crime, homelessness and the cost of living as their top concerns.

“You didn’t like the logo? No problem! What are you going to do?” said Ms. Banikarim. “We want to make it easy for you to figure out how to step in and help.”

The campaign will include events in the coming weeks organized in collaboration with the offices of Mayor Eric Adams and New York Gov.

Kathy Hochul

and city agencies including the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Small Business Services, which will focus on everything from cleaning litter to feeding the homeless and celebrating local Black-owned businesses. 

Its ultimate success will be measured by changes in public sentiment about living in New York, along with total media impressions and sign-ups for related initiatives, Ms. Wylde said.

But uproar over the logo has so far drowned out these points, according to ad executives.

“The logo became the story,” said Tom Morton, global chief strategy officer at marketing agency R/GA. “You should always launch with an action, not a symbol.”

The central message about civic action wasn’t conveyed effectively in the campaign’s early days, said Craig Elimeliah, chief creative officer at marketing and public relations firm Lippe Taylor.

“It’s unclear what we would actually volunteer to do,” Mr. Elimeliah said. “Clean up the parks? We pay taxes for that.”

The campaign itself isn’t taxpayer-funded, contrary to some social-media comments. To cover production and development costs, the Partnership for New York City has invested about $2 million from its own funds and donations from its members, which include some 300 New York-based business leaders and companies such as

Amazon.com Inc.

and

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,

according to Ms. Wylde. All ad inventory used for the campaign has been donated, she said.

The Partnership plans to run the campaign for about two years.

Write to Patrick Coffee at [email protected]

The Partnership sees the unexpectedly passionate wave of commentary as proof that the new campaign has resonated with its target audience of New Yorkers, “even if we just annoyed them,” said

Kathryn Wylde,

the group’s president and CEO. 

“We read all the comments, obviously, because we love opinions,” added Ms. Banikarim. “We didn’t set out to replace that logo. It’s an iconic mark; who would do that?”

Theirs is hardly the only recent revamp to inspire backlash. In 2016, the Metropolitan Museum of Art replaced its iconic “M” logo with “The Met,” leading to a chorus of heated commentary from professional designers and amateur critics. 

In recent days, “We Love NYC” has responded to its critics on social media by posting an image of a mock billboard to address the lack of love for the logo. The group’s leaders and partners would also like to dispel some misconceptions about the campaign, such as the belief that the new logo is intended to supplant the original rather than living alongside it, said Ms. Banikarim.

The older logo will remain the symbol of state tourism, for example, according to Ms. Wylde. The New York State Department of Economic Development, which owns both trademarks, didn’t grant permission for the group to use this newer variation for commercial purposes, so it won’t be popping up on T-shirts for sale in Times Square, either, though the group has produced some branded merchandise to give away as part of the campaign.

Unlike the 1977 effort, this one is not designed to revive the New York tourism industry, which approached prepandemic rates in terms of total visitors last year, according to official tourism group NYC & Company. Nor is it an attempt to completely rebrand New York City itself, according to Ms. Banikarim, though Ms. Wylde did say her group wants to “burnish” the city’s image.

Its primary aim is to boost civic engagement and general optimism. A February survey conducted by research firm Morning Consult for the project found that 52% of New York residents believe the city is on the wrong track, citing rising crime, homelessness and the cost of living as their top concerns.

“You didn’t like the logo? No problem! What are you going to do?” said Ms. Banikarim. “We want to make it easy for you to figure out how to step in and help.”

The campaign will include events in the coming weeks organized in collaboration with the offices of Mayor Eric Adams and New York Gov.

Kathy Hochul

and city agencies including the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Small Business Services, which will focus on everything from cleaning litter to feeding the homeless and celebrating local Black-owned businesses. 

Its ultimate success will be measured by changes in public sentiment about living in New York, along with total media impressions and sign-ups for related initiatives, Ms. Wylde said.

But uproar over the logo has so far drowned out these points, according to ad executives.

“The logo became the story,” said Tom Morton, global chief strategy officer at marketing agency R/GA. “You should always launch with an action, not a symbol.”

The central message about civic action wasn’t conveyed effectively in the campaign’s early days, said Craig Elimeliah, chief creative officer at marketing and public relations firm Lippe Taylor.

“It’s unclear what we would actually volunteer to do,” Mr. Elimeliah said. “Clean up the parks? We pay taxes for that.”

The campaign itself isn’t taxpayer-funded, contrary to some social-media comments. To cover production and development costs, the Partnership for New York City has invested about $2 million from its own funds and donations from its members, which include some 300 New York-based business leaders and companies such as

Amazon.com Inc.

and

Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,

according to Ms. Wylde. All ad inventory used for the campaign has been donated, she said.

The Partnership plans to run the campaign for about two years.

Write to Patrick Coffee at [email protected]