Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Designing the Facebook Company Brand

facebook.design

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 238 posts

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#131

Post by ForHackernews »

filoleg wrote: post #122
ForHackernews wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because big tech companies are now at the point where they can pick the winners in democratic elections, if they choose to do so.

Really? Doesn't seem like it worked out well for them during the last elections, given that people like Dustin Moskowitz and Larry Page were directly supporting and assisting the DNC campaign (with others assisting the campaign less directly).

I'm not claiming they've deliberately swung elections yet. But do you doubt Facebook or Google could easily do it? They self-evidently have the data needed to identify swing voters in key districts and the reach to control a large part of the media those people are exposed to.

If they haven't done it (yet), it's only because they've decided not to (so far).

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#132

Post by x220 »

filoleg wrote: post #129
x220 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google[1] and Facebook[2] have sponsored the Republican party. Both have accepted ad contracts from Republican candidates. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/google-gop-convention... [2] https://fortune.com/2016/05/07/facebook-confirms-it-will-spo...

They accepted ad contracts from both sides, while the leadership directly supported DNC. The pendulum was definitely on the DNC side when it came to support from tech companies. Just because they were giving some support to the Republican party, doesn't disprove my assertion at all.

What is your assertion?

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#133

Post by papln »

jawns wrote: post #7

Although a post about updated branding may seem benign, this is, I believe, a response to critics who believe the company should be broken up. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/facebook-antitrus... https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-explains-why-facebook-bro... https://www.cnet.com/news/can-facebook-be-broken-up-what-you... Facebook is hoping that by differentiating its company brand from its fl…

That's a real reach. People are talking about breaking up Google also, and Google already calls all its stuff Google, and that's no defense.

"People know we are one company" isn't a defense against monopoly power.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#134

Post by papln »

oflannabhra wrote: post #107

I know it is easy to be cynical on these types of "announcements", but I am having a really, really hard time understanding how curved strokes (or any branding decision) can result in empathy or "open space for peoples stories". Empathy is a human characteristic. To think that a word mark can have (or even create ) it is patently ridiculous. In fact, I'd say it cheapens the meaning of the word to the point where true…

What's sad is that either (a) the brouhaha is a either a lie ot justify an overpaid designer's pay, or (b) it's not a lie, and Facebook is openly bragging about covertly manipulating its users via branding.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#135

Post by papln »

All I'm seeing is a monolithic in-your-face all-caps block font that screams BIG BROTHER.

Also it's a bit over-spaced and the letters swell outward as though it's puffed up to look extra imposing and dominating the space around itself.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#136

Post by rvz »

namanyayg wrote: post #4

The logo is pretty bland (reminds me of Mark Zuckerburg, actually); but it's definitely a step in the right direction to label all products under the "Facebook" brand. Most people don't even know that Whatsapp and Instagram are all owned by Facebook.

I've seen logos that were worse than natural disasters, but if Paul Rand were to critique this "redesign", he would tell you that it screams treason in the design world.

If Deiter Rams were to critique this he'd tell you that it so bad, that it would be categorised under a new hurricane category since it is actually "re-designed" the definition of a disaster.

Bad logos change to often. The 'F' logo stood the test of time and ticks the boxes of Dieter Rams design principles which is respected globally by designers. The last time Apple and IBM changed their logos was more than 40 years ago. If the "U B E R" capslock logo was dumped, so would the "F A C E B O O K" capslock logo.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#137

Post by robbrown451 »

papln wrote: post #133
jawns wrote: post #7

Although a post about updated branding may seem benign, this is, I believe, a response to critics who believe the company should be broken up. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/facebook-antitrus... https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-explains-why-facebook-bro... https://www.cnet.com/news/can-facebook-be-broken-up-what-you... Facebook is hoping that by differentiating its company brand from its fl…

That's a real reach. People are talking about breaking up Google also, and Google already calls all its stuff Google, and that's no defense. "People know we are one company" isn't a defense against monopoly power.

It's not a defense, but the fact that many incorrectly think of them as separate entities can be an aggravating factor.

Just because Google doesn't have that specific aggravating factor and there is still a question of whether they have monopoly power, doesn't mean that said aggravating factor doesn't count for something.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#138

Post by bryanmgreen »

lostgame wrote: post #40

Would’ve been better, IMHO; to pull an Alphabet and rename the company. This reminds me a little of the ‘Apple TV’ vs. ‘Apple TV’ article running around recently. If Facebook wants to differentiate their company from their service, a rename makes sense and also wouldn’t hurt their reputation when they create new products.

Exactly.

This reads as the kind of toothless branding exercise that was probably initiated in an out-of-touch-with-reality board-meeting as a thoughtlessly easy attempt at some positive PR spin.

I speak from personal experience.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#139

Post by robbrown451 »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #25
jawns wrote: post #7

Although a post about updated branding may seem benign, this is, I believe, a response to critics who believe the company should be broken up. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/opinion/facebook-antitrus... https://www.wired.com/story/tim-wu-explains-why-facebook-bro... https://www.cnet.com/news/can-facebook-be-broken-up-what-you... Facebook is hoping that by differentiating its company brand from its fl…

Why is the government itching to break up tech companies? I feel like it's a bad idea for them to get involved at all.

Because many voters think that they would be better off if the government enforced antitrust law more strongly in this area.

Most agree it was effective when the government broke up Standard Oil, and when they broke up AT&T, among others. Microsoft was not broken up (although it got really close), but they sure got a slap, partly from the EU. And they changed their behavior, rather dramatically, for the better in the years since.

The idea being that more competition is better.

I think the first question you should be asking is "why do free market economies need antitrust enforcement?" And then take it from there.

Re: Designing the Facebook Company Brand

#140

Post by madoublet »

oflannabhra wrote: post #107

I know it is easy to be cynical on these types of "announcements", but I am having a really, really hard time understanding how curved strokes (or any branding decision) can result in empathy or "open space for peoples stories". Empathy is a human characteristic. To think that a word mark can have (or even create ) it is patently ridiculous. In fact, I'd say it cheapens the meaning of the word to the point where true…

I feel the irony is that a lot of the text arrangements in the examples do not have enough contrast to be universally accessible. So, I feel like even the designers are missing the point on empathy.
Post reply on HN