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

Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

joukovsky.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 340 posts

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#11

Post by themodelplumber »

logifail wrote: post #6
themodelplumber wrote: post #2

It's interesting to see the discussion unfold. I used to do a lot of logo design, some for the replacement of time-honored logos even. Spicy jobs those were, both on pro and con sides! One thing I learned was that new, individual, and fresh leadership psychology often brings new logos into being. Differentials in psychology can't help but expose new perspectives on organizational concepts. And that's what a logo is,…

> One thing I learned was that new, individual, and fresh leadership psychology often brings new logos into being Could it be that new leaders feel they have to demonstrate they're in change, and initiating a logo replacement is unfortunately much easier than doing something that is genuinely positive for stakeholders and shareholders?

You mean you think that's the main reason for any given logo change, or one of many possible reasons?

While not outside of the realm of possibility, it's actually rare to see that kind of thought process play out in practice of working with businesses & NPOs on their logos.

Much more common is that there is a base of support for change from above, outside, and below.

Maybe related to the fact that "I changed our logo to suit myself" isn't broadly seen as a masterstroke in objective leadership practice.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#12

Post by helsinkiandrew »

vehemenz wrote: post #9
tokai wrote: post #3

Another ring logo. Its hilarious how many low effort logos, with a ring, graphic designers fool people into accepting.

To be fair, "Oxford" begins with "O", and, as far as contemporary/flat ring logos go, this is one of the better examples I've seen. It is an attractive logo, even if the ethos of the previous logo is lost.

It reminds me of the Burrs from my Rancilio Rocky Coffee Grinder:

https://www.google.com/search?q=rancilio+rocky+grinder+burrs...

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#13

Post by themodelplumber »

vehemenz wrote: post #9
tokai wrote: post #3

Another ring logo. Its hilarious how many low effort logos, with a ring, graphic designers fool people into accepting.

To be fair, "Oxford" begins with "O", and, as far as contemporary/flat ring logos go, this is one of the better examples I've seen. It is an attractive logo, even if the ethos of the previous logo is lost.

Also a ring == a circle, and organizations are looking to circular-philosophy holistic changes as a broad change since roughly the start of the century.

Circles are _the_ graphical element/symbol of holistic energy with few others coming close.

Generally when I see a move to a circular logo in a new design brief it's a sign that the organization perceives that it must quickly heal from damage/protect itself from danger and put some aspects of the past behind. It is usually attempting to build capacity for a new direction as well. IMO this is usually not a fully conscious decision by the team.

"This is the world we live in"

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#14

Post by elijaht »

I found the Met's rebrand interesting to consider.

I am on the younger side/moved to New York recently. Without knowing the history of the Met logo I have always found the (new) logo fairly iconic- the stickers visitors wear, and the various paraphernalia with the logo look good to me. I find it clean and sharp. I think I actually prefer it to the old logo (which I do not remember seeing before today)

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#15

Post by taeric »

cpcallen wrote: post #10

I am trying to to think of a single rebrand / new logo / new icon that I actually liked at the time—that didn't seem to signal a degradation in the integrity, quality or trustworthiness of the entity represented. (There are some cases where the new brand has grown on me, to the point that I have come to prefer it to the old one. The most recent examples I can think of are the 1999 rebrand of Northern Electric as Nort…

I'm trying to think of a rebrand that I truly hated and that led to actual decline in something. I... can't.

There are plenty that I confess I don't like. But I would be struggling to put any actual significance to a label. The new street fighter one, as an example. I agree that it feels off that they are ditching the styling that they have used for literal decades. That said, I fail to see how that is at all important to the success/failure of the game they are building.

The MIT Press had an amusing amount of thought that went into their logo. But... I would wager the vast majority of folks just don't see it.

Reminds me of that parody pepsi logo document. (At least, I think it was a parody?)

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#17

Post by KMag »

taeric wrote: post #5

> That iconic beauty and excellence was the province of rich white dudes—and can only be expanded by lowering our standards. And what a load of horseshit that is. This feels like a stretch. And almost breaks what little interest I have here. :( Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to logo/label than makes sense? I can get the desire to want to change. That is natural. The idea that all changes matte…

> Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to logo/label than makes sense?

I'm not sure we can imply importance from the volume of communication; perhaps the opposite. After colors and names, logos/icons are probably the third easiest thing to bikeshed.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#18

Post by tablespoon »

frakt0x90 wrote: post #4

Who cares? It says Oxford University Press which is the important part. The little image above it is just fluff and literally doesn't matter. I certainly wouldn't call it 'unfathomably bad' considering it's not a child's drawing or a some obscene gesture.

> Who cares? It says Oxford University Press which is the important part. The little image above it is just fluff and literally doesn't matter. I certainly wouldn't call it 'unfathomably bad' considering it's not a child's drawing or a some obscene gesture.

It's modernist, minimalist crap, indistinguishable from all the other modernist, minimalist crap. Everyone might as well rebrand as solid-color circle distinguished by a numerically unique RGB value.

Their old logo was much better, since it harkens back to a literal coat of arms, which isn't something you see every day.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#19

Post by elliottkember »

elijaht wrote: post #14

I found the Met's rebrand interesting to consider. I am on the younger side/moved to New York recently. Without knowing the history of the Met logo I have always found the (new) logo fairly iconic- the stickers visitors wear, and the various paraphernalia with the logo look good to me. I find it clean and sharp. I think I actually prefer it to the old logo (which I do not remember seeing before today)

I like it because it adapted its image to its nickname. "The Metropolitan Museum of Art" is the museum's full name - embracing "The Met" formally is a nice, humanizing touch.

Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

#20

Post by taeric »

KMag wrote: post #17
taeric wrote: post #5

> That iconic beauty and excellence was the province of rich white dudes—and can only be expanded by lowering our standards. And what a load of horseshit that is. This feels like a stretch. And almost breaks what little interest I have here. :( Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to logo/label than makes sense? I can get the desire to want to change. That is natural. The idea that all changes matte…

> Also, why do folks always impart way more significance to logo/label than makes sense? I'm not sure we can imply importance from the volume of communication; perhaps the opposite. After colors and names, logos/icons are probably the third easiest thing to bikeshed.

Fair. I just also view it as one of the easiest things to just accept and move on from. Especially since it would be relatively easy to just change again later.

In fact, I would fully support any organization I'm in having a change most every year. I do appreciate the connection to the past and something old that many get from it. That said, it is easy to metaphorically make that connection by acknowledging what came before. The control and autonomy that you give to the next generations feels way more important.

Post reply on HN