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

21–30 of 340 posts

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

#21

Post by tablespoon »

themodelplumber wrote: post #13
vehemenz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dang…

That honestly all sounds like mumbo jumbo.

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

#23

Post by ethanbond »

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)

Yeah, big picture design trends aside, the new Met logo is substantially more beautiful than the previous one. The old one is frankly clipart-y.

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

#24

Post by prox »

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…

If you are a dev, than you probably miss the extend of in which branding can have an effect. Sure, from some practical viewpoint nothing changes. But consider a logo part of a language, a culture, a visual statement. In design, it’s what we do

In this case Oxford Press changed an iconic statement with a stupid generic say-nothing that could be a tire or a bagel company.

Think of it like a banner of an army. You don’t want stand behind a banner that says “I am with stupid”

It’s hard to convey to non design folk, but design does have an impact, even if it doesn’t bring world peace, it’s culturally significant.

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

#25

Post by pvg »

tablespoon wrote: post #18
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 distinguish…

which isn't something you see every day.

Undoubtedly influenced by Oxford and Cambridge but it's a design style adopted by so many universities it's practically generic for 'some sort of university thing logo'. I don't have strong feelings about the new logo either way but the idea the old one is some distinctive masterpiece seems misplaced.

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

#26

Post by bombcar »

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…

The original "Federal Express" logo wasn't bad, but FEDEX rocks it hard.

Some of the old LEGO logos aren't great (this may partially be from years of consistency, however).

But most of the "best rebrand" articles you find on google are just "logo in one font became similar logo in slightly different font".

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

#27

Post by nkrisc »

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 actually liked the Windows rebrand with Windows 8. It’s simpler, cleaner, still recognizable, works as mono or dual tone, and actually looks like the namesake of the product.

Most previous versions were complicated messes. Windows 7 was I think the best version of the four color version.

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

#28

Post by js2 »

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…

Apple losing the rainbow from its logo?

https://imgur.com/DvKPvYz

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

#30

Post by an1sotropy »

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 don't know about wildly popular, but) I remember linking the older UPS logo (with the string-tied box on top, designed by Paul Rand, who also made the IBM and NeXT logos, and lots more), and thought the new logo was sort of dumb, but now I appreciate its simplicity.

https://blog.logomyway.com/ups-logo-history/

(interesting to me: the 1937 logo used a san-serif font)

Post reply on HN