Live data from Hacker News

Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

joukovsky.substack.com

31–40 of 340 posts

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

#31

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…

> It's modernist, minimalist crap, indistinguishable from all the other modernist, minimalist crap

Which is, like, just your opinion, man.

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

#36
I assume this logo is going on the spines of books.

This means that you are taking a recognizable easy to spot image that says: 'this book is vetted and serious, trust it like you trust us', and replacing it with a logo that is less recognizable (and by my prediction won't be around in 100 years). For anyone who browses shelves this will, in fact, reduce utility.

It's a small thing, but it is worth considering.

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

#37
post #7

There's some fine (not great, just ... acceptable) ideas in the new logo, but it's pretty sloppy for an institution of this stature. A few things I could point to that are probably subjective, but objectively the kerning desperately needs attention.

The kerning doesn't look terrible to me. The exception that stands out is the whitespace between the OX and XF pairs, which is optically a bit unbalanced.

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

#38
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)

People fear change and cling to nostalgia. That's part of it. Another thing is people identify themselves with brands, so when the brand changes, it's like a part of them changes, without their input or consent (!!). That you've never known the old logo frees you from these constraints.

I try not to care about corporate logos too much, but I have to say I was little betrayed when my football team changed their typeface from a unique font to a more generic one, because I feel that represents me and my city (even moreso than my city's local museum, whose new logo I don't prefer, but I don't let it get to me).

Post reply on HN