Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by blowski » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:02 PM UTC

kabdib wrote: post #49

I remember when SGI (Silicon Graphics) paid a bunch of money to rebrand to . . . drumroll . . . SGI! The consultants must have been high-fiving each other after that one landed, it's like trading in your car only to find that the saleswoman has sold you your own car back, at a profit. (SGI later collapsed due to "Corporate Campus Syndrome", and other companies, including Google, now occupy the wacky buildings they sp…

A university in the UK (Portsmouth?) hired an expensive creative agency to come up with a new name. They whittled it down to three options:

* University of Portsmouth

* The University of Portsmouth

* Portsmouth University

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

#62

Post by s1mon » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:02 PM UTC

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,…

Sometimes it's just some new big dog pissing on a tree.

[I worked at Pentagram for a while, though not on branding. I have seen plenty of vanity projects from big CEOs.]

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

#63

Post by lelandfe » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

mauvehaus wrote: post #47

Ooh, ooh. I have one to share! The infamous "Case" Fat Man With a Surfboard logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Western_Reserve_Universit... Is it as bad as the Met's new logo? Probably not. Is it pretty objectionable, and universally maligned? Yeah, definitely. Anybody else got one to share for our shared schadenfreude?

> Fat Man With a Surfboard

Wow, this took me a second but now it’s the only thing I can see.

The 2020 MLB spring training hat logos were universally hated, but the Padres had a notably bad one: https://www.crossingbroad.com/2020/02/padres-changing-spring...

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

#64

Post by andybak » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:03 PM UTC

First reaction upon seeing it - I quite like it.

I haven't considered context or reputation or brand continuity - but the article seems to be claiming it's intrinsically bad and that feels like hyperbole.

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

#65

Post by bearmode » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:04 PM UTC

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…

>Am I just a stick in the mud?

Yes. But it's normal. People who weren't involved in the project, or don't know design, very commonly have strong negative reactions to a company they know rebranding. I don't know why.

Come next year you'll have either completely forgotten about this, or have no opinion at all.

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

#66

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:04 PM UTC

I don't particularly like the new logo, but nor do I particularly rate the old one.

Brands update every so often, I'm not sure we need to take every bit of waffle they generate as part of the PR push seriously.

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

#67

Post by tarboreus » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

louthy wrote: post #31

tablespoon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Pretty good opinion, though.

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

#68

Post by protonbob » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:07 PM UTC

Nice looks like they took God (Dominus) out for literally no reason and replaced it with a generic swirl. Even from a historical perspective this makes no sense.

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

#69

Post by pbohun » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:07 PM UTC

bmacho wrote: post #46

tablespoon wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That honestly all sounds like mumbo jumbo.

Not worse then the TFA. IMO the other side of the arguing is easier: instead of the merits of the new logo, we can agree that the old logo is just not compatible with something that is modern or inclusive, and it had to go.

What's TFA?

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

#70

Post by uxcolumbo » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:07 PM UTC

Why the redesign?

What problem does this new logo solve?

Isn't there anything better designers or PMs can spend their time and money on?

The old logo projects quality, heritage and looking at the symbol it resembles more of a library.

The new logo - doesn't fit the image of Oxford and looks like any other 'modern' Dribbble logo.

This is another case of redesigning for the sake of redesigning or to stroke someone's ego.

EDIT: the old logo belonged to a family of logos. Check the Oxford Uni logo. The new logo doesn't fit that theme anymore.