Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#131

Post by AlecSchueler » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

loughnane wrote: post #123

AlecSchueler wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to say it makes complete sense to me. It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics and the image of association with elitism and colonialism plays a huge role in that. Changing the style choices of museum communications towards ones which are further dissociated from those issues seems like ab obvious first step towrads increasing the perception of inclusivity. I would ask anyone w…

I don’t question the motivation to be welcoming, but a good motivation doesn’t make a good design. The result is denuded and unmoored. It’s as soulless here in Boston as it would be if the aesthetic infected cultural institutions in Tokyo or Addis Ababa. I bet the people in charge meant well, they just did a bad job.

Beauty and soulfulness are very subjective, but I think the way to judge this design is by how successful it was at helping perceptions of inclusivity. I'm not sure if this particular institution publishes data about visitor demographics but I'm sure they have an internal understanding of the value of this change.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#132

Post by lancesells » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 6:39 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #109

AlecSchueler wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to say it makes complete sense to me. It's well known that museums are seen as unappealing to many demographics and the image of association with elitism and colonialism plays a huge role in that. Changing the style choices of museum communications towards ones which are further dissociated from those issues seems like ab obvious first step towrads increasing the perception of inclusivity. I would ask anyone w…

My background is non white child of poor immigrants to the US from a country that used to be ruled by the UK. I just found it unbelievable that anyone would associate a font with “elitism” and “colonialism”. And my family prioritizes going to museums, even in London, where many of my family live even though that is in the country that oppressed them. I have heard elders complain about the proliferation of the English…

Of course fonts and their styling represent a feeling. Serif fonts don't represent elitism and colonialism to me, but maybe to some people they might and some museums might want to get away from that. Some serifed logos feel old and stodgy and sometimes updating those gives everything a fresher feel. A museum representing modern art most certainly wants to feel modern and in sync with the current zeitgeist.

Fonts, colors, wording, architecture, etc. all have influences on you, me, and everyone else. They are a form of language and communication and you can both update fonts at the same time as legislation and everything else.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#133

Post by AlienRobot » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 6:59 PM UTC

I noticed this same risk-averse "generic" phenomenon about article bodies. I was trying to design a wordpress theme for my blog and I was googling some things and readings articles. I had multiple tabs open and while I was in the middle of an article I realized I couldn't even tell what website that article belonged to!

Every website was white with black text on it. Web "design" seemed limited to picking which color should links be. When you notice this, you start seeing it everywhere. Every article just looks exactly the same. They were all forgettable and devoid of personality. It seemed as if branding didn't reach the content of the article and was just a crown worn on top of the content, literally, at the header.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#134

Post by Sunspark » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 7:09 PM UTC

Part of the original impetus is because the nice-looking classical logos, etc. were too high-resolution for low-definition display devices.

Then it became a game of pointy-headed middle-managers having meetings in the boardroom and micro-managing the creatives.. "our competitors wet their pants, so we have to as well in order to not appear behind the times.."

That's an inherent problem with the system.. even if something works and is comfortable for people to use and they're happy with it, you still have some middle-manager screaming at subject matter experts that they need to innovate because the system is based on creating artificial value for "the shareholders". So you end up with dubious changes like Google Maps recently deciding that they would change their colour palette to a "cold tone". Why? Did anyone ask for more blue and green and gray, or is this just more artificed "innovation for the shareholders"?

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#135

Post by avereveard » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #51

tcldr wrote: post #21

Q: Why do everyone’s logo fonts look the same? A: Because they need to be legible on a mobile device. It’s no coincidence this trend started in the 2010s with the arrival of the smartphone. Brands need a consistent look that work across mediums. With over 50% of e-commerce sales happening on mobile, and the dominance of social media in the marketing of, for example, high fashion, a brand mark must excel in these kind…

Funnily enough, many phone displays have much higher pixel densities than notebook, desktop, and TV displays, and thus would have little problems rendering the serifs, ligatures, and other fancy bits of digital serif typefaces compared to the old 72/96 DPI displays from the late '90s and early 2000s. Semi-unrelated rant: why do many entirely digital web typefaces have ink traps? They look terrible. On paper, they wer…

True about the definition, but portrait consumption remains a problem, the horizontal space on the header is much smaller, and many old school logos that worked on stores and websites would end up on two lines on mobiles.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#136

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 7:31 PM UTC

loughnane wrote: post #92

The one that bums me out the most is the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. They went from an elegant serif font to a bland sans with a few funky tails. Before: https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/6a356... After: https://creativereview.imgix.net/content/uploads/2022/09/MFA... Their stated purpose was to make it more accessible. The reasoned that the neoclassical architecture and old-style font made the…

I dunno... to me, the old MFA Boston logo screams 1990's or maybe late 1980's, when Helvetica Condensed was everywhere. It's the bland, boring, generic of its time. It makes me thing of a boring field trip I'm being forced to go on.

While the new logo feels very 2020's. Like they're trying to be contemporary, and actually make an effort to connect the art they show to people today, not to those people's parents. It looks like a place with a thought-provoking exhibition I might want to take a date to.

So I'm definitely going with the new logo.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#137

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 7:37 PM UTC

Unfrozen0688 wrote: post #3

The before after on the luxury brands is baffeling. Serif the old looks much better

Funny, I'm the opposite. The old logos look fuddy-duddy, like stuff that my grandmother would have loved.

The new logos make me think -- oh, maybe they're actually doing something cool and relevant today, and not stuck in outdated ideas of luxury that include full sets of china and silver and mink coats.

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#138

Post by Shorel » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 7:39 PM UTC

Zekio wrote: post #49

ilumanty wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serifs improve legibility of small prints. With modern HiDPI screens, there is no reason not to use serif fonts across all media.

Serif fonts read terribly on displays of basically any size and dpi, I don't even use them when reading books on e-ink displays

That's your (arguably wrong) opinion.

Some of the most beautiful and enjoyable fonts I have used in my 300-dpi e-book reader have serifs.

- Ancizar

- Bookerly

- Imperial (the one used by NYTimes)

- Palatino

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#139

Post by crazygringo » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 7:42 PM UTC

benj111 wrote: post #20

I just don't get why companies change their branding every 5 minutes. What do you gain? Did everyone suddenly start thinking Google was new and fresh after they spent however many millions on their rebrand? And then there's the inherent contradiction. Is a logo important, if not why are you changing it, if it is, why are you throwing out the current valuable logo, or are you implicitly accepting you somehow failed an…

Why do people change their haircuts or buy new outfits?

Part of branding is fashion. What is current fashion looks outdated and old and, well, out-of-fashion after a few years.

So what you gain is that you continue to look modern and current and up-to-date, rather than looking old and fuddy-duddy and out-of-touch.

> Is a logo important, if not why are you changing it

Because it's important to keep it looking good, part of which is keeping it up-to-date.

> why are you throwing out the current valuable logo

Because it loses value over time as it starts to look old-fashioned

> or are you implicitly accepting you somehow failed and tainted the old logo

I don't know what that means. Logos go out of style not because of anything you did, there's no "tainting". It's just how fashions change

Re: Why do everyone's logo fonts look the same? (2020)

#140

Post by wizofaus » Sun, Dec 03, 2023, 7:56 PM UTC

InCityDreams wrote: post #116

coldtea wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reasoned that the neoclassical architecture and old-style font made the space intimidating to people who didn’t hold those things to be part of their culture and that it was out of tune with the increasing diversity of their collection and programs. The whole purpose of an actually inclusive "Museum of Fine Arts" should have been the opposite: to make people appreciate, understand, and enjoy things that they do…

>...expand their cultural horizons and lift their tastes. Their tastes prior, being (considered) lower?

I don't care for the use of terms that imply appreciating the fine arts is somehow on a "higher plane" and places those who do so above those who don't, but I do think it's worth acknowledging that it takes significant time and effort to develop such appreciation, and that the rewards are subsequently substantial. Personally I've invested significantly in the study and appreciation of Western classical music and I believe what I've gained from that could not be achieved simply by listening to top 40 hits on the radio - but I don't believe those who do only the latter are in anyway "lower" on any sort of ranking system, just that their brains are wired differently, and their cultural background etc. is such that it probably wouldn't make sense for them to make the same investment into music appreciation that I have. It's almost certainly true that they've invested considerably into appreciating other worthwhile aspects of life that I haven't - we can't do it all!