101–110 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who never saw the old or the new logo before today, the old logo looks ugly and forgettable to me. If you gave me $1000 a week from now, I don’t think I can recall what organization that logo belongs to
It reminds me of that Structure clothing store that was in malls in the 90s.
This is a bit hyperbolic. It's really not that bad of a rebrand. Brands are important. People care about them. They need to be updated with the times. Perhaps the author would care to show some alternative modernizations to illustrate a better way to do it.
Why?
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
I find it so fascinating using that people actually care about shit like this. Like when I saw the logo I had literally 0 thoughts about it. Whatever. It's a logo. Who cares. But then here's a guy who feels compelled to write a whole article about it and a thread full of people discussing it. Blows my mind. Not to demean anyone like it's cool that this matters to people I just cannot even remotely understand it.
Extremely generic logos don't offer distinction, and it's a bad idea for a strong brand to not clearly signal that brand in their products and marketing, especially in fields where there are many competitors (ie elite higher education).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ask any British person what 'The Met' is and they'll say 'London police' (or similar). I doubt an American museum could ever change that, embracing something so generic is limiting for identity & brand awareness IMO.
I don't think one very small country should be the primary blocker to their branding decisions.
The whole article feels like profanity filled, nostalgia driven passionate drivel void of any actual analysis. As someone who was not familiar with either of the logos before today, I don’t think the new one is “shite” compared to the old one
But it's not worth a crusade over. I find it interesting how emotionally attached people (myself included) are to brands, sometimes. A bad rebrand (or even a clever, but sufficiently different rebrand) can feel a bit like cutting down a big old tree in your yard. Why are you getting rid of something so old and beautiful? There are some good reasons, but it still hurts.
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
However, comparisons to ANY other logo are meaningless. The Met has been around for 150 years. They need to keep getting donations from younger generations, and they want people to come and visit.
OUP is not going anywhere. It's 500+ years old. It sells scholarly books and its financial picture is probably as secure as it's ever been. It didn't need a rebrand.
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.]