Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

Post by jamessb » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

systemicdanna wrote: post #114

An unpopular opinion: there are too many other logos that look like the original logo. Some amalgamation of Latin words and a coat of arms. It's also pretty unattractive visually (weird thickness exterior curves, all caps words with hyphens). First impression of the new logo: boring. Second impression: nice play on an open book and capital O, very clean lines, will look good in print (perhaps with some light gradient…

Post by 331c8c71 » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:42 PM UTC

nkrisc wrote: post #27

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.

Post by ghaff » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:43 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

systemicdanna wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but the vast majority of logos in that era were designed…

Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-... It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.

Post by tomtheelder » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:46 PM UTC

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…

Post by systemicdanna » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:47 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

systemicdanna wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but the vast majority of logos in that era were designed…

Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-... It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.