>signal commitments to (1) digital transformation and (2) diversity & inclusion Just another victim of the ongoing cultural revolution we are living through.
What of those platitudes makes you feel victimized?
Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
261–270 of 340 posts
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#262It's a toilet?
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#263Ooh, 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?
Serious Pie, in Seattle: https://www.seriouspieseattle.com/ scroll down until you see the man with his penis on fire. It's on all their signs.
Having your penis on fire seems like some pretty serious pie, so seems appropriate.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The transition from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 is the greatest leap in the Windows product line for me (including design). I remember seeing the '95 start-up screen and its new UI for the first time - I was quite amazed by how much better it looked (I was at an impressionable age back then).
The Windows 95 logo always felt unsettling to me. At least part of it is because the main part of the logo curves downwards in a sad/frowning sort of way.
The Windows XP logo was a massive improvement.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One thing I learned was that new, individual, and fresh leadership psychology often brings new logos into being Could it be that new leaders feel they have to demonstrate they're in change, and initiating a logo replacement is unfortunately much easier than doing something that is genuinely positive for stakeholders and shareholders?
You mean you think that's the main reason for any given logo change, or one of many possible reasons? While not outside of the realm of possibility, it's actually rare to see that kind of thought process play out in practice of working with businesses & NPOs on their logos. Much more common is that there is a base of support for change from above, outside, and below. Maybe related to the fact that "I changed our logo…
> there is a base of support for change from above, outside, and below
I'm sorry, I have no idea what that statement actually means.
How do you quantify "a base support for change"? Would you ask staff if they'd prefer a pay rise ... or for that money to be spent on a new logo? Would you ask customers if they're prefer improved products ... or a new logo?
There is a reason I wrote "initiating a logo replacement". If a new-in-the-job boss pitches up in a meeting and announces "I think our logo is old. I think we need a new, fresh, relevant, inclusive logo", then who do you suppose is going to tell them they're wrong? The yes-crowd of middle managers just nod and agree. And there's your logo replacement process started.
No need for data, no need for any actual reasons to do something, just someone new in the neighbourhood marking their patch, like a dog at a lamppost.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#266>signal commitments to (1) digital transformation and (2) diversity & inclusion Just another victim of the ongoing cultural revolution we are living through.
What of those platitudes makes you feel victimized?
I do not personally feel victimized, the shitty logo is the victim.
The point is that a redesign wasn't necessary, it was a good logo with a long and interesting history. But it was redone to signal that they are falling in line with the prevailing ideology of the day.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, I get it. In that you can tell me and I can feel a little swayed by your argument. What I don't get, is the odd idea that there is a universal iconography that every should agree with. For one, I don't find this rebranding that much worse than the old one. I actually assumed both icons on the first tweet were the new thing, as I easily think both are kind of bleh. Finally, though, some nitpicks. Military bann…
I get while you think it’s offensive, but that’s not intentional. It’s more that if you hold your hand on the words and you see only the circle logo you get different ideas of what this brand might be. Pretty sure a lot of people would answer “tyre company” or “gear manufacturer” or something. So it does not communicate well. About the banner nitpick, banners needed to be seen from afar, during chaotic scenes, so wer…
I challenge this assertion. For one, I bet most folks have no clue what standard tire branding looks like. Indeed, https://www.carlogos.org/tire-brands/ shows that most of them do /not/ have circles on them.
For bagels, I think you have a slightly better argument, but even then, https://99designs.com/inspiration/logos/bagel doesn't really look like what is on display here.
My nitpick on the banners was more that the iconography of them was not at all key in folks building an identity with them. I should have expanded and said it wasn't the banner that builds the identity. Rather, it is more likely the shared identity that builds the love of the banner.
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, so a couple years back the "Technische Universität Berlin" rebranded to "Berlin Universität der Technologie" or Berlin University of Technology. Because they thought that would be more similar to e.g. MIT and the like. Of course the abbreviation then would be BUT... Thankfully it did not stick and they are back to Technical University of Berlin.
I guess it got reverted pretty quick, the only search result for "Berlin Universität der Technologie" is your post here.
See https://www.pressestelle.tu-berlin.de/newsportal/internation...
Guess it was for English only
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess it got reverted pretty quick, the only search result for "Berlin Universität der Technologie" is your post here.
See https://www.pressestelle.tu-berlin.de/newsportal/internation... Guess it was for English only
ah, and that explains why I didn't find it looking for the English either. It was "Berlin Institute of Technology"
Re: Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both logos include the same word in a uniform font which cancels out in the comparison. However, there are objectively millions of ways to setup a blue color gradient around white letters that all look the same. There is exactly one way to have a pure black font. Therefore the second logo is objectively less distinctive.
There is no objective way to evaluate this. It’s always in relation to something else. If we take 1000 blue logos (with different gradients and letter arrangement) and compare them to this single black logo: the black logo will be _objectively_ more distinctive.
There is nothing objective in picking some specific subset of logos for comparison vs all possible logos
You created a subjective measurement.