Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oxford University Press’s new logo is unfathomably bad

joukovsky.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 340 posts

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

#311

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

ghaff wrote: post #175
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Design is of course a fashion business like most things. That said, a lot of traditional logos had a huge amount of fine detail that doesn't work well on mobile. While not the only factor, it's at least one motivator for a lot of the rebranding/logo redesigns that you're seeing.

I don't really buy that. I mean, maybe with older phones. But I guarantee 98% of people buying Balenciaga or YSL or Diane von Fürstenberg have an iPhone that is more than capable of displaying extremely fine detail very well.

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

#312

Post by arjvik »

13415 wrote: post #232
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?

Academic logos are often awful. Take Roskilde University's logo, for instance: https://euclidnetwork.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/roskilde... I used to call it "brain sponge" when I was a PhD student there. (I liked that university a lot, don't get me wrong, just talking about the logo).

I'm sure many people called it Roadkill University with that logo.

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

#313

Post by js2 »

cpcallen wrote: post #280
js2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple losing the rainbow from its logo? https://imgur.com/DvKPvYz

This is the ultimate example of a _terrible_ rebrand, in my opinion. I _loved_ the colourful logo, and I think that getting rid of it was the ultimate travesty. (At least the flat black Apple is better than those terrible shiny ones, though.) I do wonder if I'd have liked it if I'd previously been familiar with the original woodcut logo, though.

Interesting. The rainbow logo (which I grew up with - I had (still have!) an Apple ][) has way too much of an Atari 2600 breakout vibe to me today. I find it looks really dated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakout_(video_game)#/media/F...

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

#314

Post by therealdrag0 »

tzs wrote: post #254
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?

Some therapists moved into an office in the same building my employer was in, and they had this logo on their sign [1]. I think it is supposed to represent two arms grasping each other, but that wasn't the first thing that came to mind when I saw it. [1] https://imgur.com/a/kXl5S36

Thanks for the laugh. That got me good.

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

#315

Post by Apofis »

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.

I can't open a logo generating website and not get that as a result. It's trash.

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

#316

Post by porknubbins »

pvg wrote: post #25
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…

which isn't something you see every day. Undoubtedly influenced by Oxford and Cambridge but it's a design style adopted by so many universities it's practically generic for 'some sort of university thing logo'. I don't have strong feelings about the new logo either way but the idea the old one is some distinctive masterpiece seems misplaced.

When you’re one of the oldest universities in the world though, I think sticking with the old logo conveys a subtle gravitas and confidence in your legacy, much more than constant rebranding that says “look at me”.

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

#317

Post by pvg »

porknubbins wrote: post #316
pvg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

which isn't something you see every day. Undoubtedly influenced by Oxford and Cambridge but it's a design style adopted by so many universities it's practically generic for 'some sort of university thing logo'. I don't have strong feelings about the new logo either way but the idea the old one is some distinctive masterpiece seems misplaced.

When you’re one of the oldest universities in the world though, I think sticking with the old logo conveys a subtle gravitas and confidence in your legacy, much more than constant rebranding that says “look at me”.

I'm not sure it's obvious it conveys anything beside 'looks like everyone else'.

It's like the GP comment complaining about 'modernist, minimalist crap, indistinguishable from all the other modernist, minimalist crap' never ran across one of the most recognizable university press marks out there:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Press#/media/File:MIT_Pres...

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

#318

Post by cobalt »

Someone wrote: post #137
virtualritz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually a logo/rebrand change keeps the name. So no real suprise. That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a single periodic pipe before. I was using SGIs daily at the time and I almost cried when they did the rebrand. The rebrand replaced it with a contemporary (at the time, mind you) typography logo that would look outdated if the compamy still existed. To their credit, the rebrand did include a type…

> That said, SGI had an iconic logo of a cube formed from a single periodic pipe before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Graphics#/media/File%3... Rebranded in 1999, according to Wikipedia. I would think the old logo looked really bad on the web at the time, with monitors being 640 × 480 at 256 colors, if you were lucky. It also would have been expensive to reproduce well on letterhead, and I wouldn’t dare thin…

they had a monochrome version of the logo... https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/SGI-indi...

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

#319

Post by Dig1t »

systemicdanna wrote: post #285
Dig1t wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My guess is that there are many reasons to redesign a logo like that. It looks: 1. Elitist (who speaks Latin?) 2. Forgettable (show this logo to a student from India and then ask to pick it out of 10 similar coats of arms) 3. Ugly (subjective, but... thick curves everywhere, all caps words with hyphens, 3 crowns?..) 4. Hard to adapt to new global use cases (too detailed to make small, too confusing internationally) 5…

Those are indeed valid reasons, but they literally stated exactly why they changed it: "to signal commitments to (1) digital transformation and (2) diversity & inclusion". That quote comes directly from the people who changed the logo themselves.

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

#320

Post by entropyie »

FredPret wrote: post #55
elliottkember wrote: post #19

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.

As a tourist, I prefer the full name. I never knew what "the Met" was until know. It clearly stands for Metropolitan. But Metropolitan what? Police? Works? The full name is much more accessible and less intimidating.

In Ireland the first thing that comes to mind is probably "the met office" which is our national weather / meteorological service. See http://met.ie
Post reply on HN