3 ms·
Yes, the article doesn’t seem to explain it at all. I think it’s just chasing what’s fashionable right now - we saw this with the glossy 3D fad a decade ago, an
by stephen_g 8y ago
Yes, the article doesn’t seem to explain it at all. I think it’s just chasing what’s fashionable right now - we saw this with the glossy 3D fad a decade ago, and now rebrands that happened back then now look hopelessly dated (like Xerox for example). Hopefully brands like these will go back to something more like their original logos when everybody gets bored with the current (boring) sans-serif logotype trend.
It does make me wonder whether there has been any shift in the management of these companies, where they are no longer run by people with any commitment to any sort of brand or design integrity? Or did that happen long ago and the logos were just holdovers from a different time?
Maybe I’m just caught up in false, romantic notions and these companies have always just been mass-producing corporate entities desperately trying to do whatever is trendy to appeal to the widest audience, whilst creating an illusion of exclusivity to justify massive profit margins?
- PavlovsCat 8y ago> no longer run by people with any commitment to any sort of brand or design integrity Or they mean really well, and tried their very best, and this is what they came up with. Or too many people had a say in it, and it averaged out at bland. The thing that I found worse than the boring fonts is the change from "London, England", to "London England". I would "respect" "London, England" written in Comic Sans more than "London England" in any font. It just gives off this "the lights are on, but nobody's home" vibe to me.