4 ms·

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

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.

oytis 4y ago
The implicit assumption here is that modernisation was required or inevitable which isn't obvious.
- blululu 4y ago
  Implicit? It is explicitly stated. Brand are a big part of marketing your product to your customers. Brands need to be kept up to date because the styles and tastes of your customers change. Things get old. New display/printing technologies enable and require new design patterns. Your customers start to expect different things over time. People stop noticing your brand if it feels like you aren’t keeping up with the last 20 years of fashion. You need to move constantly just to stay the same point.
TheFreim 4y ago
> They need to be updated with the times. Why?
Maursault 4y ago
The author says nothing about why the new logo is bad and the old one good. Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not. A logo needs to be original, readily identifiable, and easily reproducible on any substrate. The old logo does not meet any of these standards, while the new logo does. The same can be said for the old Met logo. The newer Met logo is unmistakable and more easily reproduced anywhere. Author is obviously not a graphic designer or at least not one that was educated in design principles.
- boppo1 4y ago
  >Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not. Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture Science. My point is not that you're wrong, but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt. I hope you didn't pay anyone to acquire that opinion.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. Your comment begins with a fallacious statement, which is an ad hominem. > A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand It's a 3D scroll stylized as an "O," which obviously stands for "Oxford." Help any? > and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture [sic] Science. The Aperture Science logo is a stylized flat aperture. The OUP logo is a 3D scroll. Hope that helps. > My point is not that you're wrong, That's wise, because I am not. > but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion On the contrary, graphic design is an academic discipline based on fundamental principles that ultimately are rooted in mathematics. Without any background or education, what you've done is assume you know things about design which you do not. Please consider Wittgenstein's advice: "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." > and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt. You've closed your comment with a fallacious statement, which is a straw man.

oytis 4y ago

The implicit assumption here is that modernisation was required or inevitable which isn't obvious.

blululu 4y ago
Implicit? It is explicitly stated. Brand are a big part of marketing your product to your customers. Brands need to be kept up to date because the styles and tastes of your customers change. Things get old. New display/printing technologies enable and require new design patterns. Your customers start to expect different things over time. People stop noticing your brand if it feels like you aren’t keeping up with the last 20 years of fashion. You need to move constantly just to stay the same point.

TheFreim 4y ago

> They need to be updated with the times. Why?

Maursault 4y ago

The author says nothing about why the new logo is bad and the old one good. Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not. A logo needs to be original, readily identifiable, and easily reproducible on any substrate. The old logo does not meet any of these standards, while the new logo does. The same can be said for the old Met logo. The newer Met logo is unmistakable and more easily reproduced anywhere. Author is obviously not a graphic designer or at least not one that was educated in design principles.

boppo1 4y ago
>Frankly, objectively speaking, the new logo is much better from a design perspective whether the author likes it or not. Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture Science. My point is not that you're wrong, but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt. I hope you didn't pay anyone to acquire that opinion.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Disagree fam, I think you drank too much of the kool-aid. Your comment begins with a fallacious statement, which is an ad hominem. > A logo ought to above all communicate about the brand It's a 3D scroll stylized as an "O," which obviously stands for "Oxford." Help any? > and now I'm gonna mix up OUP with Apeture [sic] Science. The Aperture Science logo is a stylized flat aperture. The OUP logo is a 3D scroll. Hope that helps. > My point is not that you're wrong, That's wise, because I am not. > but rather that design is firmly in the land of opinion On the contrary, graphic design is an academic discipline based on fundamental principles that ultimately are rooted in mathematics. Without any background or education, what you've done is assume you know things about design which you do not. Please consider Wittgenstein's advice: "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." > and your staunch 'objectivity' is bankrupt. You've closed your comment with a fallacious statement, which is a straw man.