4 ms·
The whole article feels like profanity filled, nostalgia driven passionate drivel void of any actual analysis. As someone who was not familiar with either of th
by tonmoy 4y ago
The whole article feels like profanity filled, nostalgia driven passionate drivel void of any actual analysis. As someone who was not familiar with either of the logos before today, I don’t think the new one is “shite” compared to the old one
- Nathanael_M 4y agoI think there are valid points against it to make. Interest, uniqueness, memorability all suffer with this new logo. They're throwing away an established brand with a lot of associations for people, but obviously they considered that and deemed it worth it. I think one of the worst things about is that it's already aesthetically dated, and, because it has nothing really unique or interesting or stylistic about it, it won't age well. But it's not worth a crusade over. I find it interesting how emotionally attached people (myself included) are to brands, sometimes. A bad rebrand (or even a clever, but sufficiently different rebrand) can feel a bit like cutting down a big old tree in your yard. Why are you getting rid of something so old and beautiful? There are some good reasons, but it still hurts.