Interesting logos are being replaced with boring ones | Hacker News Reader

Interesting logos are being replaced with boring ones

boingboing.net

26 pointsmuzani9 comments

Except for 'Balmain', the rest became worse with the transition to bold sans-serif. The worst was Burberry's, it's like they now manufacture OEM car parts or something.

I'm not sure. In each case it's a transition from slightly pretentious and kitschy lettering to more-or-less carefully calibrated typography.

More people have the visual literacy to appreciate typography now than did 20 years ago. Maybe it's preferable to go with a more refined, subtle form of visual comm.

I disagree. Rather than pretentious, I’d say style and individual character. The new logos remind me of the aborted redesign Gap went through (JC Penny as well).

These pretty much all look very generic. Something a machine shop in Indiana would pick for a font. Only one old logo/typeface did I find looked dated because it used a ‘toy’ typeface.

The main thing is to get rid of the absurd typefaces that look like handwriting. It's print. Those just don't belong.

None of the replaced logos had “handwritten” typefaces (I’m thinking Coca-Cola, which by the way, it’d be brutal, if thry changed it like Pepsi-Cola did). And I don’t think this ‘neu bauhaus’ look works for any but one.

As a kid I did get an imposing/pretentious vibe out of many of these logos and some others. Apple Garamond comes to mind as one that felt cold and unfriendly, like Apple were saying "Mac users are better and that's just how it is, chap."

I do not think the new ones are great, and they definitely lack distinction, but they also leave little to complain about. Brands that have ceased trying to say anything about themselves or their products.

It's a matter of taste, obviously. But the big difference between a machine shop in Indiana and a French fashion house is that the people running the fashion business need to have an eye for style, or their business would fail.

I have a lot of respect for machinists, but you wouldn't expect the stereotypical guy you are describing to know the difference between Arial and Helvetica. Whereas practically every typographer is a perfectionist to whom that difference means a lot.

I mean, this exactly parallels the difference between simple clothes that cost nothing, and a high-end fashion version of those clothes. The difference in cut and materials is subtle but you can be sure the designer takes it seriously (and is not imagining it). You can't say that it's a simple case of "the emperor's new clothes" and expect to be taken seriously in the design business. These sans serifs might be boring, but they don't lack typographic nuance.

Yeah, looking at the tech-sector ones, I remember when we'd see links here to designers griping about how ugly, naive, and poorly-designed those "interesting" logos were.

Can these still be called logos?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com