Hacker News Reader

Comment by Brendinooo | Hacker News Reader

College-educated-but-not-currently-practicing graphic designer checking in: It's astonishing to me that major brands are still trending in the direction of "simplify the mark into a basic sans-serif" (even though, as basic sans-serifs go, this is a pretty nice one and on the more unique side). It's the ultimate safe choice that brings change for the sake of change and makes everyone feel like they've done something.

> “Because it’s easier, it almost even draws your attention to it,”

There's no way this is is true.

View on HN

They're just making stuff up at this point.

> The new look, which includes a different shade of red, aims to recognize J&J’s shift into a “pure play health care company,"

Reminds me of the Pepsi brand white paper (which I have no idea if it was legit or not, but it smells such).

My mind takes me to:

"We decided to make our color a slightly darker red than standard maroon, but only by 1 point of hue, because we know that subconsciously the person will finally associate our brand with the world ending dread that we are hoping to convey"

I literally think its just a bunch of people trying to stay relevant and answer the question of "why do you even get paid 10 million a year?"

At that point why not just call it like Kevin and Steve or something, it'll be unrecognizable and move publicly away from the vile reputation that J&J has had.

In any case, I will keep ignoring this nonsense. Maybe one day they will rebrand to writing out J&J in a language that doesn't exist to show that they are so future thinking, we can't even fathom what the brand is!

Look at that subtle change in red coloring. The tasteful thickness of the sans serif font. Oh my God, it even has a watermark...

This isn't basic sans serif at all, I quite like it. It's distinctive while also feeling trustworthy.

I agree there are a lot of generic sans serif logos out there but this isn't one of them. The old logo had gotten incredibly dated -- it looked like your great-grandparents' brand. (Which it was.)

>>This isn't basic sans serif at all, I quite like it. It's distinctive while also feeling trustworthy.

Fascinating!

If we assume that a logo is not targeted to expert professionals, but consumers at large; do you think you can help me as a somewhat nerdy but otherwise average consumer understand in which way it is not a basic sans serif at all? I'm not even remotely a font geek, yet even so have probably paid slightly more attention to fonts than anybody I know in real life and I haven't a clue in which way this is not basic, or is distinctive. I'm asking with genuine curiosity - much appreciated!:)

It has a bit of stroke contrast, which is less typical of popular sans-serif fonts. Optima was a popular example of this in the 90s. It has a pretty tall x-height too which is probably made with "small print of logo at bottom of ~shampoo~ pill bottle" in mind; it helps mitigate the problem the mark being much wider than it is tall.

But your reply is why I said what I said originally - I see those differences, crazygringo sees those differences, but I'm sure most people don't.

I guess the "&" is quite distinctive, and the letters are have different vert/hori stroke widths, and a few minor other details. But still, in comparison, the normal logo is way more distinctive and ... pretty, imo

It's a good execution for sure, but there's no way you can say it became a more distinctive mark.

Saying the old logo is dated is like saying the GE mark or the Coca Cola and Disney scripts are dated. The only reason you'd say it is because it's not conforming to a generic sans-serif norm. These brands have built up a ton of equity in their marks and are timeless enough to build a fresh modern identity around them.

But the J&J logo and name also doesn't apply to the consumer products anymore -- Band-Aids, Johnson's Baby, etc. were split off into Kenvue this year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenvue

J&J is now entirely focused on pharmaceuticals and medical devices:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_%26_Johnson

So the new different logo makes a lot of sense for what is essentially now an entirely different company in the eyes of consumers.

> it looked like your great-grandparents' brand

I think that's the value in it. A brand that hasn't changed in a hundred years, that you remember in your grandparents cupboard where you were five years old, that's been in the background for your entire life... you can't invent that provenance, and once it's gone, it's gone.

I know what you mean. Script fonts are so 1890's. Every time I drink a Coke I think, "Another Spencerian script? So bacchanalian! So dated! We anatomically modern humans are not interested in type more emotive than prison signage. The logo should have been reset in a contemporary sans-serif with a few curves thrown in to remind us how irrational we once were." I feel like I'm drinking something found covered in dust while cleaning out my grandfather's basement--next to his violin.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com