I know everyone always hates on new things but I don't understand the new "M", it seems like a submission to a graphic design competition. The old "M" with the serifs conveyed an established reading product (I compared it to NYTimes). Not sure what the new one does.
Agree I rather liked the old Medium logo—it felt right for a text-heavy product.
I liked the old logo too but I feel this new logo conveys freshness about the product, and it's obviously more flexible. Credit to all the people who worked on it!
Yeah people are going to try to spin this a lot of different ways, but the logo is just bad.
Seriously. There's no narrative that will ever justify a poor design execution.
I agree with you. I'm normally not critical of things that are new. But the "M" is just bad.
I actually like the new logo and I think it did well in conveying what Medium is.
Medium emphasis on quality story, not who writes the story. As Ev William says it, "[Medium] help good stuff get the attention it deserves, no matter who the author is." Medium is a network of stories, when connected, form an ever richer stories. And thus, this logo reflects that. "With Rod, we pursued the concept that our logo could made of a series of interconnected ideas or shapes that, when joined together, form a new thought."
There's always be mixed review but I'm excited with what Medium has to offer next!
The old logo was simple and powerful. Worked perfectly with the product. They should just stick to the concept of a serif M and then maybe update the font used a bit.
I really liked the old logo. I remember looking at it recently and getting a pang of designer jealousy, wishing I had created something so simple yet appropriate.
This is what was bothering me, I just couldn't put it into words. It was so clearly a reading or writing website with the old look. It didn't care about being modern. It just used what worked.
The thing is, they're moving away from simply a reading/writing platform to something more communication oriented. Whether I want that or not, I'm not sure. From their perspective, I do understand why they want to change to allow people to feel more compelled to write there. It definitely did exude a certain level of pretentiousness before. Many people still believed you had to get an invite to write.
I do wish they could have come up with a better solution, somewhere in the middle but it seems this push to communication product rather than writing product is what fuelled this change.
Re: Charles Gedeon
Nice to see someone offer a nuanced response to the redesign. Like most people, i liked the old logo. I was invited to write on Medium during it's early invite-only months and I loved the branding and simplicity of the product. The new logo appears to be inspired by a re-imagination of the core message of the product in a different aesthetic by an evolving company. Is it perfect? Well, depends on who you ask, apparently. But i'm pretty sure comments like "It's terrible" or "(it's ) just bad" help no one—especially the design people at Medium, who might be reading this thread. I'd like to think that it's possible to critique something and still respect the process, time, and considerations made by the design team.
Came here to say this.
In smaller formats, it definitely looks like an "N". The favicon is a good example. Also, this is most definitely an N:
This GIF would explain everything
City of Melbourne (2009)
This is much better than the Medium one.
That's irrelevant and subjective although I agree. My point is similarity.
Yup Rob I agree, the right comment should be "That's look similar and much better IMO" :)
This one's silhouette actually looks like an 'M' instead of a weird 'N'
Knew this would be in here
It's terrible ...
M for meh
I really hate shitting on other designer's work—because I have no idea what the process was like, the stakeholders involved, or the hurdles they encountered. But this mark feels like a trend piece, not a strong beacon. Maybe it'll grow on me.
It just looks like a fuck ugly designer chair.
I wonder how differently the logo would have been received if the write up about it didn't sound like they'd knocked it up in a couple of hours then realised they needed to justify a further 3 months of "exploration" time.
Connecting the vertex to the rightmost leg seems... wrong? Combined with using a lighter tone for the leg's interior (I'd expect this to be in shade), the whole right side looks really off to me.
- This article explains the team's thinking in some detail.
- Not a huge fan of the 'M'. Feels a little unresolved, and actually looks a little like a malformed 'N' at small sizes. It looks much better in it's non-analagous color schemes.
- The new type is OK. At small sizes, it's perfectly good. At large sizes, the 'Me' feels like it's from a completely different face. The lockup in the website navigation is executed well enough.
- Overall I'd say C+/B-
This was a really bad choice. The old logo was iconic and represented who they were and what they provided... clearly, cleanly, and simply.
I just don't get it. People aren't going to use Medium less or more because of branding. They use it because of the product itself. And... it's good!
IMHO, the "why we did it" post reeks of them trying to convince themselves they did something worthwhile. They didn't. Great brands don't need to "re-invent" themselves as they grow or add new features.
Did Apple redesign their logo because that years new iPhones were their best ever? Did Porsche redesign their logo when they moved away from air-cooled engines on their iconic 911? Would Facebook triple user engagement if they redesigned their logo? No, no, and no.
There is a reason Craigslist looks the same, Facebook's and Twitter's logos have largely been left alone and most iconic brands keep it simple. They realize that people are buying/using the brand offerings for the product itself... and that's what matters.
The logo sucks, we're all in agreement about that.
Can we talk about the new typeface for body text? I like it. The previous typeface was by no means unreadable and certainly not "bad", but I like this new one. It feels a bit simpler and a bit cleaner, as if the serifs are deemphasized a little.
I suppose it was unclear what I was referring to! I was talking about the general text typefaces. Thanks for the links. :)
The type changes feel like a massive step back to me. Charter is a nice face (I thought I recognised it), but it's just not very special, and it's age really shows IMO.
nah that was actually good (apart from the weird copywriting)
Yeah, while it was A LOT of fun to make fun of. The logo is a good logo. Even if I don't like it, craft wise, its a good logo. Mediums is a bad logo, goes against best practices.
i remember and yes I still find it not that great for the brand (though as a stand alone graphic, I like it)
Who signed this concept off?! Haven't seen a brand devolve this badly for a while, I'm sure there's a 100-page document somewhere explaining the methodology but at first glance (especially as a favicon) this is shocking...
This is meh. They had a dibs on a solid M that people recognized and associated with Medium. They threw all that away because they couldn't apply gradients?
I'm glad that 99% of everyone else agrees that the logo is terrible.
If the new logo is really about conversations, then it's got to be about devices, too. And that's where it falls a bit short, IMO. On smaller screens, regardless of pixel density, the shape resolves into a muddy N.
Much of modern logo design seems to have forgotten its history, foregoing testing simple outlines, contrast, and readability when printed on muddy newsprint (remember that?), for the rendered perfection of a Retina screen. But in a responsive world, where your brand can be viewed on a growing multitude of devices and contexts, those old-school precepts should be dusted off.
If your logo works at 30px on a smartphone sitting outside on a sunny day, then it's going to work pretty much everywhere.
I'm new at DN - so, I can't share articles in a new thread for a week:/ But, I did write a response article on Medium about their logo & my not too glowing of an opinion.
I also came up with an alternate version, based on their original logo. Nothing amazing, but, I explain my reasoning in the article. I still like their original the best, but, I thought I'd do a different take on it to show some possibilities. Check it out if you're interested -
"Dear Medium: Your New Logo…Sucks. Here’s v3.0":https://medium.com/@michaeljoyce/dear-medium-your-logo-sucks-here-s-v3-0-9fd26056c155
Your article starts off by shitting them and end with "All that said, kudos to the hard working design team."
Hey Jaime. I feel ya - my writing approach may not be for everyone. I simply gave my genuine opinion, while trying not to pull any punches. I truly feel the end result sucked (in my personal opinion). But, by no means did I want to imply that they didn't give it hard thought, hard work & apply a thorough process. But, they missed the mark from my perspective.
In every design situation there will be more going on behind the scenes with stake holders & constraints that outsiders generally don't understand fully or know about. So, my critique is not fully fair, but, by the same token a user should be entitled to express their thoughts without holding back.
It doesn't look elegant at all compared to the previous logo. I also miss the centering of text. I miss the old Medium bad!
End result > rationale. (Most rationale is retrospectively added anyway)
Not a fan of the logo or the type changes. Looks very... mediocre?
It looks like geometric logotypes are the new long shadows.
Not hating but even at full size does not readily read as a "M" its more like a slide into a backwards play button.
I feel the urge the flatten the logo with a flat iron.
The depth caused by 3D feels very odd to me and limits it from being applied in a broader context. The logo in the top left corner of the website already looks out of place, as a three dimensional element on a two dimensional page. Heck, it even looks out of place with the flat type next to it.
I hate this general trend towards neon logos. Damn you iOS 7 and your gaudy tones and gradients.
I'm writing this after seeing it for the first time 10 minutes ago, so my perception might change.
However, right now I feel like it's lost some of its brand strength. The old M logo was amazingly recognisable and strong, yet now it seems a little half-hearted and thrown in.
Type-wise I'm just not sure either. It seems like it's lost the 'polished' feel it had. The header (image link below) really seems to have lost impact in my mind. The 'Home' 'Top Stories' & 'Bookmarks' links just look like a fallback font to me.
I'd like to see a direct comparison but it just feels like it's lost the brand strength they had. I don't feel the fonts gel together as much as the past pairings did.
That the in mind lip gloss right so I have been loving day so that is all the makeup that I've been using now 18 go briefly into some skin care products I usually don't do skincare I'm products just because for the most part I’d experiment as much with skincare I pretty much had a set skin care regimen but have been trying out products here so this I will say this when I go on vacation or any type travel. http://t-rexmusclefacts.com/natural-ceramides-youth-cream/
This spam sounds eerily similar to the rationale for the logo...
We began to see the four planes of the logo as overlapping strains of a conversation. A conversation whose tone and direction shift as the planes come into contact with each other.
Somewhere within the Medium office a synthetic bead of sweat trickles down lead designer Brandon T. Botson's latex forehead… his cover has been blown.