Damn, that's awful.
How about an actual critique?
I really wish they didn't abbreviate the name. I never remember TNW. Sounds like a TV Channel, like NBC, CBS, CSN, CNN, MSNBC. At the end of the day, these are just letters that people have no idea meaning of. The change is better and might live for longer, but the letter 'w' is just not legible. Does look like VJ.
I thought people might like this rebrand because the story was told in a very unpretentious way (unlike Uber's rebrand). Always thought that was a factor, but perhaps it isn't.
Can anyone think of a somewhat recent rebrand that really went over well? What were the elements at play that caused it to be so well-received?
Logo's seem so subjective to me. I imagine it has to be more than just good design work...
I don't know what's more irritating, the new logo or the sticky navbar. What's up with the sticky navbar trend, it's driving me nuts.
Update: Louie, I can't reply to your post so here you go: Cute.
You've been so insightful with your last few comments.
I endorse it, it's unique and thoughtful. Way more than the pretentious minimalistic approach startups often take.
I liked the old one, however the logo rollover on the page this links to won me over.
That's OK TNW, nobody came to your site for the graphics anyway....
Their reasoning behind redoing the logo made sense and I like the general direction and the TN, but the W just doesn't look like a W. And as someone else pointed out, it's weird for them to be so fixated on the TNW mark when it seems no one calls them that and all say The Next Web.
I suppose they figure "The Next Web" is kinda long for a logo, the initials are much more compact.
“We want to make it nationality-agnostic, so we made Latin type that does not look like it’s for the Latin script.” Is there logic in this?