Be nice. Or else.
San Francisco [timsilva.com] Designer @ Encide/Verizon Joined almost 2 years ago
My apologies for the slow reply. First, I should clarify that the bulk of my criticism is towards the logomark/symbol. I realize that a brand is SO much more than just the logo and just the symbol. Its maybe 10% of the system. However, I stand by my 6/10 rating because I would argue that the execution and the usage of the new "P" symbol is so awful, that it has a larger impact than the 10% weight it should carry.
I agree that the old rotated e was awkward. I much prefer the new workmark, I think it is clearer and much more professional. The icons, type, motion, and colors are all fine; attractive even.
As for the examples I mentioned, I didn't say they got them right the first time. But in many of those cases, they had the general visual concepts set early on relative to their entire history (95%+ of their history in most cases).
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I have critiqued the actual work. With that said, it would be dishonest of me to ignore the broader ideas within the industry that have clearly influenced this example. Here's my core critique, the symbol isn't unique, it barely represents a P (I looks like 1° [degree]), and it has no meaning or story behind it. Now, does that mean that it can't work? Obviously not. There are plenty of "bad" logos based on my criteria that represent effective brands that people love. I get that.
Side note: My friend matched the old symbol with the new workmark and it looked fantastic: https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T03TAKEK4-F5V7P4T8V/screen_shot_2017-06-16_at_3.36.16_pm.png
I know you don't mean it this way, but embracing change as a catch-all approach isn't always a wise approach. What if that change is build on bad ideas and poor values? In this case, I would consider this reband reactionary to bad ideas. Again, that is highly subjective. Just my 2 cents. ;)
Totally, the P is hardly there! Its almost as silly as Uber's rebrand where they could have kept it as a subtle U by rotating it 90 degrees clockwise.
Music to my ears Jon. :)
"reading tea leaves and horoscopes, and making shapes out of the clouds in the sky"
"Why change it? What was wrong with it?"
This is the right question! My best guess after 5+ years of following rebrands closely is that there is an addiction to the "new" and the belief that "new is better" from all perspectives even when it defies all logic.
Brand systems, when done right, can be timeless. I see this as a sign of wisdom when brands like Apple, Nike, CBS and PBS get it right either the first time, or as soon as they could afford to prioritize visual branding. They created something simple, dynamic, and memorable early on.
The only two scenarios where I think rebrands are justified are when (1) a brand experiences one or more bad PR phases and they need to separate themselves from their broken promises that are associated with their visual cues or when (2) they didn't create a thorough system the first time around and they had an incomplete system (a workmark-only logo when they actually needed a symbol + wordmark, for example).
Those are good reasons. I think most rebrands today are for the bad reason of believing that a logo with a more recent publish date is inherently better. To that I say that there are logos from 100+ years ago that put this rebrand to shame. Even the use of the Christian cross is a more effective symbol that represents an idea, and that has been used for at least 1800+ years.
There is a real craft in branding, but that craft is cheapened when many people in the industry think that they need to re-do it ever couple of years. Its especially painful in cases like this where they went from what I would describe as a 9/10 system to a 6/10 system. :/
I appreciate this level of review on web designs. Hope this becomes a regular style of review.
I wish more people would have timeline-based websites as apposed to time-agnostic chunks of content. Dan's site is both slick and full of rich history. Awesome find!
I'd could create strong arguments for yes and no answers. I think custom/existing are both okay. Its a fight between practicality and perfectionism.
For yes: Front-end code is open source and as the popular (although questionable) quote from Albert Einstein goes, "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." Who has time to do that when there are free templates on squarespace that will make life easier for you and most employers won't notice the different (sadly) if they are considering you for a job.
For no: Shouldn't your portfolio focus on what you can do? If you can code and design systems, why not prove it with your own website? Also, copying someone else's system could be consider ethically questionable depending on how you do it. If you copy someone else's work and claim it as your own (and even hiding it), that is wrong and lazy.
Personally, I lean more towards no, at least for myself. I did most of my own website custom (aside from libraries like jQuery and a JS script or two).
Lots of rich history in this episode, love it! Thx for sharing Daniel. :)
According to the creators (Kurzgesagt), this video took around 900 hours over 9 months to create! This is just part 1 of 2 which is coming soon.
Now commence the debates about whether or not our jobs are safe.
Be nice. Or else.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.