THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: pwhodges on 30 Aug 2012, 02:28

Title: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: pwhodges on 30 Aug 2012, 02:28
The UK's leading cancer research charity is changing its logo:

Old logo: (http://cassland.org/images/CRUKold.gif)

New logo: (http://cassland.org/images/CRUKnew.jpg)

The old logo declares what it is.  The new logo is supposed to represent the way in which they bring together supporters, scientists, doctors, and nurses in the fight against cancer.

I'm not impressed.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: TinPenguin on 30 Aug 2012, 02:46
The old logo was a good, recognisable logo, well-established, well-embedded in people's consciousness. There was no need to change it.

It seems that most logo designers these days don't even understand the fundamental rules of their craft.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Welu on 30 Aug 2012, 04:06
It seems rather cluttered, not sure how it would look at the top of a letter or something. If they wanted to condense it I think the dotted arrow would be recognisable by itself by now.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: BeoPuppy on 30 Aug 2012, 04:18
I like the idea of the second one. It's a good concept. I just don't know whether they really should go with a big C.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Carl-E on 30 Aug 2012, 08:12
Yeah, "the big C" was the first thing that came to my mind, but only because I knew it was for cancer research ahead of time.  Making the dots of the arrow into people probably would have worked better. 
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: pwhodges on 30 Aug 2012, 09:07
My source for the logo was their own website (http://aboutus.cancerresearchuk.org/who-we-are/our-brand/).  That webpage has only the one version of the new logo, which is really very poor, it seems to me.  The new identity comes over better in this article (http://www.designweek.co.uk/news/interbrand-rebrands-cancer-research-uk/3035039.article)
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Barmymoo on 30 Aug 2012, 09:51
I think that image is great for adverts - like the Halifax advert concept which had its staff doing various things like creating logos, pyramids etc. It's a nice hook that sticks in your mind. For a logo on paperwork? Dreadful.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 30 Aug 2012, 22:04
It's utterly dependent on being in a high-res medium, in addition to the flaws others have pointed out. Imagine that on a standard-def TV ad.

Bad logo. No logo biscuit.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Elysiana on 31 Aug 2012, 12:49
Argh. That's not a logo, it's a picture of stuff. To be fair, though, it looks like the actual logo is in that second article you linked...
(http://www.designweek.co.uk/Pictures/web/j/l/b/Cancer-Research-UK_482.jpg)

I'm still not overly impressed. Too busy, doesn't translate well to b/w.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Carl-E on 31 Aug 2012, 18:39
AUGH!   It looks like the big C's going metastatic...

[shivers]
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Elysiana on 31 Aug 2012, 19:00
Okay, so I'm not the only one who thought the logo itself looks a little like cancer? Thought I was just being morbid.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: BeoPuppy on 01 Sep 2012, 05:47
Was that the intention, you think? Seems morbid but more idiotic things have happened.
Title: Re: Good logo? Bad logo?
Post by: Carl-E on 01 Sep 2012, 09:55
I think it's meant to be a dot version of the people coming together, but with no sense of direction from the way the people face, it really looks like cells spreading.