LogoMaven | Easy Logo Design Software & Logo Maker LogoMaven – Easiest way to learn logo design!
What’s wrong with the New Metropolitan Logo?
Changing the logo of a company or organization is tantamount to changing the brand of the company. A lot of discretion needs to be exercised because the new logo might spark off negative reactions from ardent brand followers. A recent case was witnessed when The Metropolitan Museum of Art decided to change their old logo and adopt a new scarlet palette. The choice seemed not to be a popular one because the new logo was resisted by so many people.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art opened a new modern art annex on Madison Avenue, and they thought that they could take advantage of the new development to have a new logo. However, the redesign did not work well for the branding needs of the company. To many, the redesign got the label as a “disaster”, and other also termed it as a “graphics misfire”.
In an attempt to try and defend the redesign, the museum accepted the fact that the new logo could probably not be accepted by everyone but according to them, they needed something bold, simple, and indisputable and that was what the new logo represented. So why exactly did the new logo spark of such geysers of negative reviews? We take a look at the old logo as well as the new one and see why some people might have been disappointed in the new look of the company.
The old logo of the museum was nothing but an M while the new one has replaced the M with “The MET” written in capital letters and made to appear as if the two words are flowing into one another. Forming the Metropolitan new logo. The new design was the work of Wolff Olins from their New York Office.
According to the designers, they are actually pleased that people are talking about the new logo and they are not bothered by the negativities being expressed from some quarters. To them, their objective is to come up with designs that people talk about. They defended the new design by saying that other than being visually appealing, it captures the essence of the museum, and it is aimed at expanding the reach and the relevance of The Metropolitan Museum of Arts. This was seen as an improvement on the old logo.
The new logo is scheduled to start being used from March and it was not just a normal logo change but a drive in enhancing the branding of the museum. The campaign will include other elements such as signage and many more to revamp the decade-long look of the museum.
The initial logo of the museum relied only on the use of a symbol, but the new one has discarded this approach as it uses words that have been commonly used to refer to the museum, “The Met”. As a result, therefore, the new logo has an immediacy which speaks to all audiences once they see it. They no longer try to figure out what the M is all about since they will see a name that they are already used to. In as much as they try to defend the logo, the new design is still continuing to get loads of criticism from even some of the most respected quarters.
Justin Davidson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture and art critic issued a blistering assessment of the logo comparing it to a red double-decker bus which has stopped and shoving passengers on each other’s back. To him, the logo is nothing but two short words printed scarlet letters before being squashed and tucked together. He also thought that the logo gave much prominence to the word “THE” and this has no relevance to the museum.
Another respected Arts critic found issues with the logo and thought that the museum ought not to have adopted such a design for a new logo. According to Judith H. Dobryznksi, the museum has traded a classic image they had held for years for a more minimalist design. To her, this shouldn’t have been the case since the museum now risks losing an identity and an image it had for long and which most of the fans had loved so much.
Another independent illustrator and designer, Steve Cup, thinks that the concept of minimalism in logo design has come as a late adoption by the museum. From his perspective, this is a concept that has been around for some time. He regrets that the museum has just woken up to realize that they needed to have such a logo.
But all the raging criticism on the new logo are expected, especially when you dealing with a big brand with a huge following. Not everyone is bound to accept it, but as long as it serves the branding needs of the organization.
