English Heritage have updated their logo for the first time ever. It’s a really ambitious rebrand, as you can see.
July 7, 2024
English Heritage have updated their logo for the first time ever. It’s a really ambitious rebrand, as you can see.
by SilyLavage
18 comments
The old one has better font.
I’m sure the amount spent on consultants to change a font was fully worth it.
The old one looks more on brand as ‘heritage’. The new one is more legible and accessible for losing the all caps.
Every penny of the £5m spent on that design was fully justified (no pun intended) and if some old castle falls into the swamp through lack of maintenance, well, we’ve got more.
They just applied a bit of blusher
What is CaBackwardsSixW?
The old font was more appropriate I would say.
…As someone who’s currently creating the artwork for a sign that features their (old) logo prominently. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS!
Why does every organisation feel the need to update their branding to the most homogenous, sterile, boring shite ever? If anything requires a serif font it’s a heritage organisation. This new logo wouldn’t look out of place for a bank or investment firm if it weren’t for the words themselves.
What a waste of money and time.
The old font read as more heritage (serifs have an old feel). The readability and general look is the same. And, my biggest-tiny gripe, *the logo has lost the subtle height changes that brought to mind a castle wall*, so is ever so slightly worse!
The swap from serif to sans serif is probably a big deal when so many of the people you interact with are older and have poorer eyesight.
It looks like a small change but in likelihood the team behind it actually have data to back up the improvement and can show an improvement of readability over x amount of metres.
This stuff sounds simple until you try to do it yourself and you realise actually it’s very complex and small decisions can have large impacts to readability and cost.
Why has everyone become so allergic to serifs? They are so much nicer to look at.
My uni (highlands and islands) updated there logo from mountain with Heather colours representative of the Highlands to err a black and white cross that looks like the Cornwall flag iirc.
It’s also a place for everyone which I thought was weird given the chromatic (?) Colour scheme.
Old one superior.
Next update will be comic sans.
Logo change aside, the rebrand itself is more of a measure of success. The logo is just one asset of the brand. It might be better communicated holistically now, we don’t know from this post however
It’s giving ‘Yorkshire Air Ambulance’ vibes. Similar colour and font.
I much prefer the second image with black text/red symbol on white. The font feels more traditional and representational of pre-20th century heritage to my eyes.
The red on black of the first image feels a little 1970s/1980s horror film to me and the font feels like it belongs in kids’ textbooks or a railway station. Not my cup of tea.
The third image is just showing a black background for me.
18 comments
The old one has better font.
I’m sure the amount spent on consultants to change a font was fully worth it.
The old one looks more on brand as ‘heritage’. The new one is more legible and accessible for losing the all caps.
Every penny of the £5m spent on that design was fully justified (no pun intended) and if some old castle falls into the swamp through lack of maintenance, well, we’ve got more.
They just applied a bit of blusher
What is CaBackwardsSixW?
The old font was more appropriate I would say.
…As someone who’s currently creating the artwork for a sign that features their (old) logo prominently. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS!
Why does every organisation feel the need to update their branding to the most homogenous, sterile, boring shite ever? If anything requires a serif font it’s a heritage organisation. This new logo wouldn’t look out of place for a bank or investment firm if it weren’t for the words themselves.
What a waste of money and time.
The old font read as more heritage (serifs have an old feel). The readability and general look is the same. And, my biggest-tiny gripe, *the logo has lost the subtle height changes that brought to mind a castle wall*, so is ever so slightly worse!
The swap from serif to sans serif is probably a big deal when so many of the people you interact with are older and have poorer eyesight.
It looks like a small change but in likelihood the team behind it actually have data to back up the improvement and can show an improvement of readability over x amount of metres.
This stuff sounds simple until you try to do it yourself and you realise actually it’s very complex and small decisions can have large impacts to readability and cost.
Why has everyone become so allergic to serifs? They are so much nicer to look at.
My uni (highlands and islands) updated there logo from mountain with Heather colours representative of the Highlands to err a black and white cross that looks like the Cornwall flag iirc.
It’s also a place for everyone which I thought was weird given the chromatic (?) Colour scheme.
Old one superior.
Next update will be comic sans.
Logo change aside, the rebrand itself is more of a measure of success. The logo is just one asset of the brand. It might be better communicated holistically now, we don’t know from this post however
It’s giving ‘Yorkshire Air Ambulance’ vibes. Similar colour and font.
I much prefer the second image with black text/red symbol on white. The font feels more traditional and representational of pre-20th century heritage to my eyes.
The red on black of the first image feels a little 1970s/1980s horror film to me and the font feels like it belongs in kids’ textbooks or a railway station. Not my cup of tea.
The third image is just showing a black background for me.