Opinions on corporate and brand identity work.

A division of UnderConsideration.








Share ›

The Best and Worst Identities of 2014, Part 2: The Worst Reviewed

Announced Dec. 24, 2014 by Armin

Tags /

This is a first. I could only select six projects that fit the description of “Worst”. Last year I remember having a hard time finding 12 but I still managed. This year, at least in the Reviewed category, there were barely any projects that really made me cringe. There was a lot of boring or middle of the road work but projects deserving of being labeled as the worst representations of identity design were few. There weren’t any blunders from large companies and there weren’t any communally-hated projects. Which might be good news, there is less work that sucks! Still, here are the clunkers for this year.

Also:
Part 1: The Best Reviewed
Part 3: The Best Noted
Part 4: The Worst Noted
Part 5: Most Liked Friday Likes

In my original review I didn’t commit to not liking this project but now, in retrospect, I very much do. That “a” is just inexcusable and the rest of the wordmark isn’t helping.

Poll Results (Total Votes Cast)

Great

Fine

Bad

On Logo

14.4%

32.7%

52.8%

On Ads

7.4%

33.3%

59.3%

The problem here isn’t so much the new design — although it doesn’t do much — but the “strategy” to have two logos for the National Park Service at the same time is far from smart.

Poll Results (Total Votes Cast)

Great

Fine

Bad

On Foundation Evolution

12%

31.6%

56.3%

On New Logos

10.8%

30.5%

58.7%

On Double-Launch

5.6%

13.1%

81.2%

The arrow icon is passable and there were some decent applications but the wordmark, with those wimpy “r”s and tittle-less “i”, deserves to get lost in the mail.

Poll Results (Total Votes Cast)

Great

Fine

Bad

On Icon

28.1%

48.6%

23.4%

On Wordmark

16.3%

45.9%

37.8%

On Ads

34.5%

46.2%

19.2%

In all fairness this could have been much worse and the polls showed some remarkable mercy placing it more in the Fine than Bad range but, still, this could have also been much better with a slightly more grown-up vibe and less clip-arty branches.

Poll Results (Total Votes Cast)

Great

Fine

Bad

On Typography

18.1%

39.5%

42.5%

On Olive Branches

17.7%

48.3%

34.0%

An organization with such a storied global presence desrved better than this triangle overdose and uncomfortable wordmark.

Poll Results (Total Votes Cast)

Great

Fine

Bad

On Logo

3.8%

18.8%

77.4%

On Application

7.6%

43.3%

49.1%

With only three simple letters to not screw up, FCA managed to get all three wrong with a too-wide “F”, a nearly-“O”-ish “C”, and a bland “A”. To boot, it’s completely unbalanced horizontally.

Poll Results (Total Votes Cast)

Great

Fine

Bad

On Execution

1%

8.8%

90.1%

Comments


Share ›

Spotted Around the web

Spotted Feb. 22, 2017
Spotted Feb. 22, 2017
Spotted Feb. 21, 2017

Pinned Recent, Big Stories

Posted Jan. 4, 2017

Curated Best Posts Tagged “Blue”

Posted Jan. 26, 2017
Posted Dec. 5, 2016
 
 

About

Brand New, is a division of UnderConsideration, displaying opinions, and focusing solely, on corporate and brand identity work. More…

UnderConsideration is a graphic design firm generating its own projects, initiatives, and content while taking on limited client work. Run by Bryony Gomez-Palacio and Armin Vit in Austin, TX.

Many Thanks to our Advertisers

When choosing between competing products and services, please consider our advertisers, who help support Brand New.

Typography

Brand New uses Mercury Text ScreenSmart and Operator ScreenSmart from Hoefler & Co.

Webfonts by Hoefler & Co.

Join our Mailing List