The BIG10 released a clever new logo recently designed by Pentagram partners Michael Bierut and Michael Gericke. The new mark, which is pretty dang brilliant, has come with a heap of criticism from Big 10 fans and sports fans alike. Has the Gap fiasco ushered in a new era of vocal entitlement for every new logo released?
The new Big10 logo is really smart. Forming a one work mark (out of two) is a rare and brilliant solution. Several reviewers have made harsh comments such as “It looks like it took 24 seconds to make”, “It’s too simple, that’s all they could come up with”, and one person simply barking, “It’s too cookie cutter”. Compared to most sports logos it is really simple, and that is why it is so great. When shiny chromed filled trends are going out of style, solid design principles will remain. An effective logo is built to last. Some critics are even calling for the new Big10 logo to be removed and the old version to be reinstated.
If you want to read more a in-depth article on the rebrand click here.
It seems in today’s world, especially after Gap, everyone feels entitled to speak out against a new mark. Are we in a new place where proven design principles are at the mercy of the people’s emotional subjectivity? How would Paul Rand’s IBM logo fair in today’s climate (or storm) of social media feedback? Would it be pulled from the shelves because it’s “Too cookie cutter”?
Is this trend a good or bad thing for the future of logo design?