New Sanford Logo

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

[zooropa]

Re: New Sanford Logo

I'm disappointed that they dropped Palatino for Times New Roman.

Palatino is a beautiful font. Times is serviceable at best, and bland at worst. It should never be used as a titling font. There are so many other, better, titling fonts out there.

[leeshajo]

Re: New Sanford Logo

The whole logo, from colors, to fonts, to the symbol, are BLAND and blah... someone somewhere commented it looks like they told their secretary to throw something together and this is what they came up with. I agree

[zooropa]

Re: New Sanford Logo

The whole logo, from colors, to fonts, to the symbol, are BLAND and blah... someone somewhere commented it looks like they told their secretary to throw something together and this is what they came up with. I agree

Nah.

IF you want something that bland you need two things:

A professional designer, and an inept client.

The secretary couldn't have made it bland enough. That kind of blandness takes talent.

[slosho]

Re: New Sanford Logo

Honestly (IMO) that is worse the the first couple of "proffessionaly" designed new SDSU logos.. Glad enough ppl complained about them when they were leaked.. our new logo(s) are great. the others I saw were sad at best... but this is worse.

On a Side note I think it should be illegal for a provider such as Sanford to offer a Health plan as they do. If I'm correct going to Avera cost's a person extra money on their plans.. Sorry that was a little OT I'll quit.

[zooropa]

Re: New Sanford Logo

This is what they were aiming for:




As you can see, they kind of swung and missed (although the Johns Hopkins logo is nothing to write home about: condensed serif fonts haven't been cool since the mid 80s).

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: New Sanford Logo

It's a logo. Who cares.

[Jacks-02]

Re: New Sanford Logo

I'm disappointed that they dropped Palatino for Times New Roman.

Palatino is a beautiful font. Times is serviceable at best, and bland at worst. It should never be used as a titling font. There are so many other, better, titling fonts out there.

99% of the public wouldn't know one from the other. May look bland to you but totally acceptable to most.

[1stRowFANatic]

Re: New Sanford Logo

I had to go and check the differences between the fonts. Not sure that I would say that either is beautiful or one better than the other. As for the whole logo, I didn't go gaga over it, but I didn't recoil from it either. Simple and straight forward.

And as to the side note, I've been told it works that way under Avera's also. I know that in the SF School District there was a difference between the systems also with Sanford being lower cost than Avera, but I think that has evened out now.

[zooropa]

Re: New Sanford Logo

99% of the public wouldn't know one from the other. May look bland to you but totally acceptable to most.

They couldn't *consciously* explain the difference, but they would notice it.

Invariably, a more delicate font would be described as being 'classy', 'more professional', etc.

If Target's products were as ugly as Wal-Mart's--if their advertising and their brand identity were as careless and slovenly as Wal-Mart's--they would be out of business. Their cost structure is as bad as K-Mart's, if not worse, compared to Wal-Mart. Good design is the fundamental driver of success at Target.

I'm not even going to get started on what good design has done for Apple.

While the Sanford rebranding isn't going to make or break the business, it is unfortunate that a dated but iconic and well done logo is being replaced by something so generic and so poorly done.

[slosho]

Re: New Sanford Logo

^^^ What he said!

[MontanaRabbit]

Re: New Sanford Logo

I'm just glad we have a font/logo expert on this site to explain everything to us.