Museum of London Re-Brand

D

Dave1975

Active Member
The different parts of the Museum will now be known as Museum of London, Museum of London Docklands and Museum of London Archaeology, respectively.

The striking new logo, designed by award winning agency Coley Porter Bell, takes the conceptual form of London’s thumbprint. Coloured layers map the shape of London over time, reflecting the ever-changing, diverse and dynamic make up of London and Londoners, past, present and future. The brand mark has been crafted to create visual impact, and link the Museum venues.

The colour palettes of Museum of London Docklands and Museum of London Archaeology’s new logos, feed into the layers of the main brand mark, creating a family of three destinations, united in a single mission: to inspire a passion for London. And London is written through the new logo, whose typeface echoes the city’s iconic street signage.
Click to expand...
museum-of-london.gif


Full press release from the Museum of London can be seen here:
Museum of London - Museum of London takes on a new identity

Do you like the new branding?
Greg
 
i saw this and quite like it. When i heard about the rebrand i feared it to be along the lines of The Olympic dabacle. This is pleasantly contemporary and fresh. I like the slab branding and that the branding on web echoes the original red slab logo. It therefore gives existing viewers a familiarity with the brand without alienting them from scratch. ( like the Olympics). Interesting how 'Old London and Red' is being slowly phased out. All we need now is a President of the UK. Sorry I forgot Simon Cowell has that job.
 
I was really keen on the combinations of colourways, of the two new museum ventures - Docklands & Archaeology and how they come together to form the main MOL logo of the branding. I'm looking forward to seeing how the roll out the new branding on everything from the signage to promotional literature.

Berry said:
All we need now is a President of the UK. Sorry I forgot Simon Cowell has that job.
Click to expand...
I thought Dizzee Rascal was up for that job? :lol:
 
It looks pretty, that's about it.

What is it? I don't get it, I can't really describe it.

I give it 2 years max, then it will be redone.
 
The original link I posted seems to be down temporarily, but I found this explanation on another site;

As well as suggesting a thumbprint, reflecting the 'mark' Londoners have made on their city, the dynamic 'layering' is intended to reflect an ever-changing city, with the coloured layers mapping out the shape of London's past, present and future. The logotype draws influences from the city's typographic heritage, echoing iconic street signage.
Click to expand...
 
After reading that explanation I hate it even more! What total and utter designer bull! Good grief, do they really believe all that!

I get the impression it was design by committee.
 
Its not for me like - its an improvement, but it still looks like a bad seventies linear geographical map.

And like Lee - it does also look like a virus. Im gonna say - Bird Flu, SARS and Cholera.
 
Please don't take this as criticism tbwcf, but why do you like it?

I say the same thing to clients. It's not important to like a logo. Logo's are not there to be liked. They are there to perform a task. If it meets the needs of the brief, even if you hate it, then that is the right choice.

If the brief in this case was to look like the ebola virus, then the designers have done a great job. I suggest that this wasn't the case...
 
If the brief was for the logo to be distinctive and memorable then does it fit the brief? I'm not saying that it does that for the right reasons, I'm sure the virus comparison isn't something they were aiming for!
 
Hmm, I would love to know what the exact brief was? What message did the museum want to convey with the logo?

My impressions of the said museum dont tally with the feeling that the logo is giving me (nausea)...I rather like museums.
 
Lee Newham said:
Please don't take this as criticism tbwcf, but why do you like it?

I say the same thing to clients. It's not important to like a logo. Logo's are not there to be liked. They are there to perform a task. If it meets the needs of the brief, even if you hate it, then that is the right choice.

If the brief in this case was to look like the ebola virus, then the designers have done a great job. I suggest that this wasn't the case...
Click to expand...

I like it because I think it is visually appealing, is unique, not IMO trying to be over cleaver or follow trends, leadgeable and recognizable.

I think it has a nice use of typography, the words museum of london stand off the background very strong, the designer hasn't tried to block out the "museum" to be the same width as the "of london" he/she/they are confident in their design that the "of london" extends out from the word museum.

I also think the "blobs" if you like in the background represent the shape of London (could be wrong?) & change (if you want to get deep about it).

I think its been executed well and confidently.

That's about the best I can do I think to describing why I like it & to be honest it's not one of those logos I would struggle to understand people disliking.

As for how well it works on posters, signage etc I can't comment as I'm yet to see any but I would hope it has been thought through well enough to stand up to it.

I would love to see the corporate guidelines for it to be honest!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top