And it's done very, very bad...

I’ve seen that also on book jackets of a German publisher. Totally merde.

Some of the glyphs have 100% the same outline and spacing like Frutiger Bold. Most of the round glyphs have additinal points but match exactly too.

But I think a company using such a "Frutiger" is worth it. :-)

--astype.de--

I hate it when so-called designers think they're doing something really creative by just chopping ascenders and terminals at a really severe ugly angle.

It's quick-fix-crap that probably costs the client a fortune, as they're bamboozled by some marketing jerk's designer-wank gobbledygook.

Look at this monstrosity for a major UK retail group, Eric will be turning in his grave:

Nick Cooke

I wonder if the guy who did it had remorse and called it Guilt Sans?

ChrisL

I noticed the 'John Lewis' sign while visiting London last spring. There is bad, and there is embarassingly bad. Deserves some kind of doubious distinction award.

Hey typophilers, what if Typophile had an annual 'worst logo' award, with votes and all? Would that be too unkind? Would it be a public service?

How about best and worst recent logos?

Lettertiep - you can, as long as you have the original font licenced for the correct number of users. And depending on the EULA.

To get back to the JL logo - look how thick the stem of the J is compared to the L.
The amateur who did it couldn't even figure out how to make it the same thickness.

Lorp - I think you must have been in that meeting, that conversation seems uncannily accurate.

Nick Cooke

If the font was licensed from Linotype, you cannot modify the fonts.

Do you really think the people that made the John Lewis logo were going for PoMo?

The problem with both the Frutiger-y Freeway Demi and the John Lewis Gill-otine is that they look bad.

The dot on the j of Freeway is too small, and those 45° angles look silly and are needlessly wasteful for space. (Sorry is that's a HiMo - High Modernist - comment.) Similarly, the John Lewis logo just looks bad. The three modified letters: "J", "L", and "e" all look much worse having gone under the knife than they do in their natural form. (I posted last night about how sad it is to see the results of Melanie Griffith and Meg Ryan going under the knife...)

William, I only used the term PoMo after I had described my initial impression of the logo as "post-modern". Post-modernism is not trendy, it's a major cultural trend.
I'm not saying you should accept it, only that traditional (or as chester mentions, high-modern) aesthetic criteria are not particularly relevant to it: Ideas are more important than appearance.

Not in typefaces and logos.

Typography is not immune to Post-modernism.
Compare the present-day post-modern use of a generic sans, Arial, to the modernist use of a generic sans, Helvetica, 40 years ago. Then, Helvetica would be used for formalist reasons, as a reductive design that works well in a minimalist layout. Now, Arial would be used because it is the default that everybody uses. Non-aesthetic design logic.

The idea behind the John Lewis logo is that their corporate face, used for POP and media advertising (see their web site) is off-the-shelf Gill Sans, and the logo is a "treated" version of it.

Do you actually think this is a defensible idea?

I'm explaining the way things are, not passing judgement.

...come here and you can find clothes and furniture that are really ugly...

In practice, there is no hard-and-fast requirement for stylistic correlation between the type used marketing a product and that product.

The site you link says that these "ugly" designs are "easy to use, fast to load, and uncluttered" and not slick.

Si, that sounds like good design to me. Pretty isn't the only thing to good design. Actual ugliness I can't believe helps if you are selling clothes and furniture, like John Lewis.

What the article I think is saying is that slickness and polish doesn't necessarily help help sell. I've heard of this for example for used cars and other cut rate stuff. If you look too slick and pretty people think it's too expensive for them. You can have good design that isn't slick or pretty, but I don't know where ugly helps.

RE: What exactly do you mean by Post-Modern here? That design should ignore aesthetics?

I don't think you are bothering to read what Nick is saying here. He explained his idea succinctly & very well. He wasn't defending po-mo just describing it. You are still reacting to the design alone.

Personally I think equating Po-mo aesthetic with ugliness is silly. Also, I want to highlight one the points Nick was making indrectly. It isn't neccesary for a type face to be conceived with 'Po-mo' in mind for the use or design using that type to be Po-mo.

It is probably true that it is harder to make a type face with long term value while satisfing a po-mo urge than it is to make one without. But those 90's po-mo stuff did sell stuff - not becvause they were ugly ( even if they were perhaps ) but because they said things in a 'voice' that was exciting at the time. They had a purpose & the purpose was served.

All that said; I do think the John Lewis Logo is incredibly dubious.

Here is a po-typeface that works quite well for it's purpose:

http://www.mutek.ca/2006/index.php?lang=en

And I don't think it's ugly. Maybe it's not a face for the ages but... so what?

Oh yeah. That fruiger rip-off sucks in principle.

I was told that the John Lewis logo was by Pentagram.

Phil

Strangely enough, the Ayuntamiento de Granada uses NMBS Freeway for messages on recycle bins.