14 Comments on "USA Today Redesign"

  • felix says

    The new logo is almost like a par­ody of min­i­mal­ist design (not to say I don’t like it).

  • Fisher says

    Don’t like it. Talk about phon­ing it in! They used the sim­plest font, the sim­plest graphic ele­ment and tied it together with a color scheme (which could have been done with prac­ti­cally any logo). OOOOHHHHH!!! AAAAHHHHHHH!!! A middle-school kid with absolutely no art back­ground would have come up with the same thing on the first try. LAME!!!! What were the ideas that were thrown out?!? The square? The tri­an­gle? As a graphic designer, it reminds me of what hap­pens when a client who has no train­ing designs their own web­page or ad or logo. Hope they didn’t pay too much for it. Well at least I can now tell all my clients who are look­ing for a cir­cle as their logo that it is now copy­righted. Maybe I can sell them on the square?!

  • Mark says

    Absolutely love it. Us Cana­di­ans have to catch up!

  • This reminds me of the sim­plis­tic car­ton design Trop­i­cana came up with a few years back (who sub­se­quently received a lot of harsh feed­back). Very “Pleasantville”-like in that it is also very simplistic.

    I per­son­ally like it. As a graphic/web designer, I’ve seen phases where peo­ple were all about grunge and tex­tures, then all about min­i­mal­ist designs (I admit, I indulged a bit in both). In the end, the focus should be on what­ever con­tent is being pro­vided. If a super sim­plis­tic logo/mark aides in that, I have no prob­lem with it.

    Microsoft has already gone in this direction…I’m look­ing for­ward to see who else under­goes a rad­i­cal design change.

  • DK says

    Home run. This stands out in a sea of oth­er­wise under­whelm­ing news­pa­per design in the US.

  • Rob says

    Looks great, the web­site is a mas­sive step for­ward for a newspapers.

  • Jung says

    It def­i­nitely stands out. I kinda have a love / hate feel­ing about it. I feel like this is another case of “DC comics” where the mark was under­whelm­ing, but the exten­sion of the brand­ing really brought it to life.

    Either way, refresh­ing to see com­pany as big as USA Today to have the cojones to go this direc­tion. Can’t help to won­der how the approval process was like. This couldn’t have been a large com­mit­tee effort.

  • Alex Tokmakchiev says

    Well, I love it. It’s sim­ple, modern-looking and illustrative.

  • Lucia says

    Unfor­tu­nately, it’s also unread­able. It’s a news­pa­per, folks, and poor typog­ra­phy has ren­dered the effort a fail­ure. It longer func­tions as a news deliv­ery sys­tem. Or, maybe that’s the point: per­haps the mess is intended to drive us all to dig­i­tal media so they can stop print­ing those inef­fi­cient hard copies?

  • John says

    I do not like it at all. It looks cheap. The text is very light and dif­fi­cult to read, the font looks ele­men­tary, the mar­gins appear too big. It reminds me of a cheap local paper. I used to read USA Today cover to cover, but now I am not even both­er­ing to pur­chase it. GO BACK!

  • This iden­tity works well. Although sim­ple it has a bold appli­ca­tion that makes it very strong.

  • Rasoul says

    They should work more on US Today iOS appli­ca­tion UI design , their com­peti­tor have great UI that are sim­ple and intuitive.

  • Yes, it is redesigned after a long time and it looks good than before. It is very attrac­tive and makes peo­ple easy to go through the well designed nav­i­ga­tion to their favorite topics.