NOTE: This is an archived version of the first incarnation of Brand New. All posts have been closed to comments. Please visit underconsideration.com/brandnew for the latest version. If you would like to see this specific post, simply delete _v1 from the URL.
While you were playing with your new gadgets that Santa Claus (or your credit card) brought you this past December 25th, the Science Channel, one of the channels from Discovery Communications LLC, unveiled a new identity that positions it on par with popular sister channel TLC, that has a unique identity, by stripping the parent company’s endorsing globe and letting the eight-year-old channel stand on its own. The old logo was, without a doubt, unflattered by its orbiting swoosh eclipsing the otherwise respectable blocky typography that would make for a nice sci-fi novel cover — it said science without hitting you over the head with it. The new logo (designed in-house), on the other hand, is a little less subtle with the clear-as-helium reference to the periodic table. Truth be told, it makes for a great logo, specially on TV, as it will look great and recognizable when rendered small on screen, but I wonder if it’s slightly clichéd? My first reaction is yes but, after all, it is a channel about science and they can easily own the notion of periodic table element as logo better than others could. The logo is set in Avant Garde with some surgery done to the n’s, giving it an unnecessary (in my opinion) added layer of trendiness… and, until now, I hadn’t realized how condensed and out of place Avant Garde’s s is, specially in contrast to other round characters like the c, but I digress. The new identity feels fresh and lively — unfortunately, since I am vacationing in Mexico at the moment, I can’t check the TV applications, so if anyone would like to vouch for this, I would be very thankful — and an important step for the channel to be perceived independently of its parent company, and its push to create new and original programming.
Jump to Most Recent Comment
Audrée Lapierre’s comment is:
I like the "periodic table" look... but something about the typo seems off...
On Dec.29.2007 at 11:31 AM
andrew miller’s comment is:
I actually saw this in action for the first time last night. I'm not familiar with the channel because I don't get it at home, so I didn't realize it was a redesign, but I instantly took notice of it and its periodic table reference. You instantly know its a channel about science.
I think it does work well on screen, especially in its small version down in the corner. but the word "science" underneath it struck me as off center in the logo animation. I can see now that its not, but I still think it needs to be flush left or more optically centered.
As for the typography, I think in the square its nice and speaks "periodic table" as it should, but the wordmark below feels awkward with that tiny looking s.
Overall a huge improvement, though. Mark another one down for the in-house designers.
On Dec.29.2007 at 11:56 AM
Bjorn Yeo’s comment is:
A very effective reference to its main purpose of screening science related shows, so the "periodic table" look is well used here. I especially like the orange/tangerine that they chose, which reproduces nicely on RGB screens, and also has that sense of being new and fresh.
That being said, there does seem to be too many different points that parts of the logo are being aligned to. The "Sc" to the edge of the box, the word "Science" to the middle of it and "Channel" to the edge of "Science". Seems rather clunky and I am sure there are better ways of doing it.
On Dec.29.2007 at 12:14 PM
david casey’s comment is:
Armin, I'm curious why you feel the n modification was unnecessary. There is nothing novel about the idea of knocking out a letter or a couple letters from a box (regardless of the periodic table concept), so to change the n perhaps makes it a little more interesting. And with the rate logos seem to last anymore, why not make it trendy? Could you expound?
I think I would have nudged the wordmark to the left one or two clicks...it feels a little right-heavy. I like the fitting of channel under science. The l sits nicely under the e and the h and n visually line up without crouding.
On Dec.29.2007 at 12:26 PM
Armin’s comment is:
David, I just don't feel that the logo gains anything by making kooky n's. The original stem of the Avant Garde n says science and didacticism more than the space age, bauhaus-inspired, 180-degreed u's. It feels too retro. Everything else is pretty straightforward, so that feels like it's trying too hard to be cool.
On Dec.29.2007 at 12:36 PM
eighthave’s comment is:
It's definitely better than what they had before, but I've noticed (though I can't think of the examples right now) that since Adobe started using the periodic table theme for their products, it is becoming more and more popular in other places, like here. Wherever else I saw it it didn't make much sense to use it, but here it's a great fit, if not a groundbreaking idea. The letterspacing all around seems a bit uncomfortable, it needed another round of revision, I think, but overall a move in the right direction.
Dave
On Dec.29.2007 at 01:07 PM
K. West’s comment is:
Ah, the Adobe Illustrator CS3 Channel.
On Dec.29.2007 at 02:40 PM
df’s comment is:
I don't like it at all--a big step backwards.
And those e's are top-heavy--it doesn't look like they actually would meet up if the tail continued upwards.
On Dec.29.2007 at 04:18 PM
Jeff Peppers’s comment is:
i like the idea of the periodic table
the lowercase underneath reads as unicase..
maybe better type choice is necessary.. or something.. all caps? type looks flimsy.
On Dec.29.2007 at 04:50 PM
Mark’s comment is:
very nice...
I saw it yesterday on the TV and it was a pleasant surprise.
I love how the "S" interacts with the edge of the box, well done.
The swoosh had to go.
On Dec.29.2007 at 04:59 PM
rickyaustin’s comment is:
df,
you really think the earth-swoosh and heavy black type was better?
regardless of whether someone likes this mark, I kind of assumed most would see it as a step forward
On Dec.29.2007 at 07:13 PM
Dylan D’s comment is:
K. West’s comment is:
Ah, the Adobe Illustrator CS3 Channel.
That is the first thing I thought of when I saw that. Looks like their in-house designer has spent way too long sitting in front of his Mac...
On Dec.29.2007 at 07:21 PM
d been’s comment is:
It's been said, but this is way too reminiscent of Adobe's icons. If this were my assignment, I would have taken the periodic table "off the table", or at least reimagined it. Science affords so many opportunities, from dna strands to lab instruments, that this appears to be a case of lowest hanging fruit.
I am impressed to see that the science channel put their trust in their in-house department. I can only imagine the political machinations during the development process.
Otherwise, it is a nice clean, easily read mark.
On Dec.29.2007 at 10:07 PM
milan’s comment is:
the 'n' characters probably look weird because the 'c' characters are making them too lateral. the stem would balance out the flow from 'c' to 'n'.
even so, i like the tweaked letter.
i would tweak the 'c' to make the 'n' and 's' feel more at home.
On Dec.30.2007 at 12:14 AM
Jw’s comment is:
I saw this last night and liked it. I absolutely hated the old one- anything with an ellipse pretty much immediately gets my negative vote. This is a refreshing change- something that channel really needed. I wish they hadn't shifted the "Sc" over to the edge though... seems like a trivial move. Depsite Adobe's largely annoying use of the periodic table look, I think it would be quite appropriate for the Science Channel to make it as true to a normal chart as possible.
On Dec.30.2007 at 09:35 AM
Ryan Hembree’s comment is:
I normally don't chime in, but I really like this new logo. My wife, who is very much a left brain business person, saw this logo and said "I like it; it looks like a periodic table." When you can take anyone off the street and show them this logo, and they know immediately what it is supposed to represent, that makes it exceptional, in my opinion. Think back to the original UPS logo designed by Paul Rand--he showed it to his 4 year old daughter and asked what it was, and her response was "why that's a present, daddy."
While I agree with the Adobe CS icon comments, I don't think that the similarity should be a reason to take the periodic table reference out of consideration. I have seen way too many references to DNA or other scientific instruments—if I may use another scientific principle here, what about the idea of Akum's Razor (spelling?), which states that sometimes the simplest explanation (or in this case, solution), is the correct one.
On Dec.30.2007 at 12:47 PM
d been’s comment is:
It's hard to argue against the idea that if a logo is representational, it should be immediately and clearly read as what it is supposed to represent. It's equally difficult to argue that that should be the overriding or only criteria for an effective logo. The beauty of Paul Rand's UPS logo is that while it is read as a package, it has other meaning (shield, crest, protection, official, whatever).
Yes, the Science Channel says periodic table, as does Adobe and others. Beyond that, I'd be hard pressed to discern other cues that provide a deeper meaning or a point of differentiation. Perhaps rounded corners to denote a tv screen, or circles on the right for knobs?
I guess my point is that this logo, while fresh, clean, concise and all of that, doesn't have the depth that will carry it for the next few years.
On Dec.30.2007 at 02:45 PM
Chris’s comment is:
Nice looking simple logo and good periodic table reference, but the thing I like most about it is the fact that Discovery Channel is letting the Science Channel be its own brand. I've been working with some clients lately that have found that using the mother brand's ID cues have been hurting the mother brands equity more than it actually helps the smaller brand. A step in the right direction for both brands.
On Dec.30.2007 at 09:40 PM
Lee Bennett’s comment is:
I'm wondering if the "Discovery" part is being diminished from most (all?) of the channels. Discovery HD Theater recently has been identifying itself only as "HD Theater."
On Dec.30.2007 at 11:04 PM
Mark’s comment is:
Lee, you are indeed correct, it's even indicated on their webpage, was it probably made to short the name? (that's my best guess)
Now if only they can fix the Travel Channel logo
Danny Tanner’s comment is:
I'm thankful that the Discovery owned channels might be getting rid of their ridiculous globes. Their is nothing more that pisses me off when Im watching television than multicolored do-dads spinning around and popping up in the corner of my screen. Give me a white ghosted something...
As for the logo, expected? A little. Adobe CS3 doesn't matter, as it lives in a totally different space as the science channel. Armin, I'm in total agreement about the type, it almost feels like 2 logos.
The periodic table reference makes sense, however to be brutally honest, it would fit better if it were called the chemistry channel. There are many different kinds of sciences, and not all of them make use of the basic elements or the periodic table. Its not a big deal, people usually associate the periodic table with science in general, not any specific branch.
Representing the word "science" with "Sc" is a bit disturbing. I've never seen the word science abbreviated in that ways before. The Biography channels new identity makes sense because "bio" is a common abbreviation. The history channel simply uses "H" as it is a single word. I might feel more comfortable if it were "Sci" as in SCIFI, something I'm used to. However, the periodic table icon would then be impossible. Weigh you pros and cons.
Hopefully Animal Planet and the Travel Channel will follow suit in migrating away from the globe.
On Dec.31.2007 at 02:23 PM
ryan’s comment is:
I think that the abbreviation to "Sc" is due to "S"cience and "c"hannel, not an abbreviation of the word "science"; at least, that is how I read it...
On Dec.31.2007 at 02:37 PM
christopher’s comment is:
It is interesting how a design idea proliferates. It seems that periodic table thing is quite popular right now, with the Adobe suite make-over and a number of other brand looks, although I can't name them off the top of my head right now.
At least this one is truly appropriate given the substance of the broadcasting, but nevertheless, it strikes me as a hack job.
corbu’s comment is:
Don't forget to include Dow Chemical's "Human Element" campaign into the mix ...
On Dec.31.2007 at 03:36 PM
Derrick’s comment is:
I really like that. Very simple, but it works.
On Dec.31.2007 at 06:05 PM
SBG’s comment is:
The Sci-Fi channel used to have a VERY similar logo. I guess it's appropriate since the Discovery channels have replaced the actual educational programming with shows about hauntings, UFOs, and cavemen with blonde hair, etc.
On Dec.31.2007 at 08:10 PM
nb’s comment is:
It's a little too close for comfort to the Iowa Science Center in both color and concept, at least for me anyway...
Could only find the reversed-out version at
http://www.sciowa.org/
Darrin Crescenzi’s comment is:
I think the only reason we're taking issue with this logo is because we have periodic table icons bouncing up and down in our docks all day. Disassociate yourself from your profession for just a moment, and see that this is a simple, effective execution that will be understood almost universally by anyone who actually watches the Science Channel.
Is it the most creative solution? Probably not, but this is one instance where taking the path of least resistance may have actually worked.
That said, and as pointed out by most every commenter, there are about a million tweaks to the typography and composition that would make this infinitely more tolerable. I think Dave said it best, one more round of refinement could have made a huge difference.
On Jan.01.2008 at 02:20 PM
mister_eaves’s comment is:
You hit the nail on the head in regards to Avant Garde's "S" being too narrow. It's the number one reason why I've always had to banish it from possibility in projects.
The "S" just seems too far out of place.
On Jan.01.2008 at 11:10 PM
Bassem B.’s comment is:
Adobe CS3 much?
On Jan.02.2008 at 06:08 AM
Hendrik-Jan Francke’s comment is:
My opinion is mostly positive and the logo is a significant improvement. Lots of people compared it to Adobe's which I certainly did at first site. Of course I like the orange. What do you plan to do when a distinctive color like orange falls out of favor in a 2-3 years? And I agree that the lower case s in the word science doesn't have enough weight to start the word. But all the comments about centering and flush right and stuff are just impossible to fix. If 'channel' was flush left the same comment could apply. I like that its flush right just because it isn't 'default'. And I think the S in the box works really well, in fact I think that can be a bit tricky to pull off. Placing those curves just right, so the letterform holds but the break in the edge of the box is 'loud' enough is tough.
On Jan.02.2008 at 07:19 AM
C-Lo’s comment is:
I say it works. Simple, ties in with something scientific and recognizable. Plus I am a sucker for Orange. Def. needs a new S in Science. But other then that it's fine. It works great as a subtle corner tag also from what I have seen.
Adobe eat your heart out.
On Jan.02.2008 at 02:17 PM
David Sanchez’s comment is:
Actually anything who doesn’t get the “The periodic table” execution on this ID, should not be in this Business. I personally think is sort of ordinarily but at the same time obvious in a way.
[Sc] stands for Scandium, atomic number 21. A Silvery white metal… thanks Wiki.
Science Chanel is taking brand ownership of the acronym of this rare metal.
On Jan.03.2008 at 11:29 AM
David Sanchez’s comment is:
Actually anything who doesn’t get the “The periodic table” execution on this ID, should not be in this Business. I personally think is sort of pedestrian but at the same time obvious to their target audience.
[Sc] stands for Scandium, atomic number 21. A Silvery white metal… thanks Wiki.
Science Chanel is taking brand ownership of the acronym of this rare metal.
On Jan.03.2008 at 11:29 AM
todd’s comment is:
this logo sucks! the designer of the previous logo is probably crying somewhere after seeing this new/old looking logo.
On Jan.05.2008 at 06:37 PM
Jenny’s comment is:
We can't possibly be sad about the end of the dynamic swoosh logo fad? I'm glad to see it go.
I know this Periodic Table thing has been done before... which means I don't expect it to get into any design annuals. But I don't think that makes it a bad solution. It's concept-oriented, extremely appropriate for the subject, and gives the brand a more current feel.
However, I do think the typeface choice is questionable. That lower-case s. Like others have said, it just seems so out of place. I also think the Sc starts to look stretched and uncomfortable inside the orange square. I'd love to see some nice bold Helvetica in there. Mmm.
Overall though, I'd say this was definitely a positive change.
On Jan.06.2008 at 08:30 PM
Casey’s comment is:
I saw this the other day and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is much better than the old logo and plays well in the motion graphics too.
And to all the comparisons to CS3 apps and the Science Channel just ripping off of those, Adobe shouldn't have gone with the Periodic Table in the first place, this is a much more proper implementation.
On Jan.08.2008 at 09:59 AM
David Burkhardt’s comment is:
The new logo is a bit boring. But what bothers me about it is it's not translucent. Anyone with a CRT or Plasma display will stay clear of watching a lot of programming on the science channel. Unless they would like a permanent ghost of their logo down in the corner. This goes with the bright red TLC logo as well.
Perhaps the discovery people should take note on how the major networks do their logos. Or maybe they just don't want people watching their programming.
Before someone says it... sure plasma/crt screens and the driving circuitry have made some advancements in terms of reducing screen burn in with various techniques/screen modifications. It can still happen... especially with a bright orange logo. Or a bright red one like the one on TLC...
On Jan.08.2008 at 06:30 PM
Johannes’s comment is:
Wanted to try this one with Chalet 1960:
(didn't touch "channel")
What do you think?
On Jan.10.2008 at 07:55 AM
Anon’s comment is:
I like this new logo. I'm also glad Discovery is phasing out the globe on non-Discovery-branded channels (Animal Planet is getting a new logo on Super Bowl Sunday, you can see it in promos for the Puppy Bowl). Now if only they could do something with the Travel Channel and Fit TV.
On Jan.22.2008 at 07:19 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I kind of liking that that new Animal Planet logo, you can spot it here:
http://animal.discovery.com/tv/puppy-bowl/puppy-bowl.html
nice inventive use of the letters, (especially the M}
On Jan.25.2008 at 05:17 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I'm kind of liking that that new Animal Planet logo, you can spot it here:
http://animal.discovery.com/tv/puppy-bowl/puppy-bowl.html
nice inventive use of the letters, (especially the M}
On Jan.25.2008 at 05:20 PM
Mark’s comment is:
I'm kind of liking that new Animal Planet logo, you can spot it here:
http://animal.discovery.com/tv/puppy-bowl/puppy-bowl.html
nice inventive use of the letters, (especially the M}
On Jan.25.2008 at 05:20 PM
John McCabe’s comment is:
cf. Adobe Creative Suite icons
On Jan.30.2008 at 09:02 AM
nydb’s comment is:
The previous logo more represented a true science theme; and was a much less obnoxious display on the screen. The corporate yes men responsible for this logo change seem to be the direct familial descendents of those executives who were portrayed in the classic film "Network".
This logo (justified under the guise of being periodic table derivitive), more directly reflects the current Network trend of following sister channel TLC's - formerly The Learning Channel & now widely know as The Loser Channel) downward spiral from genuine educational and informative programming to faddish and trendy substitution of educational quality television with entertainment based trash and sensationalistic programming. There seems to already be a plethoria of these 'contemporary/reality/sensationalistic' networks clamoring for advertising dollars by presenting mindless programming - must this network also adopt the corporate objective to join this herd of lemmings as they blindly jump off the cliff?
On Feb.04.2008 at 09:09 PM
Mark’s comment is:
wait a minute, someone actually preferred the previous, obnoxiously large logo?
On Feb.05.2008 at 10:48 AM
Anonymous’s comment is:
The old logo was definately not that good. I would never intersect the name science and the swoosh like that. Its very disturbing when logo graphics do that. They interfere too much with each other. Some basic rules of design for any good designer, very amatuer. their are better ways of handling that problem to make it more readible. The new look I like very much, its clean and simple and gets the point across. Its not the most original or creative , but it does work and has a nice feel. I do agree about the font chosen in the word science. Would have chose another font. Other than that I like it. works well on tv. The other look for tv was way to busy overdesigned needed to be cleaned up as they did. Great designers dont need the busy look to make great design. The more you add to get your look and communicate your idea the more amateur it is in my opinion. Cleanliness is godliness in design
On Feb.06.2008 at 02:12 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
The Biography Channel also has a nice clean look for TV
On Feb.06.2008 at 02:18 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
The Biography Channel also has a nice clean look for TV
On Feb.06.2008 at 02:18 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
The Biography Channel also has a nice clean look for TV
On Feb.06.2008 at 02:19 PM
John Boatwright’s comment is:
I agree with David Burkhardt, why they do not make it translucent is beyond me. I honestly have a hard time focusing on the programming now because my eye is constantly drawn back to the bright orange box.
I understand the need in this day and age to make clear what channel you are watching, but is it the most important information on the screen? I was under the impression the programming should be more important.
Other than that I think the logo is an improvement, but still to close to the Adobe apps and the others mentioned here.
On Feb.14.2008 at 05:20 PM
Ryan’s comment is:
They heard you! It's finally translucent.
On Feb.16.2008 at 10:32 PM
mike sipe’s comment is:
Please center the "Sc" in the box. I am a scientist and symmetry is an important aspect of science. I find myself looking at the logo with an uneasy feeling which eventually leads me to change the channel! Also, I wonder how much $$ the science channel spent on this logo when any first grader could have drawn this just as well.
On Feb.18.2008 at 05:04 PM
Yeison Agudelo’s comment is:
eh its ok i guess
its funny how all the
discovery networks are
loosing the globe
james braselton’s comment is:
HI THERE YOU GOT A NEW LG TV WOW NOW ONLY IF WE CAN HAVE BIG TOUCH SCRREN TVS OVER 32 INCHES WITH BUILT IN FLASH OR SOLID STATE DVRIVES TOO SAVE ENERGY THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
On Dec.22.2008 at 10:19 PM
james braselton’s comment is:
HI THERE YOU GOT A NEW LG TV WOW NOW ONLY IF WE CAN HAVE BIG TOUCH SCRREN TVS OVER 32 INCHES WITH BUILT IN FLASH OR SOLID STATE DVRS TOO SAVE ENERGY THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
On Dec.22.2008 at 10:20 PM
Anonymous’s comment is:
im saying all this as im watching science of the deep. I no the episode is old but I don't think taking the cealr jelly looking thing out the water is a good idea cause that one jelly thing could of eaten 100's of perasites that the humens might don't need or that we ant suppossed to have to be heathly in life. Then buy the time you know it thers a 1000 jelly orgasiams that they kill could be 100,000 perasites and I know that the channel coppany really can't do nothing about it but maybe you could just spread the word out a little bet. {Posted buy "JOSEPH GUTIEREZ"}
On May.08.2009 at 08:53 AM
Joseph Gutierrez’s comment is:
I'm sending this right after I watched a old episode of Science of the Deep and thers some things that I din't really understand cause these scientiest don't know what these jelly orgasiams are good for earth or not or what ther whole point on earth is but after what they showed I don't thnik it's a good idea to keep killing them just to experiment on them cause they are eating perasites in the ocean and they don't knowif they eat 100 pearasites or 100's of perasites and the scentiest don't know if ther perasites that humans don't need or that we'r not suposed to have.Then the scientiest could be killing 1,000's of those jelly orgasiams what means ther could be 100,000's of perasites that these scientiest don't even know it's good for humans or not. I know this is only the sc channle but maybe the sc could spread the word a little bit more to bigger people in the world.
On May.08.2009 at 09:29 AM
Comments in Brand New, V1.0 have been closed.
