Designer News
Where the design community meets.
over 5 years ago from Bryan Zavestoski, Product Design @ Zavzen Design
it's one font in 21 widths and 7 weights. https://sharptype.co/typefaces/sharp-grotesk/
It says they have 259. Like it’s a good thing.
I think this may be part of the issue.
Constraint is a good thing, having too many font weights can be a problem in itself. Add in different widths and you've multiplied the problem.
Also, I strongly dislike the trend of these wide fonts. Even the short headlines are difficult to read. It reminds me of the Audi rebrand. http://www.audi.com/ci/en/renewed-brand.html
I don't mind the wide font trend personally—but the lack of constraints in these kind of redesigns (huge variability in typographic hierarchy, enormously large, remixable color palettes) to me seem to undercut a core function of effective branding. If they're really going after only the creative segment as a way to differentiate, it could work for them—we don't know all their research on that. But in general I feel the look leads to a weaker aesthetic.
I think they are waiting for someone to say that so that they can reply – it's 1 typeface with 259 fonts (which is technically the correct way to use 'font')
I love the part when they say: "dont fill the logo, use only the authorized colors" (more than 50 colors variations provided)
Designer News
Where the design community meets.
Designer News is a large, global community of people working or interested in design and technology.
Have feedback?
How can a brand that got soooo much right get this soooo wrong?
I think we have a strong contender for worst rebrand/redesign of the year.
259 fonts! Two. Hundred. And. Fifty. Nine!
That doesn’t demonstrate diversity. It demonstrates a lack of direction.
As sad/weird/melodramatic as this may sound; I’ve never felt so angry about a rebrand before. I feel betrayed.