However, I have now actually looked into it and am aware of which design agency actually did it – Wolff Olins. Yep, they were also responsible for the controversial London 2012 Olympics logo/brand.
Overall, I like it. It seems more current and appropriate, and it certainly makes sense for the charity to have one global identity. Although I could certainly point out a few good and bad things – my personal opinion of course.
I don't have a problem with the capitalisation of “Oxfam” in the logo, nor in the campaign materials – it seems like a fairly friendly font, as far as uppercase letters go (again, just what I think). Although I'm not entirely sure why Wolff Olins decided to remove the counters from some of the letters and not others. I guess the “O” could be seen to represent Oxfam but why take it out of an A and R but not P or D? But anyway, it's better than the Cooper Black they had before.
I like the colours, although some combinations work better than others. It’s good that not everything is Oxfam’s green but that it is still their colour. I also think the logo works particularly well when in white on the plain bold colours.
But really what’s important is that Oxfam’s purpose and message remains the same and that it doesn’t get clouded by bright colours and letters without counters.
“Wolff Olins helped Oxfam to define its role – what it offers to people around the world, as a global movement for change – and to talk about what it does in an optimistic yet uncompromising way, setting a vision for the future. We also brought to the surface its underlying character – being both practical and visionary.” – Wolff Olins
EDIT: Wait, why did they stick the word “NOW” over someone’s face?
So, Tooze and I could probably have done it for a hell of a lot less than what Wolff Olins charged but then could we have done as good a job? No.