How a logo relaunch almost ruined a global brand: Too much inclusivity at the expense of individuality
- Helene Clara Gamper
- Oct 7, 2024
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 21
In recent years, the world of logo design has been sliding in a direction that can literally pull the rug out from under brands. A logo is the face of a brand - the figurehead that evokes emotions, creates trust and makes a company's values visible at a glance. But what happens when that face suddenly becomes completely expressionless, just to follow a trend of oversimplification? A logo relaunch that is approached incorrectly can cause massive damage to a brand.
An example: Burberry. From icon to uniform. And one step back again.
Before the completely miserable logo relaunch in 2018, Burberry was a symbol of class, elegance and timelessness. The British fashion house's famous check pattern stood for a luxurious lifestyle around the world. But the logo relaunch in 2018 marked a radical break with this tradition. The iconic typeface that made Burberry so unmistakable was replaced by a simple sans serif font. The reactions were not long in coming: fans of the brand felt alienated, the elegance and recognition value were lost. Burberry lost its shine and disappeared in the mass of interchangeable fashion brands. For many, Burberry was buried.
What went wrong here? What is going wrong with so many (especially fashion houses)? Quite simply: too much inclusivity at the expense of individuality. The idea of making a brand "accessible" (however you want to understand that) to everyone is good - but not at the expense of its identity.
"When a company tries to please everyone, it ends up losing what makes it unique."
Burberry's image was apparently in such a bad state that the fashion brand had to act. It did so and made a great comeback in 2023 with another redesign. Burberry was "dead" for a few years, but now Burberry is living again in new splendor - fresh and modern, including individuality and absolute recognition value. Well done!
Johnson & Johnson: another mistake
Another example that shows how dangerous a thoughtless logo relaunch can be is the case of Johnson & Johnson. The brand recently said goodbye to its iconic logo, which had existed for over 130 years. The handwritten typography, which stood for reliability and tradition, was replaced with a generic and smooth typeface. The result: here too, many voices were raised lamenting the loss of brand identity. A global brand that conveyed trust and history through its logo now runs the risk of being perceived as arbitrary and interchangeable.
On the other hand, one could argue that additional product lines (such as pharmaceuticals) are deliberately trying to break with the brand. This remains to be seen.
Simplicity at the expense of recognition?
It is essential that logos today have to be simple in order to function in both digital and analogue media. But minimalist does not (!) automatically mean meaningless.
"A logo, in its simplicity, must still convey the essence of the brand."
Many companies make the mistake of simplifying their logo so much that it no longer has any character. Gucci, Balmain, Valentino - formerly strong brands with a distinctive visual appearance - have lost much of their iconic appeal by simplifying their logos. What remains are faceless logos that get lost in the flood of design uniformity. And this is the case for brands that once stood out for their courage to be individual.
The challenges of modern logo design
Why does this happen? It's not just a question of trends. Today, logos have to work on a variety of platforms and in different formats. They have to be small enough to be easy to read as an app icon, but also large enough to have a strong presence on posters or trade fair stands. The requirements are more diverse than ever. But does that really mean that recognition must inevitably suffer?
Clearly: No.
"The purpose of a logo is to make a brand recognizable at a glance."
It's not just about looking good or being practical. A logo has to tell a story. If it doesn't manage to strike a balance between simplicity and recognition, it has missed its purpose.
Positive examples: logos that do it right
There are also positive examples that show how minimalist logos can work without losing their soul. The US Open logo, for example, has an iconic but pared-down style that shines across all media without losing its energy and dynamism.
Another example: SKIMS , Kim Kardashian's lingerie brand. The logo is simple but distinctive in its form and represents the product and values perfectly - it communicates the core of the brand and exudes a strong identity.
When Spedifort was rebranded, the brand's original identity was retained and our rebranding positively transferred it into the premium sector. Within a year of the rebranding, 300% profit growth was recorded.
Or take Coca-Cola: Here, too, there have been several logo relaunches, but the identity, the distinctiveness – has been preserved.
Conclustion: individuality is a must. Minimalism or not.
A logo relaunch should never just follow the trend. The goal of any rebranding must be to modernize the brand without sacrificing its individuality. A good logo is not only simple, but also meaningful. Brands like Burberry and Johnson & Johnson have shown that radical simplification may seem modern, but can have devastating effects. Burberry is at least brave enough to learn from mistakes and show character again.
If a brand loses its ability to be recognized, it is nothing more than a shell - interchangeable and visually worthless. The challenge in logo design is to find the right balance: minimalism, yes, but not at the expense of uniqueness. After all, as consumers we don't want to swim in a sea of monotony, but still have strong visual anchors to hold on to.
Comments