Why Companies Are 'Debranding'
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 апр 2022
- In recent years, some of the world’s biggest companies have discarded depth and detail to “debrand”. But what prompted this landslide of logo debranding? Bloomberg Opinion's Ben Schott breaks down this trending direction of brand identity.
Like this video? Subscribe: bit.ly/3iERrup
#Business #Logos #Explained
From Burger King and Toyota to Intel and Warner Brothers, major brands are discarding detail and depth. Why now, and what’s the rush?
Learn more: www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art...
--------
Bloomberg Quicktake is a global streaming news network for a new generation of leaders and professionals. Our coverage spans your whole world, from your career ambitions to your personal passions and larger societal concerns. We provide the insights you need to make sense of the trends and stories changing your business and your world.
Bloomberg Quicktake: Explained brings you the context behind the headlines, helping you see the day's news through the prism of what will matter in the years ahead. Check out our partner channels Bloomberg Quicktake: Originals for original series and Bloomberg Quicktake: Now for breaking global news.
To watch complete coverage on Bloomberg Quicktake 24/7, visit www.bloomberg.com/qt/live, or watch on Apple TV, Roku, Samsung Smart TV, Fire TV and Android TV on the Bloomberg app.
Connect with us!
RUclips: / bloomberg
Breaking News on RUclips: / bloombergquicktakenews
Twitter: / quicktake
Facebook: / quicktake
Instagram: / quicktake
![[Digital Rx Ep 5.] Gen AI For Field Medical and MSLs - Everything You Need To Know](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9jw4Ci1OPMM/mqdefault.jpg)
I’m not against simplicity but the lack of character just seems boring. You can make things simple and still have personality.
We're doing the same w all technology, bro. Big Tech holds high ground in American life, so everything u see centers around it
Totally agree with you!
Simplifying something doesn't necessarily mean you're taking the character away, if just means your are changing the character, refining it, giving it more sophistication, class, and taste versus unnecessary gaudiness and over dressing.
No i cant go with that.
When they showed WB and BR using their simplicity to show off variety, I was like ‘Yeah! More of that please’
I hate the pringles de-brand, but I respect Burger King's decision of resisting the urge to go all out and delete most of their art but instead to revert to an earlier design of theirs, debuted in 1994.
Awesome
When I told my aunt about the old logo coming back for Burger King I discovered that she hadn't even realized it had gone away. In her mind that was always the logo. They've basically had that logo in one form or another since 1969.
Looked more boring than the circular one imo
@@weerachathongsuebchat2926 agreed
It more closely resembles the old Pringles logo.
I think the problem isn't simplifying altogether, but simplifying until the branding becomes sterile. After a point, it all begins to look extra soulless, not that many brands generally have souls to begin with.
A great example of soulless is Century 21. It changed its look a couple of years ago and it is completely void of soul. It looks like they are selling prisons. I've had access to the over 200 page branding guide and every page is cold and dead.
That’s how I felt about Foursquare. It’s basically just a cooperate font now
Yeah, like the Airbnb design got better in my opinion, same with google ( I remember googles colors more than the font they use), but godaddy and pringles and all the other brands that just get....corporate-fied. a shame.
Im a graphic designer who loves details and it pains me many companies dont want details anymore. Everything has to be simple and bland.
On your last point: On the contrary, many brands begin as small businesses/niche ideas before growing to be massively valuable, or alternatively being bought up by a larger corporations. Just because someone understood what a brand was at the beginning doesn't mean it's souless.....unless it's a product of unilever or nestle.
I understand that in a lot of cases there’s a reason for the changes and it’s gotten results. That being said…It took me a solid month to realize that the Pringles cans hadn’t been removed from the store. I would walk down the aisle and scan for Pringles, and I would completely miss them because I wasn’t stopping to read them since the logo looked like it belonged to some knock-off that would taste like sawdust.
i don’t know how many customers Pringles have on any given day. i guess millions. Something i learnt when designing was that i might not like the thing and the thing may not work for me…but i’m one person, out of millions. and it doe work for enough of those people (and usually works well for more of those people) that loosing a few doesn’t matter. i didn’t mean that to sound dismissive, because i’ve felt this too with some things, even things i’ve worked on directly
I mean, Pringles taste like sawdust anyway...
@@adamcetinkent Uh have you HAD the pizza flavored ones!?!! ;D lol
"Taste like Sawdust"
😅🤣
@@adamcetinkent how?
I think peoples main issue is that this "debranding" often takes away any character and excitement the logo once had. The original Pringles logo for instance had far more personality because of the key details mentioned in the video.
Then you've got the commentators saying things like, 'The brain recognises simpler logos easier than detailed ones'... How can you misidentify the old Pringles logo? If anything, the Pringles brand is now more misidentifiable than ever. The shape of the can is probably the only thing truly identifying the brand now. Let's hope they don't change that, and just put it in a bag or something. For the sake of "simplicity".
The real original Pringles logo isn't great 1000logos.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Pringles-Logo-history.png
For sure man, I remember the first time I saw the new logo I was like "wtf is this"
For years now I've referred to it as "reblanding".
@@BrentARJ We need to coin this, and force people to use this, or battle-my-Pringle I will build a second holocaust!
Disagree with one thing: the shading and glossy, extra detailing of the previous logos wasn't a weakness for over complication or an unthinking excess of computer graphics. Those characteristics were status symbols in themselves at the time. They demonstrated that those companies were operating at a high-cost level: of full colour, fine-quality print production and in a new media environment - i.e. they demonstrated that the companies were at the forefront of their industries. When all of those technologies became cheaper, the association with high status was devalued, so it became worthless clutter.
Could not agree more, my thought exactly!
Glossy, shiny and embossed logos are still much more expensive than normal plain old logo on a matt paper. But it has long lost its luster because of overused. Now people just straight upgrade the paper itself to thick metallic imported paper because it's even more expensive than normal embossed.
also, this "debranding" often results in cheap looking, boring design, e.g. Foursquare's wordmark logo turned into a basic, all-capital average joe. nowadays brands are using the same 5 or 6 font families with some minor modifications and colouring, and call it progress and change. come on.
@@daniel.maitheny Totally agree here. Food products have done this as well and generally it results in blander, less-inviting labels. Take a look at a bottle of Wesson oil with the old label vs. the new - the old one communicates a sunny, inviting image and you know what it is you're buying - healthier cooking oil. The new one looks like a bottle of dollar-store oil with nothing attractive or interesting about it. Could be a bottle of machine oil for all I know, looking at the label.
Ok BOOMER
The best thing about this video (which these sort of videos often leave out) was what he said at the end. Design will go one way for a while then go the other again. Once everyone has changed to this style, and it's been the "norm" for long enough, some brand leader will switch back in order to stand out and everyone else will slowly copy and it will go back the other way. And so on, and so on.... So to all the people complaining about not liking this style, chill out. It'll change back in a while.
Sadly I don't think it's the case. And it's not just logos. On computers you don't even get to change much any more. Sure you can change your wallpaper and dull colors for your desktop but the themes or styles as well as personality and passion is gone.
Sadly this is the new trend. If you want cool colors and themes and animations then it makes you old and outdated yet if you just stay with basic colors and themes to the point of only basic colors soon to only black or white colors then only are you with the trend and what the world calls modern.
Have you ever seen the movie Equilibrium(2000)???
If not then watch it bc that's where we are slowly going.
Can't say or do anything other then tiptoeing hoping not to hurt anyone's feelings...
Windows 95 through windows 7 were the days and decades of cool themes and logos as well as awesome products and toys!!.
Once windows 8 came around though was when the term modern took effect. Sadly from there is when everything started to devolve and debrand.
I don't want to keep waking up to the point we just look alike each other and not able to express ourselves...
Again this is where the world is going to and seems like there's no turning back...
The de-branding just really fits well with how dystopic the world is starting to feel.
Yeah 😂 is like clutter is something from the past and the future is all minimalist and clean
That's a good observation
Everyone wants to be an Apple Store now. *vomits*
Starting? Lol
Exactly. I was scanning the comments to see if anybody articulated anything remotely close to this idea. You nailed it though. The whole world has gotten such a dystopian, gloomy, hopeless, "shortages"/"empty shelves"/"skyrocketing inflation"/"you'll own nothing, eat bugs instead of meat, and you're gonna like it" etc. feel to it......now cue all the logos/branding becoming plain, stripped down and basic to the point of amateur, looking like an 8th grader proficient in any good graphics program could have made it as some project for school. :/
The downside to this "debranding" that they'll start noticing in time, is that it also makes their brand logo less recognizable. How has nobody thought of that...
I wonder what the next phase will be?
The evolution of design...
@@PurpleLightsaberAlex it will be to do the previous thing of course
I disagree, they look more lame but in no way do I confuse pringles logo, or Volkswagen or anything like that
Well if it turns into basically🔴 this or ⬛this then it will be unrecognizable... otherwise they have other ways to market their brand. Most company logos are already tied to their brands
Still, Coca-Cola logo stood the test of time and did not virtually change their logo ever since. That’s timeless branding.
Addition: some responders are confused with the Coke logo itself (the Spencerian Script/cursive writing) with the marketing campaigns used by the company every year. Those are two different things. In the end, the logo will always be the cursive one but for the campaigns (ads, signs, vending machines) they might change it a little bit to suit the campaigns.
Or Macdonalds
@@UraFlight McDonald's logo is literally just an M, they can't make it simpler than that
@@rizizum 😂
Coca Cola logo is minimalist. It is just the name with a certsin fond. Can't really get simpler than that.
Except they do change their branding. For a while they were Coke, they once had CocaCola in white over a colour bottle or cap with bubbles in the background, now it is usually just white on solid red background. They have done it too, just a little less.
The last point is my favorite and I think the most important. A simple, flat base logo gives you the flexibility to use it in many different environments and modify it for certain instances if you wish. Great video!
Thank you, this helps with staying on top of branding logo creation trends to offer customers who wants a no-frills logo made that stays with in their budget, but the logo offered still has room to be made fancier if the complex trend comes back with-out re doing the whole thing from scratch.
I work in retail and have witnessed customers assume that the new Pringles logo means they are “fake Pringles”. (I guess they think off-brand). So it is definitely not a good idea for all sales.
Halleluja! 🍷
True that brother. 👍
When I saw the new pringles logo in tescos I thought it was an off-brand creation by tescos
i thought the same thing too! it didnt come upon me that they changed their design, i had always assumed it was a knock off pringles.
I actually thought they were fake pringles too. The new logo looks despressing and boring and i didnt buy any pringles since they changed it.
Yes, and before you know it people will struggle to remember what the oldone even looked like.
I think the most annoying gribe people have is that this debranding and simplification of logos and brand identities is that they go too far. People like less detail, but many firms go too extreme with debranding when many feel they should've taken a step back a notch so they could still keep some identity. Whereas now many brands blend into one another and you can't tell a pet shop from a fashion brand, or a snack company from an IT systems company. The bit of detail that could tell what a brand was about and what they specialised in is gone. And thats something that wasn't gone with the pre-90's logos in most cases.
Like in the pringles case I think a much more fitting idea would've been to say keep the hair and the lines in the mustach, remove the eye shine, and gone flatcolour, white, golden brown, and red.
nobody really cares that much about a brand logo.
69th like.
@@delmanpronto9374 Are you sure about that?
But honestly nobody cares. I don't care, and to be fair I like this return to simplification.
@@matthew_thefallen Given the amount of money companies spend on branding - yes, we do care, just subconsciously.
The one I hate the most is Taco Bell. They debuted their bold purple/magenta logo in the 1994 when I was a kid, and I loved the way it looked. As other brands slowly changed in the 2000s, they held firm. And it seemed great because by the early 2010's, '90s colors and bold wacky design had come back around in fashion (not necessarily for business logos, but most definitely in clothing and decorative items). So it seemed that by waiting around, Taco Bell's aesthetic was back on top. Then they changed it. To the most boring looking single color flat app-icon thing ever. Now it just looks like purple facebook, where it used to have bold personality.
Awwww poor baby gonna cwy?
I think the worst one is Sprite. The look was iconic, now it looks like a cheap knockoff.
My color-blind husband noticed Taco Bell sign change right away. It looks old and sun-bleached now
@@mw968830+ years old baby
I believe McDonald's changing their logos too
I was curious why a lot of big names have been changing up their logos recently this is really helpful thank you
A lot of these comments about the term "debranding" are missing the point. When you place many of these logos side-by-side, they start to look the same. They've lost their unique, memorable, and ownable identity. Consequently, they've "de-branded" the unique qualities that helped give the brand character and brand recognition. In other words, they become generic. And that's the trouble, because the last thing you want your brand to be is generic.
I disagree. especially when it comes to memorability and uniquity. For example if you had to remember 5 different images of trees, it would be a lot easier to remember and distinguish between basic shapes of trees than it would be for detailed images. The memorability is actually improved while maintaining uniquity. I think simplification is an upgrade.
@@reevl i disagree to your comment. Debranding is a downgrade. I hope this fad dies a firey death.
I disagree and you used a non equivalent analogy. The new logos are like trying to remember different plants that look the same i.e pineapple weed and chamomile. The old logos are like trying to remember different types of plants that are very distinct from each other i.e pine tree and orange tree.
Well 'generic' has its uses but I'd agree that it's going too far, I miss the old 3D Metallic Style :(
@@reevl Is there no middle ground or does it have to be black & white?
The outline of a 'G' can remain the same regardless of how the inside is shaded or whether or not there is a drop-shadow. Useful for those who need to describe the logo, draw it, or remember it. That doesn't mean it can't keep the extra effects.
Burger King and Pizza Hut's new logos are basically the ones they had in the 90's, which made me assume it was a nostalgia thing.
companies are of course trying to play it as both.
nostalgia prop has a big role, in time the detailed once wil be nostalgia and intresting enough.
maybe... but who nos. Having one logo than can be in any theme is def a good thing in our rage of culture remix.
But maybe theres gonna come a big game change soon.
Yeah our burger king cousin in Australia is Hungry Jacks. That logo has been flat for years since it was created due to Burger king not being able to come to Australia for some reason.
I can't lie though the burger king logo looks so much better than the one they were using before
@@bnsyphotography2104 Burger King and Hungry Jacks hate each other.
I think that 2:21 to 2:35 is one of the most powerful arguments in favour of "debranding": a simple logo can take on new colours, shades, backgrounds, shadows--whatever you want--whenever you need it to. It's much more difficult to do that with a complex logo without "breaking" the logo.
But the point is literally that it doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t. That defeats the purpose of branding.
@@chickenmuffin I'm not quite sure I understand your response, but my point is that a very power testimony of a strong brand is when you can change things around quite a bit, yet the brand remains clearly recognizable. A simple trademark can endure such flexible morphs and still be recognized as "authentic". But when a sophisticated trademark is altered slightly, then it looks like a counterfeit. (The issue is not about counterfeiting--that is dealt with by prosecution and the courts. The issue is that consumers can recognize multiple versions of the authentic trademark.)
@@ChituOkoli Exactly. When I started an artistry business, I made sure that my logo was unique enough to be recognizeable and "mine", but simple enough that it can be dynamic. Because of this, it can be any colour I want, can be visible on any background, and can be stylized with specific fills depending on the context. Its minimalistic yet extremely complex at the same time.
As a graphic designer, there are many non-trend related reasons to go with a very simplified logo for a brand. Lets say for example you're tasked with getting manufactured a cut out sheet of brushed steel in the shape of your company logo to bolt onto the front of a reception counter. Or having a sky writer draw your logo in the sky. Or hiring a crew to draw your company logo into sand for an ad campaign about your new beachwear line...
Having a simple logo, the simpler the better really, a simple black shape even, makes your logo very flexible so you can use it anywhere and in any way.
A logo should really be about creating a unique and timeless 'shape', and optionally even a colour, that your company wears as a means of being visually identifiable. It shouldn't be subject to trends, it should be a small and simple design that is unique enough to be yours and recognisable, but can fit anywhere and in any context.
I like everyone though also get the complaints about how logos are becoming too flat and boring. Which is why I believe a good logo design should be treated as a 'template' for it's use, not the literal graphic to use everywhere.
The logo's design basis should start with a simplified basic shape, a black shape on a white background. That should be the template and from there a version created with colours to match branding. And after that, more fun and detailed versions for uses in contexts where it makes sense to have more detailed versions, such as a splash screen on an app when it first opens. A version could be created in halloween and christmas theme for events to use on a banner, etc.
Start simple, define a shape, created a branded colourised version, then create 'versions with personality' to use in the right contexts, and use the appropriate versions in each situation. You don't have to sacrifice 'personality' to have a strong and consistent brand. The versions with personality can be created over time, and to match trends, while always adhering to your 'timeless' version that is the basis for the logo itself. So it always feels like your logo is consistent, while also allowing the way it's used to evolve.
This is the right answer, and unfortunately companies will rarely do this. Because it costs money to pay graphical designers to do that repeatedly, when you can pay them once and have interns change colors to whatever’s needed for whatever packaging. Cheap bastards
It’s ugly and I wish it would go away completely. I miss the 2000s styles
@@9852323 Personally I think they're fine and it doesn't really bother me too much. Sure some of the logos lost some character but at least the core concepts are still there, right? Everything in life changes as the years go by including designs and company logos. We're in a more modern age and the logos are simply adapting to that modern style/look of todays world.
I agree. It's all about a recognizable silhouette.
@@nine1690 Yup.
"Debranding" -- I've never heard this term before but it completely fits what's happening.
I disagree. Minimalist design is not the absence of design. Minimalist branding is not "debranding." You haven't heard this term before, before it's not what's happening. The agencies and marketers are still hard at work. They're just designing in a different way, as they always have. It's what they do. There are good reasons for minimalist designs, and some of those reasons were covered here. But "debranding" is yet another example of somebody in media making up a word that is etymologically inaccurate.
No not really, WB is a great example of minimalist design yeilding more fruit. Debranding is a horrible word to use here. Minizing the logo complexity doesn't minimize the brand.
“Rebranding” is a good way of saying it. It makes it harder to tell one company’s product from another. In other words, it removes branding altogether. Am I buying generic low-quality tuna or branded high-quality tuna? How can I tell?
Sounds like someone trying to make up a term for what can just be described as logo simplification
Speaking as a graphic designer, it's sad to see brands stripping off their personality, their beauty, and visual wit just for the sake of minimalism and appealing to the masses.
Everything's just boiled down to Helvetica set in black. It's bland and worse... it's boring.
If you were a real Graphic Designer you would understand. Do you think top creatives at Design Bridge or Wolff Olins share your opinion....No they don't. 😉
@@r1pperuk Oh, I am a real graphic designer, thank you very much. And I still stand by my own opinion that the majority of rebranding nowadays lacks individuality and deathly dull. It doesn't even matter if god himself did it, I would still scoff at it. I have my taste. But you do you, honey. Be bland. Be boring. Be that plain helvetica in black. As long as you're happy and think you're hip. I'm certainly happy with my own lane.
@@remsan03 You completely missed his point. There is a logistical and practical reason why this is happening. This video quite well illustrated the reasons behind that. The most prominent to me is "communicating the identity quickly" due to the mobile phone revolution. You need to be recognizable fast. And designing a logo that can do that effectively while retaining its visual identity, recognizability and brand is quite a masterful act. Is it dull? Maybe. Is it boring? Maybe. But there are specific reasons behind that. So it is as if you shouted into the darkness that things are now transported by trucks and not carriages behind horses and that transportation lost its glare and personality. Brand is not just a logo, it is an emotion behind it, an experience. But here, we are talking purely about logos. So go study one of the most timeless logo designs ever made... NIKE ✓
@@Fujtajblus These simplification trend may be logical, it may be practical, but they are--to me at least--deathly dull. You may think it's wonderful; more power to you. It's like they are afraid to be different. And what "experience" can you get from these seemingly numerous unpersonal brands? I'm not advocating for crazy drop shadows, 3D effects, garish typeface like we had in the late 90s. I'm all for progress. I enjoy travelling in an aircraft instead of a horse-drawn carriages (faster and no horse shit to deal with). But allow me to express my opinion that this is not progress (at least in terms of aesthetics). The purpose of a logo is to be instantly recognizable, different, memorable, and, if possible, to refer to the brand’s values. Blending into everyone else’s achieves none of these things. And if someone would say, "But think of the mobile screen." I would reply, "We are living in the age of retina and 4K OLED. Even a cheap phone these days have at least 1080p screen."
@@Fujtajblus But they were quickly recognizable! I don't see how phones have anything to do with it. When you saw the pringles logo, you knew right away what it was.
One of the biggest tragedies ever to hit mankind... Rest in peace logos... You will be missed. Especially you, Pringles man. Unforgivable.
Right up there with the Challenger explosion in my opinion
wish my problems were that shallow
@@Henrique-pr7eo It's not my "problem" as you say it. Just one of the million things that pisses me off in today's world. That was just me letting off some steam with a good amount of exaggeration. I wish I had a time machine I would go a good 40 years back in time. Or even further maybe. Anywhere but this rotten day and age.
Acting like someone is setting fire to Rembrandts or destroying all copies of Back to the Future... these are corporate sales devices, not art ffs
@@testidentify I see what you did there, and I agree with your sentiment. Sadly, too many readers will be whoooshed.
After designing many logos and trying to aim for simplified solutions it is often the person holding the purse strings or control of the direction for the client that wanted extra branding bling applied. Same happened with early mobile interfaces that clients wanted extra textures applied and then got stripped right back to flat colour in later years.
Making logos simpler is one thing but deliberately making them look like a 5 year old did it is something else altogether. The pendulum has swung too far in that direction where a lot of logos are so simple I have no idea what some of them even are now. I'm looking at you, KIA.
"making them look like a 5 year old did" which they never do.
KIA's new logo looks like "KИ" ( KI ) in cyrillic lettering because they made the I and A smushed together..
So now everyone that reads cyrillic will automatically read Ki instead of Kia
@@dusannestorovic5699 No they won't because logos are almost always embedded into a context.
The fight between tradition and newest is what causes this. A brand is only as strong as the quality and reliability they provide unless you're red bull, I have no clue why that works.
@@dusannestorovic5699 I agree, it looks like the Initals for ,,Kičevo'' KI (КИ).
I don’t get it. Many brands really got a ton of hate for that and still won’t step back. I know there will always be people hating changes, but with Pringles as the best example, literally no one liked it…
Can you imagine how many million dollars went into that and how many people and internal documents were / are involved? For a major corporation to revert a branding decision is akin to trying to stop a locomotive going at full steam. Too many resources spent, too many execs involved.
You say this however many people also love these designs, but those are usually not more vocal
there are indeed people who hate but they're still outclass by a larger number of people just want to consume and not think too much about it because it doesn't affect them to a personal level.
See, it's easy to believe nobody liked it. The critical part you are missing is that nobody on _Twitter/Reddit/social media_ liked it, and these sites are not representative of everyone in the world. These brands aren't targeting media savvy internetgoers, they're targeting your Mom who does the grocery shopping at Walmart. And clearly, they've seen that this style works on that crowd, otherwise they wouldn't continue to use it. Those are the people who would find the older logos "tacky."
i hate people
What amazing animations and pacing for the video! Love the script as well. The vocabulary is interesting but not over-complicated
i have to say, pringles de-branding their logo is one of the most tragic things that has happened this year.
Really.
Well your idea of tragic is weird to put it very lightly.
ukraine being invaded rn my man
@@frameturtle yes
but my pringles
Brand logos are not iPhone icons. This is influence from mobile phones screens that need clarity.
There were some exaggeration, sure, but it has gone too far. Unfortunately, marketing is driven by fads, because something has to be done to justify the budget and salary.
Smartphones made the Internet worse and graphics/logos followed suit. I hate it.
That Intel logo was very iconic and simple in the first place. There was no need to over-simplify it.
The reason they changed the logo was to distract people from the fact they got rid of 1/3 of all the Pringles inside the can, and further more they also removed the “This can is not half full” sign. ⭐️
Wow you're right! Previously 200g now 165g it looks like as the old can size is now out of stock on Tesco.
What an excellent video on branding and the prevailing winds of change. Excellent writing and visuals, thanks!
I personally don't like simplified logos, as I feel it takes away the personality it used to have. Oftentimes it's in the smallest details where a logo can stand out from the rest.
Exactly, it's like almost everything is boring nowadays
@@highoctanegames cause it is
@@winstance4493 mhm exactly
I though companies were going back to that vintage design. As products labels are more simple and less modern. Like: hide the barcode, put more pictures, make good looking label. And that indeed improved. Labels at grocery store are so much better than 10 years ago. Some people use to put the product inside a generic box and throw away the original lable, that how ugly they were. But they didn't stop there, kept simplyfing and now losing all personality.
To me, a perfect example of an unnecessary simplification was the removal of the white from the pringle guy's eyes. The removal of the white iris ends up feeling like the eyes are dead. They should have made 2 logo's; one with the iris present when the logo would be presented large enough, and only use 2nd irisless version when it needs to be really tiny.
I also think another issue isn't just that people are upset about these changes because they had some emotional attachment/familiarity with the company logo but also that this movement sets a new standard for graphic design on a global level. When creatively gifted and passionate people get into graphic design they'll be surely disappointed in the low-effort work they're expected to produce.
I concur with this and it gets worse when you come from a art school like myself and they inform you to be as detailed as possible and then when you are thrown into the professional world it shocks the system to turn off all the detail skill you’ve acquired
Haha you said concur instead of agree
Simple design is not low effort, it is arguably more difficult as more needs to be communicated with less
@@tsu08761e And these companies have shown that they fail to accomplish that.
@@TimSlee1 youre talking about the result though not the practice
Great video but if you wanna be successful, you most take responsibility for your emotions, not place the blame on others. In addition to make you feel more guilty about your faults, pointing the finger at others will only serve to increase your sense of personal accountability. There's always a risk in every investment, yet people still invest and succeed. You must look outward if you wanna be successful in life, Successful people don't become that way overnight. most people see at a glance-wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life
I urge everyone to start somewhere now no matter how small, this is literally the time for that, forget material things, don't get tempted,i became more better the moment i realized this.
yeah investment is the key to sustaining your financial longevity but venturing into any legitimate Investment without a proper guidance of an expert can lead to a great loss too
you're right Forex trading is surely a lucrative way to invest whether you want growth, leverage, stable income or something in between.
yeah for sure, honestly I made 62,800 dollars within 6days of trading with Bit coin.
It's really profitable for me and I will encourage anyone interested should invest in it now 💯
This is my fav video on the topic. Very informative
I miss the old Pringle’s logo and their old packaging. It’s actually hard to distinguish the Woolworths home brand pringles from the real thing now there’s so little branding.
They really messed up with Pringles. I like lots of other brand logo remakes, but the Pringles logo is terrible now. It lost its character
I felt the same with the Taco Bell and Nissan logo
I thought Woolworths went out of business in 2009.
so you're saying you can't read?
@@MatiPryjomko Must be an Aussie. There's a Woolworths chain there that's different to the (much missed) UK version.
I think what people take issue with is that "mature" has to mean "bland and lacking personality" as though part of maturity is not standing out in some obtrusive way that assaults the eyes, which perpetuates the social attitudes about conformity that we still struggle to shake off and are ultimately very toxic.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, I was thinking exactly this.
Or, hear me out on this, you're overthinking it.
@@legendofthenight2687 I could definitely see that point of view lol. There is a legitimate science to this stuff though, and clearly 60+ people agree with the original commenter, so what they're saying must have at least some merit, haha
@@legendofthenight2687 nah
How perfectly put 👏
I’m a freelance graphic designer and it seems like flat icons are becoming the norm for companies and brands; I’ve worked for clients who just wanted simple logos that’ll work well on T-shirts and other merch, as well as social media
Never felt the need to look this up, but always wondered why this was. Thanks for sharing!
I'd imagine simplifying your logo will make it more identifiable in digital format. when it comes to small icons in websites or phone/computer apps, a simplified logo works best. you can scale it down and not lose too much detail.
but in print, magazines, billboards, posters, you'd probably want detail and gradients because higher quality logos signify a higher quality brand.
but we don't see these logos in print as much anymore. everything is through our phones or computers. flat colors and simplicity will lend more flexibility for the logos to be used across devices, especially when it comes to scaling up or down the image.
Dude we don't have eyesights like moose's and even if we do we have glasses these designs look like the company's don't care because they are so boring to look at all look the same and if they're not unique we won't really notice them most of these designs were noticeable enough in small viewing like on phones these are actually terrible designs they simple but really goodly designed and memorable now they are not
Detail and gradients does not equal higher quality.
This is the exact primary reason for why 2D-ification of logos has become a worldwide phenomenon. Screen readability. Having worked with digital design and digital media in general, this is the absolute core reason.
You will even see that the car brand Tesla was one of the first major brands in its field to immediately pursue the flat 2D logo approach, whereas all established automakers had their intricate brand logos with gradients, shadows, and features to make them emulate real life metals and colors. Tesla knew the limitations and benefits of digital media presence and deliberately designed their marketing and brand image to suit digital exposure - and since then other automakers have come to realize this and are adopting the same approach one by one. Most of them use the "excuse" of launching a new brand logo alongside launching new electric/hybrid vehicles, as a way of saying "we are modernizing our products and brand". That's why you see Volkswagen being one of the first traditional automakers who went towards 2D logo design at the same time they announced they would launch their brand new electric vehicle lineup and make electrification a core part of their brand for the future. Same with Lotus, and now the trend has spread to pretty much every brand regardless of their business models and products they sell. They now know how important ease of recognition and screen display is to create an effective brand logo. It allows for having more color options and blending because there are far fewer risks of colors/gradients clashing with backgrounds and surrounding content. On the internet, you can't control how your brand is presented the same way you can with a paid billboard or tv spot. So the best you can do is make it as easy as possible for your logo to fit well with everything and not seem out of place regardless of the colors and surrounding content that exists.
@@Real_MisterSir thank you for saying this! you've explained in detail what i was only able to abstractly think 🥲
One of the most valuable video and comments i've seen and read in a while
it's not just logo simplification, in the fashion industry it's like they are trying to remove all signs of life from their wordmarks. That trend can only last for so long. Brands will want to stand out again and re-visit personality in their type sooner than later.
People here say that the video has a problem with the term "debranding". I agree, with the exception of fashion industry. As I've designed a few logos for small fashion businesses, I've been following the trends for some time now and in the case of fashion they really have gone for that default "fashion theme" look all around (plain black and white websites). The only real brand element they usually keep in the manual is the logo canvas pattern and usually the colour of the bag. Imagine if Rolex dropped green...
Eventually minimalism will reach its ultimate form and Icons and logos will become one single plain color
Fashion brands are stupid any way
kinda like the new windows logo
a brand is a brand.
none have "personality".
how do people like you function?
Fascinating stuff. The way the Bloomberg Quicktake & Bloomberg Opinion logos simplified at the end was a very nice touch.
Thank you that CC clears a lot up.
Brands are giving up their "personalities" because they are trying to be inoffensive and generic to appeal to everybody, as has been the trend for at least the past few years. Their logos are so unchallenging and inoffensive that it is offensive. However, when you try to appeal to everybody you appeal to nobody, and most of these brands are making a huge mistake with their overly simplistic and bland designs.
Like microsoft edge thats a bland logo
_Superflat_ is a state of mind
Yup
No only that, but also because these companies are on many markets. Google as a search engine is one thing. Can have a logo with personality. But when you have to use that same logo on a phone, a device at home (google home), etc start to get really hard to fit that "personality" on everything the company is on. Microsoft for example is on software, videogames, keyboards, etc etc. That is the explanation I heard somewhere else, talking about Samsung, Apple and other brands.
@@drac124 That is certainly a motivation and can explain some logo changes, but some, such as the Pringles logo change are more puzzling and take it too far.
This particularly bothers me when they do it with packaging on grocery items. I hate going into the store looking for a favorite item and finding completely different, boring and plain packaging and not being sure if it is the same product.
how are you like this?
how is anybody like this?
brand names are brand names.
you literally cannot call it the same brand unless it's the same brand.
Whether we want to admit it or not, our buying decision is often affected by logos and packaging. Even though we know better, we still get suckered in. You would think companies would still want to take advantage of that. It is hard to get excited about the logo or packaging when they are no more enticing than the generic.
@@freezingcathedral Part of a brand is the packaging and logo. It’s not really the same brand it used to be if those things changed. It’s like how Kia has literally tried rebranding by changing their logo completely. Or how people see an old rainbow Apple logo and remember a different brand than the one today. So both you and him are right-you really can’t say it’s the same brand anymore.
One reason not mentioned is recognizability. When a company is new, they tend to have a loud logo in an attempt to be noticed.
After some companies become so embedded into our lives (say Google), the drastically minimalize to reflect that. You look at a colorful 'G' of a very specific font, and you know exactly what it is.
I really miss the old WB logo. It brings out so much nostalgia as I grew up watching cartoons everyday.
I hate it when companies change their logos so drastically because its such a leap from what everyone universally recognizes it as a brand.
My rule of thumb when it comes to redesigning is that when you redesign a logo, you can simplify it, but dont get rid of the charm
Bingo!
Yeah. And Burger King did that
and who are you?
why does your rule of thumb matter?
@@freezingcathedral fair question, lol
About 10 years ago, Apple flattened all their app icons. They used have all kinds of shading and depth. When the change happened everyone complained for about a minute, then forgot about it.
Yeah it wasn't just Apple
@@ismayb754 Like always, everyone followed Apple’s lead and like always Apple wanted to be just like Dieter Rams.
As a professional designer, this trend makes me rage sometimes.
As a professional designer, I love this trend. It began with the BRAUN ascetic. Simple and clean.
boorrrringggg
@@murrynathan
This has been bothering me a lot because it's something you don't just see in logos but animation and illustration trends as well. Even speaking about anime, I can clearly see the phases that come and go at periods. The latest years you see vectors more and more taking over, and while the colouring might have some harmony and the palettes be better, the line-art often falls to tasteless simplicity.
A few years ago, I sent a portfolio to an American company of the animation industry, and what they rejected me for was my detailed drawings with shades and lights and the fact I drew manga as well, which, as they said "is for nerds". What they said was they need something flat and simplistic, as more commercial.
So...it doesn't surprise me. In America at least, mass production of simple and fast keeps dropping the level making the new generations being satisfied with less and less.
In my country on the other hand, the reason I have been chosen as an illustrator for all the books and comics I have been hired to do, even if I am self taught, is exactly because I don't follow the trend of simplified figures with flat colours. People miss that...
If only they knew how promising the "nerd" market is...
@@revimfadli4666 So true...
Actually everywhere, I don't like it if a fast food chain becomes minimal. I want to feel like a baby that's why I walk in to begin with.
Have you seen the new care bears?
I think that's the number 1 problem with America tbh. The gotta go fast and make simple easy money lifestyle.... and I'm speaking as an American now living in Ghana away from all the noise.
I was shocked to find how used to the old logos I was, considering I'm still a teen. One that hit me in the gut was subway's logo change. It hurts to see the world change.
It hurts? Come on, it's just a logo. You can still find anything you need by looking at the logo. Don't be so over dramatic.
Just as when google changed his logo to be more simple and people got upset and "scared" even for the change. Except it didn't hurt anyone and it's fine.
@@Squigo2 instant gratification are dangerous for society
I love the changes.
How do you people not see all of this happening in real time and not get excited?
@@Squigo2 Some people are just snowflakes
@@mhdfrb9971 Kid here reading too much shakespeare.
I'm glad he acknowledged that the biggest influence here is likely trends, and that a return to more ornate branding is surely around the corner.
These minimalistic designs are so much better.
I generally prefer the more complex logo's with shading and depth. I think companies went too far with simplification.
You think that until you have to work with them in videos. Simple graphics are the best!
The complex logos are fussy and messy and not remotely versatile when it comes to flexible branding. Anything that can be easily vectorised, can be easily amended to suit its surroundings or subject matter. The WB logo being a case in point. They can integrate it into any film they're marketing.
@@prappsy3028 I HATE when some ass hat gives me a complicated logo as a JPEG then wants it in a video. I can count on one hand with fingers left over how many times a trace actually works on those.
@@prappsy3028 multi billion dollar company and still too greedy to pay enough for something to look nice everywhere. got it.
@@ajspice simple graphics are primitve soulless and toxic
Mobile-first design is a scourge. It's not only ruined these logos, the user interfaces on lots of major websites (youtube, twitter, reddit, etc.) has just turned terrible in the last 7 years or so. And don't get me started on infinite scroll.
What is infinite scroll?
@@Mothlord03 basically what it says. You never really hit the "end" of the page because more content is loaded when you reach the 'bottom'. I haven't noticed it one all sites, but I know specifically on like Reddit, and (I believe the web-based version of) art sites like Deviant art, Art Station and Behance will usually just keep loading images or more content each time you reach the 'end' so you keep getting new content. [I'm nit sure it's on all pages for those specifically mentioned, but I've seen. It for some of them]
@@sablemoreno5095 what makes it a bad thing? tbh it increases the additivity of the sites since you can keep scrolling forever without having to tap Next Page, but overall i find that it's pretty convenient
@@noetic5946 The problem is if you want to look at something again, it is near impossible to go back up and find something you wanted to see in more detail.
Consumers are now overly saturated with visual information that their attention span to view a product or a brand logo spans down to only from 3 - 2 seconds. Debranding helps make the brand more immediate without the distraction of details. And if you've noticed that most successful brands often are created within the parameters of recognizable iconic images: A bitten off apple, a check mark, the letter M, and among others.
not to mention that de-brand logos are lighter in bytes so they load quicker and are dynamic to look good smaller or larger on various screen size.
Although I totally understand the ongoing paradigm change, I do also appreciate that not all small brands jumped onto that train. To my impression, smaller brands, local stores etc. can still have a positively-received imprint in the visual field with complex and artistic logos. They might not be using those 80s/90s computer graphics anymore, but instead hire visual artists, street art artists and people alike, which results in a more personal and 'alternative' perception of those small brands, as opposed to (over-emphasized!) capitalistic, polished, optimised, main-streamed big players. I think especially of brands which have unique selling points with regards to sustainability, ecology, creativity, alternative living etc.
all the brands doing this are massive. Nike for example doesn’t even need to write ‘nike’ on anything anymore they are so well known. for smaller brands it makes sense to do the exact opposite (and they do :))
Big brands have the advantage that you know who they are and what they do, so simple logos work well as you can recognize them from a glance. Nobody knows small/average sized business does, so a well thought out logo showing your product or personality can communicate that point quickly.
@@devin6968 Pringles could probably get away with no logo at all; if it’s a potato snack in a vertical tube, it’s Pringles
Honestly, I feel like it reflects a larger movement towards minimalism. I mean look at house designs or modern cars (especially Tesla). People are showcasing homes with the fewest amount of furniture and possessions to make them not look cluttered. Same is happening in cars, where they are getting rid of a bunch of buttons for a „cleaner“ interior. And tbh, I’m here for it. It does look cleaner and just feels less strenuous.
About the cars, it's pretty much only Tesla that does the minimalism thing, although I suspect that won't be true for long... Many new startup brands that compete with Tesla have started to get minimalistic both inside and outside (Rivian R1T/R1S, Lucid Air...) and even some gasoline-powered cars have kind of started to show signs of smplicity over the years (the first example that comes to mind is the new Honda Civic, compared to the last generation one).
I mostly like simplistic designs. Like you said, it looks cleaner and I really like that look on houses or logos. But, me being a car enthusiats, I inevitably get taken over by my purist side and I really hope they don't go too far with the minimalist car designs...
They all look really generic tho?
Minimalism is also generally cheaper the produce.
it feels lifeless and empty, not "cleaner"
Except this ''minimalism'' in car interiors is infuriating. You need many buttons to comfortably and safely control the A/C, seat heating, radio, navigation etc. Putting literally everything in the middle as Tesla does is simply dangerous as you need to look away from the road just to know your speed. All that just for the sake of design. Also removing buttons and putting everything on a tablet or a capacitive button is way cheaper so the bottom line is, as always, profit.
Bring back the original PRINGLES logo
Cheers from San Diego California
thank0you that was amazing, explains what I've been going through!
Interesting that there's an actual expert take on the debranding of logos. Some designers here are complaining about the usage of the term, but it was the common consumers like us that coined the term and turned it into a meme because there was no well-known term for it and this caught us blindsided on why suddenly, companies are shifting to this kind of art at the same time.
I think the reason why many people may have a problem with the term is because a logo is 1 element of a brand. More specifically it is one element of a brand identity. Which represents about 10-15% of the branding process once you factor in branding strategy, research, segmentation, and several other lengthy processes in branding.
@@reevl yeah, we don't see what the people behind the rebrand sees. All we see is companies following a similar trend, as if they're copying each other's notebooks.
Another trend we're seeing is the use of "corporate art", where they show illustrations of "colorful people" with absurd proportions doing stuff. It may be a novelty if just one or two does this kind of art, but it's getting annoying if everyone follows suit.
@@triadwarfare It's really no different than a construction worker upgrading his hammer to a nail gun. It's not as much a trend with this as it is an evolution. Trends are short lasting, the simplification of logos has been happening for decades. Change always meets some disapproval.. and that's ok. Can't say that I have seen the corporate art, that does sound like a trend. And next year it will be something else. I'm not a big believer in following trends. Trends are temporary. A brand needs to be timeless, this is another area where simplicity excels.
@@reevl Of course there are design trends.
not once do they claim Ben is an 'expert' in this video. He's in Bloomberg's opinion segment so at the end of the day it's hearsay
It's just a trend in logo design. It's no coincidence that they are alle doing this at the same time because they're all just following a trend. In a few years there'll be another trend, and maybe they'll add more detail again.
Literally what the video said
I think some companies will regret this move. Most clothing companies all blend together to me, because they all use nearly the same plain black font. I don’t recognize them from each other.
Also, amidst hard times, simplified branding evokes reassuring nostalgia.
I remember when The Gap did this in 2010 and people hated it. People said it looked like clip art that a teenager pulled from MS paint. They were a little too ahead of their time.
I imagine that in 20 years, I'll be reading a youtube comment that says "I hate how complex these logos have gotten. They felt much cleaner and neater before."
I am absolutely in love with this video!!! I was just thinking about Publix and Walmart sliming down their logo!
well put and informative. thank you
I think mcdonalds is the best example of losing their identity, just like the sumplified logos, they went from playful kids to depressed adults
And whatever happened to Ronald McDonald?
@@d.a.elliottjr.367 he commited soup of side
So they didn't lose their identities. Just represent their customer base. Spend childhood at McDonals eat garbage, became a depressive adult. Welcome.
@@drac124 there were depressed adults back then and there are still playful kids, they changed and became more generic and trust me a brand benefits from being unique
These days, you walk into a modern McDonald's restaurant vs. Starbucks and you won't be able to tell the difference between their generic industrial furniture and aesthetic.
I had a feeling this age of sleek minimalism was because of our development of technology. I cannot wait until we're done with minimalism, with interiors, architecture, design, all of it. I think it's hideous.
For sure things will swing again in making things a little more involved, I wonder what that will look like in future style?
Mint Mochi, I agree with you. One difficult part of architecture and interiors is getting the skilled carpenter, metalworker, or glassmaker to build something ornate. These pros are practically extinct. Hopefully, there will be a breakthrough to allow for the return of wonderful Art Noveau in architecture.
@@kieferonline I suppose so. If there was more of a demand for it, I'm sure it would become a more popular field. That, or it'd all be machines that'd do it now...
I can see a form of Art Noveau returning sometime soon. It's difficult to predict fashions when they're very much influenced by the happenings of the time.
it's gonna look like the ending scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey lol
never understood the fascination with minimalism, just looks cold and bare
Millions upon millions spent on research by all of them which led to the same conclusion. Blah blah blah minimalist makes me feel bad is not how decisions are made.
And in the end, logo’s first function is not traditional art to be appreciated or aesthetically pleasing. Blame capitalism for artistry rose tinted glasses people had on art.
that was my dream question! thank you for telling us.
Pringles re design is just horible, the hair was iconic.
As a logo designer i have to warn you, changing your logo into generic text with a color is. Going too far. You need a symbol.
Well thats why most fashion company use 2 logos, the text ones + the initials symbol.
@@andymerrett exactly, well said :)
@@andymerrett I think he means sans serif fonts. Logos like the old IBM have been shunned for decades
The motion graphics are incredible in this video - hats off!!
I'm mostly happy about debranding because it toned down a lot of packaging that was basically screaming in your face with color and busyness.
I could not disagree more with this assessment. I think the terms of “de branding” will be a passing fad and we will look back on this period as an extension of the generic & bland corporate art style aka “Corporate Memphis.”
These new logos and the corporate art style more generally come from a place of laziness, not creativity.
Wouldn't lazyness not be to keep the old logo?
@@DundG No, lazyness would be to not come with a new original logo. Instead of using a simplify version of the old one, because is easy to digest by the degenerates.
Short Answer: No.
@@krovuz1232 Whatever you think. Not everything must be tryhard to be good.
@@krovuz1232 dude….Go touch grass….
22 years into the 21st Century and I am officially OVER the future
This is just referring to their logo design, not their branding. So calling it debranding doesn't seem correct. The trend toward simplification of logos has been happening for decades, if anything, companies are beginning to do more expressive wordmarks, stepping away from the sans-serif trope and finding new ways to be truly unique and ownable. Something that has been a long time coming. So the video seems like it came out a few years late.
I agree.
how about Apple's attempt at reducing the usage of iProducts and return to Apple Brand?
same thing with Microsoft and Google
Absolutely agreed. This comment is more valuable than the video itself.
100% Agreed. Calling it debranding would imply lessening the use of branding, which is not the case. They even contradicted themselves by bringing up Warner Bros as an example.
Branding certainly isn't just the logo, but for the most part, it begins there because the logo normally serves as the "face" of the brand. Changing the logo in the ways shown will most certainly result in a change to many other aspects of the graphic design of the brand, even possibly bringing about changes in how a company carries itself in all of its communications, so it isn't quite correct to say this isn't about branding. I understand they are coining a term by saying "de-branding" to simply mean a great graphical simplification, but as someone who does branding for a living, I don't mind it because while it may not be perfectly correct, it isn't really wrong either, and I think it was meant to be more of a tongue-in-cheek reference since in doing it, they're actually increasing power of the brand. As the Warner Bros example shows, the more complex logo limits them in what they can do graphically. Simplifying as they did allows them to apply the brand to much more, giving it a deeper meaning, allowing it to connect more with their audience, increasing awareness, which is part of the purpose of branding. (And yes, I said apply the brand, not the logo, because that's what they're doing.)
Logo is a part of the brand.
That was so informative and so fast, and so unbiased, and I want to cry. Give me more!!
I hate minimalism with every inch of my being
Car companies are an interesting case because they always had depth and reflectivity with the on-car physical emblems and what software allowed was effects to mimic that on screens and paper applications like brochures and even letterhead. Their debranding is also led by the on-car engineering need to flatten and add dark negative space to the logo to allow space for cameras and sensors behind it.
There's a trend of minimalism everywhere. It can be architecture, furniture, any graphic design. My explanation is that people live in information overload as of 2022. We are bombarded with all sorts of distractions like never before in history. So "quiet" design feels better.
true. It's like finally something doesn't scream for your attention but is just there if you want to focus on it.
Minimalism isnt even the most prevalent design trend, not even close
Among news channels and news programs, designers had since mid 2000s abandoned flashy graphics (especially lower-thirds) in place of simpler graphics, simple blocks, with at most subtle gradients. Even the US, which I observe to more favor flashier graphics, has gone simpler, though they came much later.
Even the user interface in computers and smartphones. I have seen Windows, for example, favoring simpler icons and boxes as compared to previous Windows versions (I am still not going to Windows 11 yet).
At least in the Philippines, in late 2000s and early 2010s, what trended are jeans with lots of designs especially at the backside, which I really hate. Now the trend is simpler. Simple pastel color shirts with no graphics are becoming a trend, and thankfully, those awful jeans of the late 2000s are long gone.
Just imagine the day when brands don't exist .... beautiful!
This video is really well edited!
"debranding", or how to lose your identity to avoid getting criticized...
Mobile first approach is one of the contributing factors, sure. But that isn't the only factor. Some form of debranding has always been there especially for print media. Many brands - while retaining their original "complex" logos - would also design a simplified (often monochromatic) version of their logos for printing them on their legal documents, business cards, brochures, etc.
Well said. Another contributing factor is that the logos need to look good on different contrast. The more simple it is, the better it will look on different contrast on website/app (dark mode, light mode)
It has to deal with costs too. Some brands with too many colors get charged additional costs if say you were printing a logo on a shirt. Simplifying the design and palette reduces your costs
@@cassidy318 but then nobody is buying the shirt and you lose way more
I consider this a combo effect of design approval by committee, CYA, and clients of designers deferring to executives who just want to copy so-and-so because it worked for them (aka they once read a case study circa iOS 7 that bashed skeuomorphism).
I'd started noticing this with tech logos (e.g. Firefox) and a few car brands. I hadn't caught on with how wide-spread this trend is 😯
This goes for everything.
Architecture.
Design.
Clothes.
Less becomes more. It’s what’s this era is about.
Except less will always be less. Soulless and cold everything.
@@stellar3327 unless subtle characterisation is added in
cheapness has become a racce to the bottom what happened to opulant luxurys like we had in the 30's? where everything was over done in excess
Exactly! And I don’t like it
@@barney9008 'less is more' is a phrase from the 40s, it's definitely NOT a new thing
I think it was pioneered by Google's Material Design, or possibly Apple's flat design around 2014. Material Design especially spread like wildfire among mobile apps and websites, and soon all kinds of companies (tech or not) adopted the same idea. And so here we are today.
I was about to also point out the Apple's design. That's the first time I remember it started and there was a bunch of memes too.
I think so too, but there's also a more general shift towards minimalism. Look at fashion over the past century or two, from big floofy dresses to jeans and a t shirt.
Microsoft used flat design even earlier, in 2010
I wouldn't dare to say which company pioneered it. Tesla was the first Automaker to make use of this Logo approach - and they did it before 2008 (since then almost all automakers have followed suit). Flat design logos aren't inherently new, but I'd say Tesla was one of the first major companies to go fully simplified (aka no color gradients, color change, interrupting graphic elements, etc). But then again, I'm sure 100 other large companies would qualify for this spot earlier than 2008 too. That said, I think it's safe to say any company having such a logo prior to 2008 wouldn't be due to the relevance of digital media display. It would rather be sheer coincidence.
@@thumpertorque_ more ppl use Google devices than Apple. Also most car screens work on Android OS
I think it's impressive when a company's marketing department resists the urge to shuffle the deck out of boredom, and maintain a logo for a really long time.
I used to LOVE the old Polk Audio logo. In the late 90s, they used the words "polk audio" in a kind of hand-written lower case white text with a black bubble outline to the letters, and a red heart to dot the i. It was uncharacteristically charming for a brand competing with other established companies, and newer ones trying to out-macho each other. It represented this casual, friendly culture of audio lovers -- and seemed to be a genuine reflection of people working there. It made me proud to own the products, like I was helping a community of people be successful, and got a product made with love in return.
Not long after, the company "grew up", and the logo was simplified into ordinary colored letters in a sans-serif font. Boring. I think it has since just been stripped to "polk" in a boxy font. sigh... It definitely screams "We make stuff that we sell for money" now.
Thank you so much for this video
I think it was Paul Rand who said something like; if the brand makes you feel a certain set of emotions, the brand’s logo becomes the thing that holds those emotions. So long as logo is distinctive and recognisable it will still be able to perform that function.
You see it too in American cartoons. Graphic designers now use vector graphics rather than traditional graphics. Vector graphics are math based as oppose to pixel based which means they look crisp and clear in small images and large images from smart watches to massive billboards. The more detail, the harder it is to design and make look consistent.
Plus, you can always add more to a base design - think MTV, and the thousand ways it is expressed. The simpler the base design, the more flexibility.
It's also cheaper and most cartoon shows don't hold big ip names like star wars, Mackey mouse, ninja turtle and etc
Star wars and ninja turtles are 3d animation
What your're describing are Flash games and short movies from 20 years ago. They used mainly vector graphics that scaled very well. Cartoons nowadays are mainly pre-rendered/rasterized to definded resolution anyway so it is not exactly the same. Other than that, I can agree to the flexibility of simpler designs.
@@edgars53 Modern cartoons are still made using vector animation like Flash though. They just render them out to a video for distribution.
It used to be common to use Flash in that way, but I'm guessing they use other software for it now.
@@Psyk60 the current standard program for American animation is ToonBoom Harmony. ToonBoom is a raster-based program lol. Learn what you're talking about before going on snide yt rants
Modern cartoons with no personality.
I remember studying graphic design at uni 10 years ago and we began getting briefs for app logos. it was quite restrictive having to make something fit in that tiny box
I think this whole debranding is also a demonstration of how famous these big brands are. Like VW and Waner Bros would say "Look at us, we are so ubiquitus to the extend, that you recognize us just by those two letters." And this is a great marketing tool in my opinion
I’ve had these same thoughts before. Someday people will get tired of oversimplified logos and go for more detailed, authentic feeling design
I thought about it, but I don’t think it will happen in a mass scale. The more simple a logo, the better it will look on dark mode, light mode, other contrast, and sizes in mobile sites/apps.
@@drwho9319 at some point, they won't be able to simplify anymore. They will need to get more detailed if they want to be unique and interesting agaimn
@@blidea9191 why won’t they be simplified anymore?
@@drwho9319 what do you mean?
@@drwho9319 there is a point it can get simplified, a m is a m