The authors discuss three scenarios that could disrupt content creation: 1) using AI to enhance productivity, leading to greater creativity, or 2) generative AI creating a flood of ideas. The creative process relies on inspiration and focus, but creative blocks can disrupt this flow, especially for those whose work relies on innovation and constant innovation. Generative AI is devaluing the skills of artists to produce unsettling AI art. Design thinking has injected new and collaborative energy into both design and the corporate world, suggesting that access to AI can offer a creative boost to individuals.
AI could potentially kill our creativity by making us think too alike and forcing us to question what “creativity” is and its different forms. Some argue that technology hinders creativity by distracting people and causing them to scroll through online platforms instead of doing more productive, creative things in their daily lives. Studies have revealed that design inspiration plays an important role in generating innovative ideas, but ignored the influence of stimulation.
The article explores nine reasons why technology has enhanced creativity, such as identifying optimal incentives and inputs, bringing customers’ perspectives to bear, and investing in ideas according to their needs. Dictating design thinking as a sequential step-by-step process is ripe for failure in the creativity and solutions department. Brainstorming doesn’t actually kill creativity, but with distractions and bad practices, many creative individuals might feel that it does.
UX design solves problems and makes products easier to use and more intuitive. Sometimes good ideas are not so obvious, and all the data available cannot replace the reward of a risky creative idea that solves a problem and catches on.
📹 Why Companies Are ‘Debranding’
#Business #Logos #Explained From Burger King and Toyota to Intel and Warner Brothers, major brands are discarding detail and …
Why not to use design thinking?
Design Thinking can be beneficial for a wearable device manufacturer seeking new applications, as it can help address ambiguous problems with unknown outcomes and wicked conditions. This approach is particularly useful when the outcome is predetermined and the solution is largely an engineering-based one. The human-centered and iterative focus of Design Thinking can help arrive at more holistic solutions, as it addresses the complexities of the problem and helps to find more effective solutions.
What are some problems with design thinking?
Perfectionism and attachment hinder the design-thinking process and hinder adaptability and agility. If a solution doesn’t work, it’s better to revisit the drawing board for a better solution. It’s crucial to move quickly and adapt, challenging assumptions and thinking outside the box. The double diamond technique, a visual representation of the design process, can help identify where teams should diverge and converge. This technique helps teams navigate the four steps of discover, define, develop, and deliver, ensuring a successful innovation project.
Can a non-creative person become creative?
The capacity for creativity can be developed and enhanced through dedicated practice, as evidenced by the findings of numerous psychological studies. It is not an innate quality; rather, it is a skill that can be cultivated through various cognitive exercises. One such exercise is listening to music while working, which has been demonstrated to assist in maintaining focus on tasks, enhancing mood, and reducing feelings of anxiety, particularly in instances of elevated stress.
Why is design thinking flawed?
Design thinking is often criticized for its rigidity and lack of nuance, as it often equates to a structured, linear process. However, Natasha Jen, a Pentagram design partner, argues that real design is messy, complex, and nonlinear, not a result of a few brainstorming sessions. She argues that design thinking is not a valid approach to design, and instead, it should be embraced as a more nuanced and creative approach.
What is the disadvantage of design thinking?
Design thinking is a process that necessitates the input of experts, collaboration with stakeholders, and is often a lengthy one. The Design Thinking process is most suitable for rapid iterations of existing products, whereas the Design Sprint method is best employed for similar rapid iterations. The combination of both methods can facilitate value creation at different stages of the product development process, although this requires the input of experts and collaboration from a range of stakeholders.
Is design a creative process?
The Creative Process is a series of steps a designer takes to refine their ideas and create the best solution for their project. It is a guideline that helps structure the design process, ensuring that ideas are explored in depth and the best ones are chosen. This process is applicable to designers of any field, including fashion, textile, product, and graphic design. The 5-Steps Creative Process is a valuable tool for designers to achieve their goals.
What is the difference between design and creativity?
Design is a deliberate process of creating a solution to a specific problem, focusing on aesthetics, functionality, and usability. It is highly structured and aims to achieve defined objectives. However, creativity is a more abstract concept that generates novel ideas, concepts, or expressions, often unstructured and manifesting in various forms such as art, literature, problem-solving, and scientific discoveries.
Design thrives on structure, relying on established principles, guidelines, and methodologies to achieve specific goals. It demands a balance between creativity and practicality, while creativity thrives in an environment of freedom, encouraging unconventional ideas without rigid rules. The initial stages of creativity often involve unfettered exploration.
Design is driven by a clear purpose or intent, seeking to solve problems or fulfill objectives efficiently and effectively. Creativity can be an exploration of ideas for their own sake, leading to breakthroughs and innovations that later find practical applications. The design process is typically iterative, involving multiple stages such as research, ideation, prototyping, testing, and refinement.
Creativity can be a more fluid and non-linear process, often requiring a willingness to explore without a predefined roadmap. In the creative landscape, design and creativity are complementary aspects of the creative process. Design provides structure and purpose to creativity, turning abstract ideas into practical solutions. Creativity fuels innovation and pushes the boundaries of what’s possible within the realm of design.
Successful endeavors often strike a balance between these two elements, recognizing that while design gives form and function to creativity, it’s the spark of creativity that ignites the fires of innovation and progress.
Understanding the nuanced differences between design and creativity empowers individuals and teams to harness their combined power effectively, creating impactful and imaginative solutions to a wide array of challenges.
What are the disadvantages of design?
The design phase is a crucial aspect of project delivery, often referred to as “integrated project delivery”. However, it can be counterintuitive in today’s fast-paced world. The design-build method, which has been around for centuries, is a popular approach that involves a single contractor leading the design process before constructing the works. This differs from traditional contracts, where the client assigns design to consultants and then the contractor builds the works.
The design-build method focuses on collaborative efforts between the design and building teams, ensuring that the entire project is managed and taken full responsibility. However, it can be time-consuming and over-engineering, making it essential to balance comprehensive planning with over-engineering.
What is the difference between ideation and creativity?
Ideation is the creative process of generating, developing, and communicating new ideas, which can be visual, concrete, or abstract. It encompasses all stages of a thought cycle, from innovation to actualization. Ideation can be conducted by individuals, organizations, or crowds and is essential in design processes, education, and practice. However, the term “ideation” has been criticized for being meaningless and resembling the psychiatric term for suicidal ideation. Common ideation techniques include brainstorming, brainstorming groups, brainstorming sessions, brainstorming exercises, and brainstorming exercises.
Can you be a designer if you are not creative?
Many people fear they are not creative enough to pursue a career in graphic design. However, this fear stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it truly means to be creative. By following the rules of good design, anyone can become a successful graphic designer, even if they don’t consider themselves creative. Understanding basic design principles allows you to take on branding, typography, page layouts, and color selection.
Some roles require more creativity than others, such as in-house designers needing less raw creativity. Additionally, there are many “uncreative” ways to expand your creativity and increase your value as a designer.
Why design thinking is not enough?
Design thinking, a form of design thinking, often lacks a broader culture that supports it, unlike the scientific process. Professional designers in various industries often complain about this lack of support, feeling threatened and having to defend and explain their work. This lack of a design culture is a significant issue, as it can lead to a lack of understanding and protection for the approach. To succeed, design thinking must be situated within a designerly culture that understands what design is, what it requires, and when it is appropriate.
Companies that use design thinking as a quick fix or tool will fail without creating a broader designerly culture. Design leadership is essential, as it involves leaders who deeply understand designing and can create a design culture, engage with other organizational cultures, and make designing understood, respected, and recognized as a valuable approach to change. ESB Design Leadership Consulting can provide more information on this topic.
📹 Creative thinking – how to get out of the box and generate ideas: Giovanni Corazza at TEDxRoma
This video is filmed and edited by Università Telematica Internazionale UNINETTUNO www.uninettunouniversity.net. Corazza is a …
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’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.
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.
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 article seems like it came out a few years late.
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.
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
You know what? I am rather immune to brands. I tend to shop in discount supermarkets where they provide generic products to major brands and the quality is at least the same if not better sometimes. Brands can keep pretending they are relevant and large amounts of people can follow them and fork out their hard earned money for smoke and mirrors, I will stick to the value. If not this article I wouldn’t even notice the brand logos have been changing. I just filter it out.
What I’d love to know is why are they making different flavors of products look more and more similar to each other? A long time ago, say 20 years ago, you could more easily tell one flavor from another very easily — packaging was an entirely different color. For example, Pepsi vs Wild Cherry Pepsi. 20 years ago, the regular Pepsi had its traditional blue and white packaging with the pepsi logo on it. The Wild Cherry variant had a lot of red on the bottle, and the words “Wild Cherry” were far more noticeable, as was the larger cherry graphic. Fast-forward to today, and a Wild Cherry Pepsi is mostly blue, but instead of thin white stripes around the top and bottom of the label (at least on 20oz bottles), it has a small red stripe, and there’s a tiny little cherry. The word Pepsi is much larger than the tiny “Wild Cherry” font next to it and at a quick glance, the two can easily be mistaken for one another if you’re not paying attention. It isn’t just Pepsi doing it, everybody is doing this lately, making more flavors of more products closer to each other and it’s annoying, both for people stocking the shelves, and customers accidentally picking up unintended flavors only to find out once they got home that they bought the wrong one.
i dont think de-branding is the right term. in many cases, the logo/identity changes have come with brand repositioning. still very much branding. lots of modern style evolutions (or maturity as the article says) do fall into the tongue-in-cheek term “Blanding” which I think is a more accurate descriptor.
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.
This degradation of character is seen everywhere in art, such as contemprary music. Is all dumbening down to very generic to the point that you can barely distinguish it from another, all simply to decrease the amount of people who are offended by it. That way, you get a lot of people who simply like your work, and few who love it, whereas the more characterful works gain audience of more people who love it, and fewer who simply like it. Personally, I hate this trend, and hope artists will be able to express and share their art again through logos, music, etc.
I don’t mind the debranding so much- in some cases they look cleaner and less in-your-face, although I admit a lot of logos (like Pringles and Intel) have lost a lot of the character that made them unique. What I’ve always had a nagging problem with is company logos that are all lowercase letters. I know, I know, it’s supposed to be more “fun, relaxed, friendly” and whatever they say. It just looks like bad grammar to me.
…because people have become dumber and more creatively bankrupt. You can make app-friendly versions of logos and you can be big companies and still carry the enthusiasm and enterprise mindset of a small businesses (in fact, one can argue that it is important to do so). The real reason is that, we as a society, is becoming less accepting of the creative, the interesting, the intelligent and nuanced. We want 30 second articles, simple tasting foods, badly written books and the politicians and billionaires continuously taking advantage of our aggressively simple minds.
I really like minimalism but oversimplification is something that doesn’t work together in some cases, most logos who got awesome and recognizable are generic nowadays, WB for example just took away the best logo they made. I know there are more reasons around the game, like product branding, easier way to add the logo to other places and so on, but some logos are way worse than before.
I’m fine with logos that are fonts or just letters going the minimalistic approach, but then there’s Pringles and the worst and most recent offender I can think of is PBS Kids, because it was already a minimalistic logo. They literally got rid of all the character… from a children’s broadcasting company. The movement has long overstayed its welcome imo.
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.
Think McDonald’s…the golden arch. Think twitter….the bluebird. Think Nike…..the tick. Simple logos get remembered by consumers. Simplicity is highly effective. How many people are gonna keep reading this- not many….because its overly written. The simpler the communication, less concentration required and the easier it is to process. The more your likely your to retain the message as a result.
My take is that by giving the users less information through simplifying, it enhances the remembrance of these logos. Also using simplified shapes can make users recall the brand when exposed to similar color and shapes in their external environment. Now that people know what these brands are about, the prime concern becomes to imprint the brand name, or certain identifying elements which have been simplified so that they resemble certain shapes colours patterns that the user would be exposed to in their day to day lives. We tend to recall simple things, plain pattern giving the kind less information is key for brand recall.
I think the lack of willingness to change plays a factor here. Logos do evolve over time and every generation is bound to the style of logo they grew up with. Most of us here got used to and attached to the design and look of the “original” pringles logo and we instantly recognise and feel a bit sentimental for it when it changes appearance. I bet the generation that will grow up with these logos will feel an attachment to them and once they get changed again in the future, these future generations will also act in the way we act. Of course, in most of these logo “debrandings” what used to be the character got removed like the shiny and artistic iconic look of car brand logos like lotus have almost never changed since the creation of the company until recently. It’s all relative and I know people who couldn’t care less about it.
As I see it, debranding is just one of many examples of the stupefying and dumbing down of society. Overall, the changes look terrible and come off as lazy and uninspired examples of detrimental groupthink. Reminds me of some b-movie sci-fi flick where everyone wears the same boring gray outfit and greet each other with the exact same greeting (if they even greet each other) and have their jobs assigned to them at birth.
Very insightful. But it’s just a logo change, the brand remains the same. Personally I find the results boring and less distinctive in most cases. There is a lot to be said for depth and detail. My guess is this is more driven by technology (most people peering at cell phone screens instead of a large image), making details harder to see. With a big dose of herd behavior and ever-changing fashion. There’s a lot to be said for a century-old logo that remains unchanged – that’s real market “maturity.” My grade: B for bland.
Warner Bros is the most important example here because it reveals a lot about what’s actually happening. The brands aren’t just maturing, they’re monopolizing multiple industries – the WB logo now has to fit kids cartoons and mature article games, Discovery documentaries and gritty HBO shows. Microsoft has to describe office, os, article game hardware, and a huge number of software companies and game developers under their umbrella now instead of just an OS. Amazon is now your pharmacy, your online shopping center, your delivery service, your smart home, and your internet infrastructure. How do we express a brand identity visually, when the brands have no identity anymore? By stripping them of color and expression so that it could be a brand for anything.
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.
for all those in the comments commenting on this debranding being a mistake, the mistake being they become unrecognizable and essentially camouflage themselves, it’s not a mistake. if your a king in the 1900’s, camouflage is a feature, not a bug. many companies understand that this climate is one where any standing out puts a target on your back, not a pat on the back. now this is virtually impossible for many companies who are too notorious, but this general debranding helps every company look like another, so some i guess would generate less attention.
What many don’t realize is that the logos are what attracts the customers most of the time. Sure, the product itself matters but the logo attracts the attention of the customers. It is one of the important foundation of the company. Doritos, Pringles, Audi, Intel. They all sell best with their logos.
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.
a good logo is simple yet sophisticated, and thus easy to apply to many applications and thus visible, the fashion brands lost the logo icons probably so they could subcontract out to sweat shops that legaly could not put a copy right or registered logo visual logo, where as the letters are just a brand name.
I noticed this trend beginning way back when I was still in high school 15 years ago. I distinctly remember staying at a Holiday Inn Express where the logo had changed back in 2008 and noticing fonts going to lowercase (with no capital letter beginning the sentence) on the soap, shampoo, and conditioner bottles and a small period at the end. Even the sentence itself describing the products only took up like 15% of the front and was asymmetrically located to the left of the bottles. Then shortly after this a few years late (like a decade ago), I remember Verizon and Gap changing their logos to more “millennial”-centric minimal designs (presumably to court people in my age cohort and not look like the now dated 1990’s designs when Baby Boomers and their families were the main demographic advertisers were going after. All this to say, I feel like all the brands that were mentioned in this article probably have just been playing catch-up at this point to the aesthetics older millennial graphic designers pioneered in the mid to late aughts in cities like Brooklyn, San Francisco, and Toronto almost 20 years ago and then became popular by going viral on old Tumblr. blogs, internet forums, and finally apps like Pinterest and Instagram once the iPhone became ubiquitous in the 2010’s with younger millennials like myself. Companies like Kia most likely had executives eyeballing the competition’s rebranding to younger consumers, then demanded their advertising agencies “rebrand” for the new age, which brings us to today where now all the ad agencies are once again doing the same thing as everyone else, and I believe the landscape is currently ripe again for some Gen Z college-grad to disrupt the industry again, probably off their iPad in their parents attic just like the old ‘hipsters’ did almost 20 years ago now.
Why haven’t any of the marketing geiuses figured out that you can have both a detailed logo for large displays AND a simplified logo for icons on computers? It seem like modern marketing people believe that when SouthPark show a simple animated version of a celebrity like TomCruise, everyone will lose the ability to recognise him in real life… coz once you’ve seen a simplified version of something, you’re no longer able to recognise a full-detail image. The REAL reason marketing teams tricked all the dumb companies into dropping their detailed logos is so they can be charged to get the detail back in a few years.
I’ve designed a logo for a program at 16×16 pixels before and man, it is just /so crunched/. You have zero room for ornamentation, at that tiny scale it just comes off blurry. You really need to make something high contrast and flat colored to even be recognizable. I’ve always thought that was the only thing influencing this trend, but this was a good explanation of other reasons too
The whole world is eliminating color from everything. This needs to stop. Making things more simple is a downside to creativity as far as I am concerned. This almost looks like they don’t utilize graphic designers at all. This direction has given off a passible loss of attention to designs. everyone looks the same and nothing stands out anymore.
I find this very interesting as a starting entrepreneur. Though I’d like to ask myself “What would my customers say, or more importantly what would they feel when they see my logo?” Is it personalized? Does it show simplicity yet originality that customers can say “Ah, that’s the logo of this guy’s company/brand that I like so much!” “If I was a customer, would the logo attract me or make me feel indifferent or worse?”
As a graphic designer who works in the industry the simplest explanation is that flat 2D logos are easier to work with in an increasingly mobile/digital landscape. Having to worry about drop shadows, 3D effects and highly detailed designs essentially adds more work for designers in the work force. so trimming them down makes them faster and easier to work with. Money also plays a huge role in this. having a flat logo with very few colors saves a company money on reproducing that logo on various goods by using less ink colors or other materials. But as stated in the article, design follows trends so there may be a day when we revert back.
In Asia, the coats of arms of influential families always were 2-color (base and main color). They are called Tamğa in turkic languages and Kamon in Japanese. They were simple, the main idea or symbol in the sign could be represented via a short inventary of squares, lines, dashes, and hooks. When European coat of arms in the monarchic era spiraled out of control and then were compacted again in a republican era, Asian CoAs-now-be-logos remained mostly the same. (Mitsubishi, Toyota, Turkish and Japanese national flags and many other). The main point of use was such the symbol could be of any color and printed on anything of any other color. Shirt, banner, storefront, horse, you name it. Sometimes this identification was important, for example, in middle ages members and even servants of some more highly ranked family could be given priority in public settings based on logos of their employer on their clothing. European logos rarely had the same versatility.
im not a fan at all, however some brands like toyota debranded a bit, nissan… bit disappointed but foursquare is so horrible. It makes it look as it foursquare isnt for kids but adults. Pringles.. dont get me started there. I feel like sometimes playful = old and scary (google sry) but then new = old and scary (pringles). Who told them they looked bad? Only the first 3 were actually ok
I will never understand why do people have a problem with things like “soul” of a brand. Google simplified, has anyone stopped using Google or seeing it’s older designs as old? The slick looks designed for mobile are good generally speaking since we the modern people tend to multitask so much, see so much things at once and our attention is always split, so just the simple recognisable shapes of a mature well-known brand work well on our eyes and minds. You see a bunch of softly coloured squares and instantly recognise Microsoft. And every brand just tries to follow it since it looks so slick and versatile. They know if they’re well established on the market that you will recognise them just by looking at simple shapes and colour palettes. And then the smaller brands just see big companies doing this and try to fit in since if they don’t they’re out of competition. (although global competition is now all monopolistic). And because they just want to follow the trend and fit in within the standards of the time. Plus of course it’s just a trend. And those are just brands, they have little to no cultural value (at least they shouldn’t, it’s not art) because they’re designed with a sole purpose to be recognisable, versatile and sell whatever they’re trying to sell. People need to calm down or if they want a change go to official internet pages of brands and tell them en masse they want “soul”, “character”, “artistic approach” and so on. Or stop buying or using the branded stuff as a sign of protest.
as the world gets more depressing you start seeing less color options on cars because no one has a personality to drive a bright green car, rather than black, grey or white. No one wants to be outside anymore, so McDonald’s removed the playhouses and wacky castle themes, to boring wannabe-fancy restaurants. TLDR, debranding is just another side effect of the depressing society
I feel like this all started with a certain ios update that happened in i believe 2012? Maybe? It made the iphone icons look flat, and matte colored, as opposed to slick and shiny as they were before. I remember hating it but my eye eventually adapted to it and found it to be more appealing than the previous layout.
I think the debrandig and simplification of logos, is also caused by todays information overload, people are tired from all of sources with too much data and want now something simple and comfortable to loook at and remember. Just look at coca cola, in essence its just a simple one or two colored logo without too much detail (By detail i mean lots of shaders and etc. not the font)
the sooner the pendulum swings back, the better. “mobile first” is a pathetic excuse for debranding. my iphone 5s handled all the complex logos and websites in full clarity back in the day, and it had nowhere near the screen size or pixel density or quality that todays phones have, let alone laptops/tvs etc. these company logos have no personality, no intrigue, no creativity, nothing memorable at all. they’re not iconic – that’s the very thing a company icon must be.
Crazy world. Logos used be detailed when screens of computers and mobil phones were low DPI. Today they have higher DPI than ever, being totally capable of displaying the most detailed logos (that’s why “mobile first” is a BS argument in the article), yet the logos become so simple, you could display them in full detail on the original Gameboy.
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 don’t understand these companies. Aren’t they supposed to stand out from other companies and things to people’s liking? If everyone hates oversimplification of logos then don’t do it and stand out from other companies and people will appreciate it. I also don’t understand why companies never listen to their customers’ requests.
Like you siad at the end, when it becomes mainstream and it flips, it begins anew. Well so many things went “corporate flat clean™ professional” that we should be going back in the other direction. Instead they just keep getting more and more uninspired and same-looking. Many logos clearly didn’t even need the treatment to be viewable on mobile devices too. Volkswagen’s for instance was perfectly readable even as a favicon. So to me all of it just looks like laziness and cost cutting. Like “why pay for more ink when you can make it one color?” and/or “why pay for actual graphic design in a revision when you can just pick a font?”.
I believe this whole simplicity gambit of debranding has all gone too far. I honestly love a logo with detail and a unique design as long as it’s not too busy. It makes an everlasting effect and the ones that have been creative and eye-catching have been around for years and were instantly recognizable. Now companies are just competing for who can have the least colour and most basic a shape in their logos. It’s honestly deeply saddening to see the logos we knew and loved be replaced with unimpressive garbage to the point you can’t even tell the brand from sight. No one asked for companies to change them and clearly the masses are not pleased with these new charmless logos so I wish they would just revert back to their infamous logos.
I just see this as sheer laziness. All these logos getting so boring and samey makes me not want to buy them lol. Brands are supposed to stick out and appeal to the buyer. I was legit angry at the new Pringles logo bc it’s so bland. Companies must really want people to stop buying their products with bland packaging anymore. Everyone hates the new mobile icons as well bc they’ve gotten so out of control. They all look the same now
I kind of feel that this trend has something to do with the way we consume content nowadays. Logos are often used as profile pictures on social networks, or just observed on mobile phones in any case, so they have to be quite small. And if a logo is decorated with thousand details, colours and shadows, it can easily look like a blob of colour when it’s very small. Personally, I find simplified logos more elegant and open to more possibilities, for example like the Warner Bros example in the article.
Incredibly surprised Microsoft wasn’t brought up. I think this started with Zune in 2006 and was fully realized with Windows Phone in 2010, followed soon thereafter by the company-wide rebrand of Microsoft in 2012 where everything was reduced down to flat designs. It allowed more flexibility for switching theme colors, easily recognizable at any size, and was a departure from the over-designed skeuomorphism which plagued software interfaces like iOS 6.
Different logos are used in different instances but most of the time big companies will use simplified ones in their monochrome colours. People complained about the newest Version of the FireFox logo but didn’t know that it’s only used on their own website and not the browser. What is funny about all of this is that somehow modern day Ai Art is more human than big company art.
From 1969 to 1976 and 1984-1996 by extension, WPIX website 11 New York, during The Independent Era, aired their 2nd updated version of the The Iconic “Circle Eleven Symbol”, bearing the resemblance of The Twin Towers of The World Trade Center. Right before its “Dependent Branding” into The God Awful “WB11” in January 1995.
I spotted some debranded logos that still looked good debranded: Burger King notably, Pepsi even though its asymmetry bothers me personally, even the Pringles logo kept as much personality it could with its new simplified design. But the overwhelming majority are not just debranded, they are depersonalized. They look impersonnal, soulless, which is a bad look in an era where people are more and more aware and wary of the corporate mindset. I feel it reminds us of a part of the companies we’d rather not be dealing with.
they’re going “Simple and cleaner” because designers are lazy. People used to paint signs by hand with amazing typefaces and design work, gilding etc. then people started using computers and vinyl plotters and they NEVER look as good. stores and shops used to be called cool names like sutleries, haberdasheries or gallimaufry. Now they are called “Furnish, spoon and wears” seriously. It’s pure and utter laziness and non imaginative. I look around at “Logos” and think, ‘damn, someone got paid to do THAT’ when they use free fonts from Dafont and basic free PNG borders and frames.
I disagree with the term “debranding.” These companies aren’t “removing” or “discarding” their brands; they’re modifying and updating them. “Debranding” is a clumsy misnomer. These companies are merely simplifying and modernizing their logos. Their brands remain intact. Stop making up nonsensical terms.
I feel like another aspect of complex logos versus simple ones is vulnerability. When a small town cafe has an overdone logo, they are putting themselves out there with art that’s meant to represent themselves which you may or may not like. When a corporation uses some simple shapes as a logo, they remove opportunities to critique or interpret it. So I guess it’s a good strategy for a high stakes business, but I love when smaller companies are more adventurous or artful with their graphics.
It will reverse, to more details, when AR/VR and 3D logos/signs in a virtual environment requires a 360° perspective. What’s on the back of the Pringles face? Is a car’s logo like a coin? Are spheres or stars better? How much detail can be seen from various “depths” in the virtual environment. How much color can be spotted and how much shadow is needed? Special effects, sounds, and movement. All these will need to be answered in a VR space, with literally endless options.
If they are too lazy to have detail in the new look for logos why would it be hard for companies to simply keep the old logos? I mean I don’t see how keeping the old logo would be a bad thing. I can understand Aunt Jemima getting a make over since the early logo was quite racist against blacks but changing logos like on Pringles and even Cereal Mascots making them look more childish or more less refined in their look is pretty bad. I mean Sam Tucan’s new look just looks awful and the Lucky from Lucky Charms also had somewhat of a downgrade too. Simplistic looks can be artistic if done right but with logos it is not being done right at all.
I’m afraid that I disagree with all if not, most of you. I actually prefer this overly simplified designed of branding. I’m in a design program myself and trust me when I say it’s better this way. Here’s why: 1. Yes, the older brands & logos certainly have more personality but that’s only because you’ve grew up with them. Let’s take the Pringles example used in the article, now let’s say you’ve never seen or known about the Pringles brand before but then I showed you side-by-side both the old logo & new Pringles logo, would you be able to tell that it’s a potato-chips company? I doubt so. Most people who grew up with the older Pringles logo have developed a mental memory or what the brand is associated with. 2. But it’s not just that, the simplified design allows the logo to blend with any coloured background. For example, a pure black logo will match beautifully with a white background interface behind it for website use, allowing the user to easily distinguish and recognize what they’re seeing on screen or printed material. This is the same reason why most books are printed on pure white pages using pure black ink, for easier readability. If books were printed on say hot pink paper with red ink for the text, sure they have a unique style but I’m almost sure that you will have a harder time reading them. Try this experiment! Google for “web archives” or “Wayback Machine” and visit any company website of your choice (Apple & YouTube are good ones). Then select the year of your choice (2015, 2010, 2005, 2000 are also good choices).
I grew up learning how Logos, Station IDs, and Media Templates were produced in Late I99X during the major transition phase that eventually led to the era of Minimalism that we have today: Some of my first Hand Drawn and Digital works of art date back to I999, and I knew from from perusal fellow relatives, family friends, and many local networks in the industry that Textures, Gradients, delicate Lighting and Shading, and specific forms of Tridimensional Effects will make a difference when utilized correctly; CBS 04 (Boston)’s News Division was the first to truly debut Minimalism in the Greater Boston region when it rebranded back to the WBZ moniker in February of 2007, all the spectacular Live Action shots and Rendered Graphics used between I999 and 2006 were switched out for Flat Boxes and a massive series of unappealing font changes that stuck with the network all the way up to now and has decimated its overall viewership and presentation over Sixteen Years; WGBH would follow suit in Early 20I5 after it retired the 200I and 20I3 editions of its Neon Logo and Station ID template from I977 (though the new “GBH” logo from 2020 at least remains modular enough that it still remains in a heavily detailed state, even when the base graphic that now uses the Red Hat font is flat and plastic; it must be noted too that PBS’ First Party outlet started gradually changing over to Minimalism as early as 200I for PBS Kids and 2005 for main programming before completely doing so in 20I9) and CBS’s First Party outlets would do in kind in 20I8 around the time that Magnum P.
Sorry. You’ve got it completely wrong. The so-called ‘Debranding’ you mention happened with the FLASH wave. What is FLASH? Well.. it was the tool that everyone used in 2000 etc. Macromedia Flash 8? Do you remember? That program laid a standard to convert 3D logos into 2D ones. Just look at almost every tv website in Europe. It was really dramatic. Flash made a standard in design and now you don’t mention it at all? Flash did the ‘Debranding’ and it now continues today to evolve.
I think it’s deeper than pixel simplification. Music, fashion, trends, opinions change every 10 years. Look at the 20th century and you can pinpoint each decade based on any two of these signatures. Then from 2000 to 2022 everything is beige. You can’t pick out 2007 from 2017, 2022 from 2012. Music, fashion and styles are all the same. Individualism has been surreptitiously eradicated.
soul-less sell outs. It’s the same with the modernization of furniture and home decor. All the soul and color that brought out the individual’s character is now replaced with a flat, white, clean “luxury” look… vs. the 70s – 90s where everything was about color and adding pizzaz. It’ll come back in due time. hopefully…
Because we are getting more simple minded than we used to be and are easier to target branding to. We see advertising in short bursts now such as on tik tok and YouTube. Simplifying the design makes it easier to recognise instantly in a short space of time so we are no longer trying to grab people with intricate and complicated logos that we want to look at. We are being given logos that are quick to recognise and sleek and simplistic to look more expensive in the digital age but with less personality. Most of the market has moved that way so if you don’t you may fall behind and not look like a competition to your modern alternative businesses. That’s my thoughts in a nutshell. TL;DR: we dumber, we needed easier logos
Plot twist: The reasons for debranding are 1. designers run out of ideas or become lazy to design a whole new brand with more spectacular things in it. 2. It is simpler for publishing. It saves money for company in advertising/making promotion…. 3. To make customers easier to remember?????????????????????????
ngl, sounds like cope. there is no good reason. “make it simpler” is not a good reason. it sounds stupid. the logos almost blend in to each other. generic black text can be hardly distinguished from each other. I swear the logo even represents the mediocrity of the products. WB does not make good things anymore, Starbucks does not sell coffee but some random beverages that taste like coffee, Sprite does not taste as good as when I was a child, all the clothes from the big brands break insanely quick, google does not find anything useful anymore.
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 in the past few years. 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. :/
I think it can be compared to cars going from petrol to electric. Electric is smoother, quieter, more elegant. Petrol is often janky, loud and depending on the drivers skill can be very bumpy. Àlso I believe it’s just an evolution of design. Look at old websites Vs todays standards, in the old days it was squares, bland colours (and usually a bad mix of them), no animations and usually badly compositions. Now we have design guidelines with clear lines, circles and other shapes are very popular, accent colours that catch your eye where it matters, emojis have become a standard in text, everything has become more elegant and appeasing. So I believe the brands are doing the same evolution. It’s simply keeping up with the times, today’s digital world is much more flat.
My office just unveiled their new “logo”: a “wordmark” that completely stripped away the visual design and replaced it with a “luxury font”. In small places, it’s simplified to an “x” on a purple square or circle. For the last week, I keep losing the browser tab and wondering why I have xFinity’s website open!
They all think that simplistic designs on the internet and social media made by random people are what’s “in” now. Of course it is NOT what’s in! Demand to ALL of these companies to bring back their old logos! I’m not kidding! So far, it is starting to work. For example, a privately held retail company in my home state, which recently changed their long-lasting logo design from the 80s into something soulless-looking; now, even more recently, from listening to customer demand, they changed their logo back to its 1980s version.
I like it! Restrained minimalism like this hosts wardrobe is the look of the 2020’s. It started with Regis Philbin and his monochromatic looks on Millionaire and it kept going ever since. Steve Jobs and Apple along with Musk and Tesla also have a huge cultural effect these days and both are minimalist obsessed… So get used to black, white, grey and maaaaaaybe blue being the OK colors of the time…
Logos are soulless these days really no other words can describe it better Me who was considering starting graphics designing, it will be far hard (or easy) making logos for companies now, because in my opinion when you make a logo it should be creative and express the company but now it’s only flat letters and some colors thats it, for me it’s hard to do such logo, I’d rather do more creative, rich and alive logos