Around about every 6 months or so, a big company or institution reveals a new rebrand that gets HUGE pushback. And a lot of this seems to come from other designers themselves.
If there’s anything I’ve learned from working as a designer (and around others), it’s that we only ever see the tip of the decision-making iceberg in the final product. Brands are really susceptible to this, because most people who react to them will just post a picture comparing the old and new logos/marks.
What any modern brand has to deal with, though, is creating assets that have versatility. They have to look good on massive billboards and tiny app icons; physical and digital, flex to accommodate contexts, seasons, places, products…
I feel like most designers know this… and yet forget it as soon as someone puts an old logo they’re used to, that feels comfortable and familiar, next to a new one that feels simplistic, dumbed-down or abstract. They’re swept up in the rejection of change and the opportunity to join the pile-on, never considering how the brand looks in context, what its goals are, and how effective it’s likely to be at achieving them.
Of course, not all rebrands succeed, and some make fundamental mistakes. But most have made vast improvements for the companies that produced them, and are a better fit for their needs.
While having a design mindset opens your eyes to how crap things are currently, it also makes you realise how many limitations, trade-offs and unseen considerations are involved in something that on the surface can seem very simple. Designers, you would think, would be very empathetic to people who’ve had their intentions and rationale ignored or misunderstood…
For more on this, the story of the University of California’s attempted rebrand from 99% Invisible is an enlightening listen.