Notice fast food restaurant are doing that with there buildings Notice before you could spot a burger King mcdonald's of taco bell from a mile away because of the roof color and building shape now they are all brown boxes with minimal differences
Personally, I prefer the more complicated and visually interesting logos. I like logos with personality. At least those old school lively logos didn't scream "soulless corporate crap" on the box. I mean, you're getting soulless corporate crap either way, but I just liked the early 00s logos.
Don't you worry.. those will make a come back in the future. All it needs is evolving technology, changing consumer preferences and a stiff competition where the company in question is facing mounting investor pressure while struggling to breach the top 3.
"If we go back half a century, logos were predominately simple." "Simplicity was a necessity dictated by the limitations of hand drawing." First, half a century is just the mid-1970s. Second, what limitations? Have you seen some of the packages from the early 19th century? Or even Apple's first logo?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the script really sounds like it was written by ChatGPT, so I'm not surprised by the inaccuracies (e.g. 8:55 "This genre-specific branding enhances the audience's experience by creating a cohesive and immersive visual identity that resonates with the context they are consuming.").
@@Miaumiau3333 Kinda~Sorta, but it reminded me more of a corporate PR consultant fluent in 7 different varieties of bullsh¡†, giving a powerpoint demonstration to a boardroom full of executives.
"If We go back half a century" Last time I check a century is 100 Years So half a century is 50 years 50 years from 2024 is 1974 So yes talking about the mid 1970s and calling it half a century ago is correct
whatever the reasoning, you have to admit the way megacorporations have a death grip on the economy and thus every product you see has a monochrome sans serif logo feels dystopian as hell
They still simplified their current logo.. old or not it's a simpler design then what they had and big business doesn't just on a whim change their logo
Same with Pringles, which had a very similar logo prior to the late 90s or early aughts. Pepsi is another recent example of this, swapping one minimalist logo for another simple one they previously used in the 70s and 80s. (Fortunately, the classic Pepsi Cola script is still on the label by the nutrition and ingredients panels.)
but they do have a range of packaging and products which the new logo lends itself to very well. Printing could be easier, with simpler illustrations as well as mascot branding could be made simpler with a simpler illustration (think ads on social media for both mobile and desktop). I think in Asia Mr. Pringles marketing material shows him being animated and expressive in multiple ways.
@@jellyface401Instagram facebook twitter profile pictures are 16X16 pixel sizes when seen in the newsfeed unlike a persons picture these MNC wants there logos to be seen pretty clearly everywhere. That's why it's being simplified to be seen clearly even it's a small 16X16 circle
I took a design class in college and was told that logos should look great in black and white as well as in color. If it can not be printed in black and white, then it's a "broken logo". I see the logic behind this but businesses should have different more complex logos for signage and in situations where they can afford to make the logo more visually appealing. Keeping the same simplistic logo in every situation is not helping business but that seems to be the trend lately with large corporations. They no longer care what their customers think.
Better than what I was taught. In marketing they literally taught us they appealed to customers and clientele of a higher iq and social status, who were more likely to drop more money
i see. just as the world is in color, a logo can also be in color. changing it is just changing it. a colorful town in brazil, or a field of various flowers, or a stained glass window…all a different feel and look with and wo color, so u want a certain message, create it how its meant to be seen. to create a constraint to appeal to the black and white world i think has little to do with how effective it is. i understand they want u to not rely on color to create design, but color is design. just saying color can be the major element of a logo, so to be ignorant of that i think is folly
Even then trading corporations had two logos. A very intricate one that could be painted on something big (for example a store sign), and a minimalistic one that can be stamped on a wooden box using a hot iron. So for some reason companies are getting rid of the elaborate version.
There's something to be said for consistency rather than always rushing after trends. I've spent my entire graphic design career being consistent in communicating the message in the most effective way possible, not caring about trends.
I remember the day when on cola cans they shifted the logo upwards so a quarter of it was tilted on the ridge. Don’t know why they did that, it’s so ugly
It's really just the bandwagon effect where many companies want to be on the same page. Then, a successful company will come in and overcomplicate designs and then all companies will follow suit. It's just an ebb and flow of trends. The only thing that's certain is that change will happen again. This is a pretty good video, though. That's interesting that young companies are more likely to be more complex and colorful. Thanks.
I’m sick of this minimalist era..they think it looks “modern” or “professional” but really it just looks drab, bland, soulless and just downright depressing. You can modernize without being so overly simplistic.
Pile of BS. Maybe not when it comes to logos. But mininalism is a good thing. It's much better than the clutter and consoomerism that is an utter cancer to the world. It's like people don't have a soul or identity outside of the cr@p they own.
@@brantisonfire No, Google Chrome is now the basis for Edge, as well as Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Arc and Spotify for some reason. Firefox & Safari are the only remaning browsers that have nothing to do with Google.
2:12-2:15 - _"branding elements can become cumbersome and ineffective. Detailed logos intricate typography and complex color schemes may not translate well to mobile screens"_ meanwhile icons in menu in mobile phone 2000s: Detailed and varied. somewhere we took a wrong turn 🤔
@@CnaDoCna That's because that's not his argument. His argument is that detailed and varied logos were the standard, and were completely readable then. It is only now, when companies are actively pushing hypersimplified logos, are they saying that flare and shape are somehow bad design.
@@galvanizeddreamer2051 well, standards changed and now we know that we can have something more readable for wider range of sizes, conditions, mediums and people
@@CnaDoCna I fundementally disagree. We now have hypersimplified shapes that fail to adhere to artistic concepts of readability, and sacrifice artistic value for the sake of universal cohesion when it isn't needed. Lighting, color, general implication of shape beyond just a solid color shillouette all play into readability, yet they have all be wholly rejected. Look up how pixelart does it, how they hint at edges and specific shapes when working with abstractions, tricking your brain into seeing details that aren't truly represented. All of that is gone in favor of a single color blob with the same fillet radius on all the corners. Material as well. Metallics, mattes, woodgrain, noise. These all play into the feel of a logo, adding to how it is percieved emotionally. Why do you think games and films use color filters, vignetting, and other tricks? It is to reflect the emotion those tricks represent, whether it be nostalgia for the past, awe for the future, or even just the feeling of heat itself. Your "standards" killed art, and I'm kinda tired of being told that it was for the better.
this genuinely sounds like propaganda. no questions were answered, but the thing being questioned was made to sound positive, and for those of us who actually want an amswer, even *more* questions were raised by this video. one example is this: the video said that the minimalistic logos are perceived as "more elegant and give the impression of luxury and premium quality." but we want to know, as perceived by *who*?? who views it that way? because the whole reason we're questioning the minimalisation of logos in the first place is that we DON'T see the logos as more elegant or representative of luxury. so not only did the video fail to answer the initial question, it introduced *another* question and didn't provide an answer. i have no idea why anyone would want to make propaganda in support of minimalistic brand logos, but you did it.
You can't answer that question because at the end, the perception of luxury is subjective and cultural. I'm UX designer and all I can tell is that minimalistic logos are easier and faster to identify and that's what logos exist for. That's why the trend is not going to change anytime soon imo. If you rlly want to know the theory behind it, you have to reach for a cognitive science textbooks
It's because the new logos generate more money for the brand owners. Because people don't know what they want. They don't like the new logos, but they'll pay more money for products that have the new logos. Good post though.
@@LilacMonarch Hell no. It's a guess. But think about it... how many times have you bought a Snickers or something because it had a different design on the wrapper?
ah yes. pringles. the super serios high quality premeim can of chips that you defenitly cant buy at your local supermarket, needs a rebrand of removing charicter for symolizing maturity.
@@greenrobot5 i like pringles because of their taste not their fucking logo, i won't stand there and be like "I like their chips but all these companies have minimalist logos and they don't, hence I don't desire them anymore" like wtf.
So basically, all that bevel, emboss, drop shadow, gradient and other random digital editing effects we were taught in the 00s have gone the way of WordArt & bubble text now and the new standard is to simplify to stay optimized for all platforms.
It's awful and lazy. Worse is that someone gets paid the big bucks for this oversimplified trash that a literal gradeshooler can whip up is 3 minites in paint.
It's not even really minimalist honestly. If you put logos in a pile and were asked to organize between simpler and more complex ones, the current Firefox logo would probably go in the complex pile.
It actually has pictures and colors. Every logo that is a word can’t be read by children or people with difficulties reading. Pictures also seem fun and enjoyable.
I'm not as peeved by "minimal" logos as most, but I will say its certainly "funny" that companies will change their logos and overall aesthetic instead of looking at nore fundamental problems such as overworked employees and overpriced products.
You forgot the biggest reason of all. Color costs money. It costs more to print it on the product. It costs more to print it in a paper ad. It takes additional time/resources to employee computer graphics artist to make sure the appropriate color design is reflected across different platforms. Especially important if you have a name brand color. Companies will pay these additional costs IF they increase profit margins significantly, BUT if they can keep the same amount of sales with a less expensive version then that's what they're going to do.
I dont really think its due to the fact it "costs" more if it has a bunch of colors because most advertisments that are printed arent usually priced if it has color or not but rather the quantity or the size. The second part tho yeah i do think its more time consuming if a brand has a logo with colors that stand out then it would take more time to find a fitting color scheme but that wont significantly raise the cost.
Yes, that is the reason that most products in the supermarket have a simple packaging without any colors or images on it. It saves printing costs and costs for a designer.
So, as insider, the truth is their are designers who need the work. The team has "sales people" that convince them it's needed. It's why your local McDonalds gets a full makeover every few years. People need the work and executives also need to feel like they are doing something proactive.
I don't agree about the maturity and trust part and also the fact that a compagny like WB has to fit the logo in many franchise, they can still do it with their old logo and don't with new logo which is more ugly
No real person agrees with the maturity and trust part. It's the companies that "think" that though, of themselves and for the sharholders, so in some ethereal realm
The decision to simplify the logos I feel is a move away from the joy of living life I felt as a kid to the superficial, soulless, shallow, need to look cool and fit in that I'm now experiencing as an adult.
3 things the general public usually don’t understand about rebranding; 1. it makes a ton of money, through the market shift as mentioned in the video, cost savings and/or attention; 2. it’s not expensive for large companies to do this compared to other options; 3. individuals personal taste doesn’t matter.
I’m not so sure about “not expensive” , a big company has to reprint everything when they rebrand…all stationary, merch, and ads… I doubt that’s inexpensive, but I could be wrong
@@ramoloiitrue however, this can be done over a period of time, Where tools may have been replaced anyway. With Pringles as an example, one way the new logo saves them money is the old logo required maybe 20 colours (to reproduce the gradient on the moustache requires lots of colours), the new one requires only two, and maybe in some cases only one colour. After 6 to 18 months, that saving in reproduction my actually pay for the logo change on its own.
1 thing the general public doesn't understand: capitalism doesn't actually care about your opinion. Consume product and then consume more product. Find happiness in consuming products!
@@RextheRebel 100%. there can often be a large discrepancy between what people say and what people actually do too. so very vocal unhappy people when design is the focus usually don’t translate to a larger group of people and often doesn’t even represent that persons real world behaviour. turns out angry people’s money is still money :)
@@onemorechris the color count would mean something if it didn't need to also print a picture that takes full range offset printing on the label anyway. In the end they are changing less ink per square millimeter of several tones (that they're already applying on the chips picture anyway) to a single dense black area. Can't really tell which one is any cheaper.
"Logos back then were simple because of the limitation of a pen, so in reality modern logo simply regress back to it's older design" He speak at least 7 different BULLSHITS in this video, have you seen actual brand logos from Victorian era? Or the original Apple logo? It diffinitely was NOT simple, people can do amazing things with a pen, you don't need to use computer D:
Yeah, while our technology may have advanced, humanity itself really have not changed much from our ancestors regarding way of thinking (arguably it may evolved backward...). Like, who decided those oversimplified logos? It's not the technology. Meanwhile history showing us that even before humanity stamps logo on their product, we have always drawn with intricate design, just look at those heraldic crests. Having simple design for readability is nice... for a totally new product in the market, it really shouldn't be an issue for long-established, matured company where everyone & their granny know their logo anyway. If anything it just alienated some of the consumer.
2:17 In 2000s during the frutiger aero era mobile phones had detailed skeumorphic logos, and nobody had problems with them! 4:46 Also, never use these corporate memphis style images, they look ugly as hell!
Your video says "brands must be agile and responsive to changing customer demands" yet you also say the companies intentionally change their branding to communicate a new identity. So what comes first, customer demand or company enforcement of its goals on the customer?
If you ask me it's plain laziness. Modern companies just don't want to invest the time and creativity in their branding anymore-all they want is the recognition and the attention. For those of us that only use their phones to make calls with [yes, you can actually make calls on your phone] the whole 'minimalist optimization' for devices is just a cop-out. It's laziness, it has nothing to do with maturity. As for the WB redesign, their OLD logo was highly versatile and could be used in many different settings. These people need to keep their jobs and need to stay relevant, so they 'fix' things that aren't broken [Anyone from Google reading this?]
Even those of us who use phones for a lot of things agree the old logos were perfectly fine. Hell, actual smartphone app icons in the early days all had that glossy aesthetic and there wasn't a problem
That's precisely what I think. Why pay someone to come up with different versions of a logo when it's cheaper to take the one simple logo and scale it up? Besides, most corporations stopped caring what their customers think.
Somehow this video made me hate minimalistic logos more than I already did. I feel like I'm in a room with a bunch of marketing execs spouting buzzwords then patting themselves on the back
No, the reason is people became less and less creative and art no longer plays a big role. Look at example at the old buildings of the 18th century. So much more elegance and art. People shouldn't be proud of the simplification from nowadays things in my opinion
no, people did not become less creative, and your opinions on buildings or whatever are subjective (and buildings don't represent our collective artistic abilities)
You know, before there’s steel framed concrete, building can’t be built tall and require more sophisticated techniques such as stone arc or flying buttress to keep it together.
Back in the day, youtubers spoke like people with personalities when sharing their passions, even in their documentaries. These days everybody uses tts or ai.
No, the logos are still minimalistic and unaesthetic,and doesn't denote at all in any case "maturity" and "professionalism" it denote laziness and lack of ideas and lack of good leaders and innovations.
There is an exception.. Mahindra and Mahindra which is a very famous car manufacturer company in India has gone from minimalistic to full 3D. Just go through their logo once
I think that logo changes are motivated by simply having too many graphic designers on staff who really should just be consultants, and the trends they follow are just them copying each other
By 2:03 I had it, “he” spends 2 minutes on nothing just to get to the point. This is an ai made video people, just look and hear the video. Think for urselvels
So essentially they're saying "colors and bold designs are immature and only for young people". Maybe that's why most major phone manufacturers use so goddamn BORING phone colors...
I feel like this video ignores most of the 20th century, where logos were WAY more complex than they ever were in the age of the computer! Look at car badges from the 1920s to 1950s and they might as well be family crests, they're ornate and full of detail even on budget brands. The logo used to be treated like jewelry for the product, it might not have been as instantly recognizable but it gave the impression that the brand was something to be proud of. As far as I can tell, this started to go away in the 1960s, and the more basic logos were only updated with digital shininess and depth in the computer age, but the basic design stayed the same. Debranding has been going on for decades, it just had a blip of trendy digitalization for a while before turning completely flat now.
Companies don't debrand to cast a simpler or more prestigious image. Companies debrand because the marketing is being done by work-from-homes that do not know what they are selling. "Kn" Kia doesn't shout "I'm worth an extra 15k!", it shouts: I used chat gpt to make this logo because I don't know what my company manufactures...
Let's be real that simplification of logos is a kind of brainwashing where customers are no longer expecting the same quality from old brand and they can go cheap on materials and charge more for being new. One more thing Kia changed his logo to distance itself from clients expectations of a cheap car and they succeeded because many new buyers buy KIA thinking KN is the premium version of Kia, just like Lexus, Acura and Audi.
Several things are misleading in this video: Burger king and Warner didn't simplify their logos. They went back to the simplified version they once had. According to your historical perspective, logos were simple before computers due to handrawing. But Apple, football clubs and univertisities prove you wrong. I think Uber and Go Daddy are not as good examples as you think they are. If you see carefully, when they went oversimplified, they had to add a symbol or font to gain personality. Finally, the Kia logo. You don't make a branding change to "justify" your luxury. The brand reflects the real change, but a company can't rely only on its logo. At last, you can't associate branding changes with more sales only. Visual identity isn't for marketing, you can't measure it like so. It's communication (Coms and media bachelor here) and has many purposes other than sales
@@slapshotjack9806I don’t believe you actually have that opinion about the old VW logo, you’re definitely complimenting the new logo only to cause people to rage and be mad
The gap between the V and the W confuses me more. I could swear that back in the 90s and early 2000s there was no gap. But their logo history claims there was always a gap.
4:30 - Air Bed&Breakfast shortening their name to initials AirBnB over time hasn't been the only company to do that. IHOP was once spelled out International House of Pancakes on their signs and logos, and the same with KFC and Kentucky Fried Chicken. More people also spoke their names rather than their initials when verbally mentioning those places
In other words, it is unanimously hated... but they do it anyhow to look... mature? And people still need products, so it's not like we're going to starve and just... not drive cars or something, so that roughly translates to it working?
Honestly, the only thing that makes sense is the WB logo that wants to have a more cohesive range of thematic recolors (also it doesn't actually get as bad as the other ones). That's literally it, that's the only sane reason that doesn't sound like dystopian sugarcoated corporate lingo. The rest of these points like "maturity", "trust", "credibility" and "customer perception" are as good a gibberish when it comes to making an actual argument as to why it's ok to create low-effort primitive forgettable shadows of the former artistically superior logos, and fully retire the latter. When you look at the primitivized ugly logos that feel like they've been mass-produced at the same logo factory in a couple of minutes, these weird sectarian PR terms would never come to mind of the average person, the vast majority of sane people would just prefer the art detail of the old logos not to be destroyed. (I'd further argue that the act of removing detail from your logo damages the public perception of the company now, since it screams "I'm now selling my soul and joining all these other giga-corps that want to fight for your love and loyalty". And last thing to mention - the "mobile user experience" is far worse when your screen is blanketed with repetitive flat icons of simple-geometry symbols or glyphs with a very poor color scheme (if any colors are even there). It gets so primitive to the point of being disorienting. It's a lot easier to see what's what when you have icons that feel like actual pictures with uniqueness in color, depth and geometry. Icons actually have to stand out somewhat to be useable.
I love watching content from business and economics channels because the info is so useful in my day-to-day. For example, today I learned that if I change my signature to make it illegible, my boss will increase my wage by 60% over the next 6 years, and book me for record shifts each year to boot! Also, we learned that the prices for necessities - such as transportation vehicles - do not increase out of necessity but, rather, due to the insatiable hunger for profit growth at the expense of the common man. Neat!
designers never get free reign to do whatever they want. it’s slightly misleading to claim that the invention of photoshop sparked a wave of designers adding effects just because they could. Big rebranding is almost always created in a highly strategic way with many people involved
Yeah, sure. It was fitting well on ANY KIND of merch and branded products, such as pens, t-shirts, mugs. For decades. Now it doesn't fit the iphone retina screen which probably has 10-100x more resolution and color variety than printing tech they used to print that old, overcomplicated logo on some merch pens or badges till it's very last day. Bunch of bull and buzzword nonsense.
8:45 or they could have kept the old logo and it would have been fine for any scenario. That new logo looks like when a PS2 game was loading and the logo would spin on the bottom corner while you waited
You don't have to understand anything. Both the Volkswagen and Warner Bros logos were redesigned to be very similar to logos they used a long time ago. The current Warner Bros logo is similar to the versions they used throughout 1930 and 1960s and 1970. Similar case with volkswagen. Just Google "volkswagen logo history" and you'll see.
MBA speak for "we, the middle management, need to justify our existence so wasteful projects like this allow us to appear busy and delay noticing we are not doing anything worthwhile for a few more quarters".
I'm surprised you didn't mention General Motors recent rebranding. The classic "GM" was replaced with "gm". Now it looks marginalized. They might as well have put an asterisk after it because now it looks like an endnote.😕
I recall studying graphic design a few years ago in university. The easiest way to get a high calification and even a congratulation by the teacher in any work, specially brand related was go to the minimal route. There was a huge cult to the minimalism, less is more was almost a religious mantra on the academic designing world.
"nuanced and futuristic black" yes. Because the future is black. Like coal. Produced by our burning trees. Yes. Let us represent that future in our car logo. The future we represent and strive for./s
Hate minimalism. It lets you know you're dealing with a Soulless Corporate entity. Doing Graphic Design myself, hate the simplicity approach, it's regressing.
Is everyone is debranding, nobody is debranding. When all the big brands are "getting professional", no one will stand out like a professional brand...
I see absolutely nothing elegant about overly simplified logos. Some simplifications are good, but companies these days take it way too far. Current Windows logo is extremely ugly. Dropbox logo used to look like a box, but when shading was removed, I no longer see a box, just a bunch of rhombic shapes. Some companies that used to at least have some sort of a shape that made me think of them went ahead and removed the shapes and just wrote text in the plainest font they found and that's supposed to be recognizable or mature? Other companies, like DeviantArt, that couldn't find a way to simplify their logos well, really went out of the way to transform it in such way nobody sees any similarity to the company, so the company needs to write a whole paragraph of explanations, because the steps taken to construct the new logo were too abstract and enigmatic. I don't mind some simplification, but there is a limit of how much I can accept before my inner sense of aesthetics just says no.
A lot of these logo downgrades are bad, but I'll eventually get used to them. Pringles, on the other hand, is one of the worst and most careless logo changes ever and I will never accept the new one. What a massive misstep. The Pringles man is completely soulless looking. His mustache, now that it's lacking shading and detail, is just a big black void in the middle of his face. Even the previous can design, with a spotlight shining on an upright standing Pringle, was clever and simple. Nothing about it has improved. I can't imagine someone was paid money to ruin their logo.
I love how they waste all this money in unnecessarily changing logos (will cost $ to pay artists, have stuff printed and designed, e.g. books, receiptes & what have you) but hike up prices to recoup costs 😂 Beavis & Butthead will do better in managing thier assets😂
"Ancient logo were simpler too"... Me : look at all ancient object I own, from 70 years old aluminium bicycle to 120 years old coffee grinder, and including old food boxes from the 19th century, and some 150 years old newspaper's logo... Me : Relief, shadow, intricate details, sometimes playing with materials... Either you haven't maid your research or simple logo were a thing only in the US and you haven't researched further. And for all the logo that were maid with simplification in mind, they all did the same thing : the main logo have a core element that can be used alone if space is a problem or if simplicity is a concern. As soon as there is more room, the full branding is used. It was also the case with color, with lot of logo working both with a complex and detailed layout of color, and a simpler 2 color one, without any gradient. Also, about Warner, maybe you should have looked at their old contents. They have been adapting their logo to the content for decades now, far before their rebranding. As a consequence, the rebranding cannot have been done to make its material adaptable, as the old one already suited that need. Same for most video-media producers around the world.
Saying logos only got complicated because of graphical design software is straight up untrue. None of the logo designs before the creation of computers were simple, they are all detailed and usually visually appealing
With the Kia sales you have to take Covid into account, 2023 was the year that car prices had a recovery. Also their new logo is crap. Interesting video, thanks for making
8:07 Warner Bros doesn't need debranding for variety, from 1995 to 2010 they made a lot of variation with their old logo. The most noticeable ones are the Matrix and Harry Potter logos.
I must be old fashion.... I hated ALL the changes ... The New and Improved Logo lack... everything. They're BLAH... I understand and respect the change... but as an Artist... I do not like it.
I hate when companies do this. I Still don't like with Disney.For example , they got rid of walt name Now whenever you go to watch a disney movie it'll show disney Instead of saying Walt Disney Pictures. Which makes the logo look very empty.
Let’s be honest. Corporations often overthink the impact of customer perception within their vague minutia. It’s more plausible that simplification of logos is a cost saving measure.
It almost definately is. I can understand why some apps simpliy their logos for screens, search engines like FireFox and Chrome come to mind, but how do Pringles fit into that? McDonalds already had a simple logo, but they decided to flatten it for what reason? Then theres the ones that didnt even change much like Samsung and Volkswagon, whats going on there? The answer to all of them... money probably.
Yeah, the Pringles logo change is so awful I stopped buying them really. They're not really chips anyway, more like potato dust shaped into the form of chips. But I mean generally, how many people will stop buying stuff just cause of a logo change? I hope Pringles got a huge drop in people buying them, but of course people just want the stuff they bought before, so no big impact and nothing will change. hell, in 20 years the pringles logo will just be (=})
In context of going from complex to simplified logo, you didn't mention the reverse: several media companies giving up their classic logos for ultra simplified ones - all of which were eventually replaced with their original (or slightly updated) ones: MGM, WB, Columbia, NBC...and I'm sure there are plenty more
It doesn’t affect profits and the people complaining are only a small minority. Most people don’t care. Actually I think most people prefer the new ones, this comment section obviously would have everyone hating the new logos cus of the video topic and title. Or people are trying to be cool by being OG or hating change and being nostalgic. But in general, most people fall in the middle and don’t care at all. And with gen alpha growing up, eventually people would all like the new logos and it would end up being nostalgic for them. The frutigo aero era for technology was cool but let’s be real, it’s ugly and people only like it because they find it nostalgic.
I thought that it was some new Chinese KN brand that I never bothered with searching up since I could not care less. So that's why KIA cars kinda left the streets 😂
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Okay but the pringles logo was actually perfect and they changed it to make it look like any other generic brand
Exactly
Hell will have gotten to absolute zero before I would even consider that change acceptable
In a way their logo now much more accurately represents the bland taste of their pieces of cardboard they're calling chips.😂
Notice fast food restaurant are doing that with there buildings Notice before you could spot a burger King mcdonald's of taco bell from a mile away because of the roof color and building shape now they are all brown boxes with minimal differences
Also, unlike what the video suggests, there isn't like a Pringles app or anything.
Personally, I prefer the more complicated and visually interesting logos. I like logos with personality. At least those old school lively logos didn't scream "soulless corporate crap" on the box. I mean, you're getting soulless corporate crap either way, but I just liked the early 00s logos.
Don't you worry.. those will make a come back in the future. All it needs is evolving technology, changing consumer preferences and a stiff competition where the company in question is facing mounting investor pressure while struggling to breach the top 3.
You are just nostalgic for the past. The new logos are more sleek.
@@Nutty151yeah sleek and boring af
Interesting how you spell bland...
@@Nutty151Lol nah. The old logos are just on average more visually appealing.
"If we go back half a century, logos were predominately simple." "Simplicity was a necessity dictated by the limitations of hand drawing."
First, half a century is just the mid-1970s. Second, what limitations? Have you seen some of the packages from the early 19th century? Or even Apple's first logo?
Now imagine what iPhones would've looked like if Apple kept their original logo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the script really sounds like it was written by ChatGPT, so I'm not surprised by the inaccuracies (e.g. 8:55 "This genre-specific branding enhances the audience's experience by creating a cohesive and immersive visual identity that resonates with the context they are consuming.").
@@Miaumiau3333 Kinda~Sorta, but it reminded me more of a corporate PR consultant fluent in 7 different varieties of bullsh¡†, giving a powerpoint demonstration to a boardroom full of executives.
"If We go back half a century"
Last time I check a century is 100 Years
So half a century is 50 years
50 years from 2024 is 1974
So yes talking about the mid 1970s and calling it half a century ago is correct
@@alface935The problem is no such limitations existed in the 1970's
whatever the reasoning, you have to admit the way megacorporations have a death grip on the economy and thus every product you see has a monochrome sans serif logo feels dystopian as hell
Fr
Look at McDonald's now Vs the 90s. That and the simplification of branding reflects society today.
Laziness at its best and the will to invest the less possible to get refunds.
dystopian isnt some baf logos, people cry about everything jeez
Obey.
Consume.
Burger King didn't really simplify their logo. They actually went back to their older logo.
They still simplified their current logo.. old or not it's a simpler design then what they had and big business doesn't just on a whim change their logo
it’s not the exact same as their older logos, they changed the font and colors
Same with Pringles, which had a very similar logo prior to the late 90s or early aughts. Pepsi is another recent example of this, swapping one minimalist logo for another simple one they previously used in the 70s and 80s. (Fortunately, the classic Pepsi Cola script is still on the label by the nutrition and ingredients panels.)
Same with VW, very similar to their 1950s logo
Nobody noticed but they also changed the font. it isn't the exact same old logo
As far as I know Pringles isn't an app
but they do have a range of packaging and products which the new logo lends itself to very well. Printing could be easier, with simpler illustrations as well as mascot branding could be made simpler with a simpler illustration (think ads on social media for both mobile and desktop). I think in Asia Mr. Pringles marketing material shows him being animated and expressive in multiple ways.
@@MrIllustrativeStill it's a huge downgrade!
Yet! 😈
@@jellyface401Instagram facebook twitter profile pictures are 16X16 pixel sizes when seen in the newsfeed unlike a persons picture these MNC wants there logos to be seen pretty clearly everywhere.
That's why it's being simplified to be seen clearly even it's a small 16X16 circle
😂
I took a design class in college and was told that logos should look great in black and white as well as in color. If it can not be printed in black and white, then it's a "broken logo". I see the logic behind this but businesses should have different more complex logos for signage and in situations where they can afford to make the logo more visually appealing. Keeping the same simplistic logo in every situation is not helping business but that seems to be the trend lately with large corporations. They no longer care what their customers think.
Better than what I was taught. In marketing they literally taught us they appealed to customers and clientele of a higher iq and social status, who were more likely to drop more money
i see. just as the world
is in color, a logo can also be in color. changing it is just changing it. a colorful town in brazil, or a field of various flowers, or a stained glass window…all a different feel and look with and wo color, so u want a certain message, create it how its meant to be seen. to create a constraint to appeal to the black and white world i think has little to do with how effective it is. i understand they want u to not rely on color to create design, but color is design. just saying color can be the major element of a logo, so to be ignorant of that i think is folly
I'm not certain logos started simple. There are plenty of Victorian age logos that are extremely elaborate.
And before that, there were ... Coats of Arms. Often VERY intricate.
Even then trading corporations had two logos. A very intricate one that could be painted on something big (for example a store sign), and a minimalistic one that can be stamped on a wooden box using a hot iron.
So for some reason companies are getting rid of the elaborate version.
Meanwhile, Coca Cola is silently sitting in the back and observing.
if coca cola changed their logo, id be convinced the world is ending
@@TheFiteShowthey have already done it multiple times. What they haven't change is their typography.
@@pedroabrahampolancobeltran4382 the dash in the Coca-Cola logo was once different. Even if they are denying it. 😉
There's something to be said for consistency rather than always rushing after trends. I've spent my entire graphic design career being consistent in communicating the message in the most effective way possible, not caring about trends.
I remember the day when on cola cans they shifted the logo upwards so a quarter of it was tilted on the ridge. Don’t know why they did that, it’s so ugly
It's really just the bandwagon effect where many companies want to be on the same page. Then, a successful company will come in and overcomplicate designs and then all companies will follow suit. It's just an ebb and flow of trends. The only thing that's certain is that change will happen again.
This is a pretty good video, though. That's interesting that young companies are more likely to be more complex and colorful. Thanks.
I’m sick of this minimalist era..they think it looks “modern” or “professional” but really it just looks drab, bland, soulless and just downright depressing. You can modernize without being so overly simplistic.
Imo I think the current logos are nice
Pile of BS. Maybe not when it comes to logos. But mininalism is a good thing. It's much better than the clutter and consoomerism that is an utter cancer to the world. It's like people don't have a soul or identity outside of the cr@p they own.
This new era is so fucking boring. At least in the 80s and 90s shit was fun and colorful.
2024 is like 1984. Windows 1.0 looked better than Windows 11.
Simplistic and soulless vs. over-accessorized and desperate… I’m not sure which one is worse.
im not even kidding, this video is how i found out Kia cars and cars with a KN logo are the same. i had no fucking clue
I only recently found that out myself lol
Same bro same
I legit didnt know that KN logo was KIA and thought its a new car brand
It would be so much better if they left the crossbar on the A
Lol
"Quality"? "Profesionalism"? "LONGTERM Growth"? Yeah sure
"Maturity"
Versatility and easy management. Also it is less expensive to replicate in a variety of technics.
@@THTSound Burnout.
This was written by ai, no way this is someones opinion
@@G_Game_MII I think you're just a dork
"Mozilla lost its edge" 😂😂😂
Lol didnt even realize that xd
Technically, it's what my design instructor would call a "broken logo" because it can not be reproduced in black and white.
Did Mozilla become the basis for the Edge browser in Windows? I get the reference but not the entire joke.
@@brantisonfire No, Google Chrome is now the basis for Edge, as well as Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Arc and Spotify for some reason. Firefox & Safari are the only remaning browsers that have nothing to do with Google.
I'm not the only one to have noticed it, glad to acknowledge it
2:12-2:15 - _"branding elements can become cumbersome and ineffective. Detailed logos intricate typography and complex color schemes may not translate well to mobile screens"_ meanwhile icons in menu in mobile phone 2000s: Detailed and varied. somewhere we took a wrong turn 🤔
Easy, it's called gaslighting. "No, you see it was _always_ bad, we only just now fixed it."
Because something was in the past, doesn't mean it was better. Why is that an argument even
@@CnaDoCna That's because that's not his argument. His argument is that detailed and varied logos were the standard, and were completely readable then.
It is only now, when companies are actively pushing hypersimplified logos, are they saying that flare and shape are somehow bad design.
@@galvanizeddreamer2051 well, standards changed and now we know that we can have something more readable for wider range of sizes, conditions, mediums and people
@@CnaDoCna I fundementally disagree. We now have hypersimplified shapes that fail to adhere to artistic concepts of readability, and sacrifice artistic value for the sake of universal cohesion when it isn't needed.
Lighting, color, general implication of shape beyond just a solid color shillouette all play into readability, yet they have all be wholly rejected. Look up how pixelart does it, how they hint at edges and specific shapes when working with abstractions, tricking your brain into seeing details that aren't truly represented. All of that is gone in favor of a single color blob with the same fillet radius on all the corners.
Material as well. Metallics, mattes, woodgrain, noise. These all play into the feel of a logo, adding to how it is percieved emotionally. Why do you think games and films use color filters, vignetting, and other tricks? It is to reflect the emotion those tricks represent, whether it be nostalgia for the past, awe for the future, or even just the feeling of heat itself.
Your "standards" killed art, and I'm kinda tired of being told that it was for the better.
this genuinely sounds like propaganda.
no questions were answered, but the thing being questioned was made to sound positive, and for those of us who actually want an amswer, even *more* questions were raised by this video.
one example is this: the video said that the minimalistic logos are perceived as "more elegant and give the impression of luxury and premium quality." but we want to know, as perceived by *who*?? who views it that way? because the whole reason we're questioning the minimalisation of logos in the first place is that we DON'T see the logos as more elegant or representative of luxury.
so not only did the video fail to answer the initial question, it introduced *another* question and didn't provide an answer.
i have no idea why anyone would want to make propaganda in support of minimalistic brand logos, but you did it.
most of the video really just says "the new logo good, cuz i said so"
You can't answer that question because at the end, the perception of luxury is subjective and cultural. I'm UX designer and all I can tell is that minimalistic logos are easier and faster to identify and that's what logos exist for. That's why the trend is not going to change anytime soon imo. If you rlly want to know the theory behind it, you have to reach for a cognitive science textbooks
It's because the new logos generate more money for the brand owners. Because people don't know what they want. They don't like the new logos, but they'll pay more money for products that have the new logos.
Good post though.
@@asmithgames5926 That's a nice argument senator, how about you back it up with a source?
@@LilacMonarch Hell no. It's a guess. But think about it... how many times have you bought a Snickers or something because it had a different design on the wrapper?
As a Graphic Designer it hurts my soul seeing how big companies are showing with the minimalistic approach when it comes to their logos.
ah yes. pringles. the super serios high quality premeim can of chips that you defenitly cant buy at your local supermarket, needs a rebrand of removing charicter for symolizing maturity.
And don't forget mobile optimization!
@@battleframestudios8989 i heard pringles is making an app. honestly stupid. just walk to your local convenience or supermarket. oh well.
Yeah! I’m looking for a mature chip with a clean app logo. As we know we can only order them on our smart watches now.
as a company they have to follow the trends, especially food items, otherwise they lood old fashioned and therefore expired and undesirable
@@greenrobot5 i like pringles because of their taste not their fucking logo, i won't stand there and be like "I like their chips but all these companies have minimalist logos and they don't, hence I don't desire them anymore" like wtf.
‘late 1900s’ excuse me, the what now?
Hey, as a baby boomer, it freaked me out the first time I heard the 20th referrede to as "last century"!
@@joestrike8537
BAHAHAHAHA
I am still not in the 21st Century... LOL
My mind still thinks 2000 was a couple of years ago, so it breaks my brain when an adult tells me he was born in 2002.
@@coreyrobinson8209
EXACTLY... I feel the same way.
Now you know how people born in the 1880s-1890s felt hearing the term "1800s" :-P
So basically, all that bevel, emboss, drop shadow, gradient and other random digital editing effects we were taught in the 00s have gone the way of WordArt & bubble text now and the new standard is to simplify to stay optimized for all platforms.
Yeah blame smartphones for that
Less is more. I like cleanliness
@@VuMinhThuFPLHNThis is called "bad taste"! Skeumorphic and detailed logos are much better! Other opinions are wrong!
It's awful and lazy. Worse is that someone gets paid the big bucks for this oversimplified trash that a literal gradeshooler can whip up is 3 minites in paint.
Translated: The simpler the logo, the less the company has to pay designers.
Nah KIA logo was a flop. Sales did increase but it was not due to the logo redesigned for sure.
New logo looks also cheaper and kitschy
Kia? You mean KN?
KN?
@@axmat3436 the new kia logo looks like it says KN not KIA
@axmat3436 someone didn’t watch the video
That's a LOT of words to say "simple is just the fad right now".
He even admitted that we've been through at least one trend-cycle already.
Firefox is probably my favorite of the minimalist logos.
Mine personally was Pringles, but Firefoxis definitely up there.
YES... at least it still has Color
It's not even really minimalist honestly. If you put logos in a pile and were asked to organize between simpler and more complex ones, the current Firefox logo would probably go in the complex pile.
Firefox at least had the integrity to have shading
It actually has pictures and colors. Every logo that is a word can’t be read by children or people with difficulties reading. Pictures also seem fun and enjoyable.
I'm not as peeved by "minimal" logos as most, but I will say its certainly "funny" that companies will change their logos and overall aesthetic instead of looking at nore fundamental problems such as overworked employees and overpriced products.
Bro. Working the employees less and lowering prices cuts profit. Making the logo different promises a bit more sales. Think, Mark, think.
Thaaaaaaaaaaaaat's capitalism!
Company does something.
Haters: reeeeeeee
We can all learn from this stuff
True.
The minimalist logo symbolizes their minimal pay and care for their employees
You forgot the biggest reason of all. Color costs money. It costs more to print it on the product. It costs more to print it in a paper ad. It takes additional time/resources to employee computer graphics artist to make sure the appropriate color design is reflected across different platforms. Especially important if you have a name brand color. Companies will pay these additional costs IF they increase profit margins significantly, BUT if they can keep the same amount of sales with a less expensive version then that's what they're going to do.
Pretty sure this is the main reason, printing cost
I dont really think its due to the fact it "costs" more if it has a bunch of colors because most advertisments that are printed arent usually priced if it has color or not but rather the quantity or the size.
The second part tho yeah i do think its more time consuming if a brand has a logo with colors that stand out then it would take more time to find a fitting color scheme but that wont significantly raise the cost.
Yes, that is the reason that most products in the supermarket have a simple packaging without any colors or images on it. It saves printing costs and costs for a designer.
The new Kia logo looks like KVI. When I first saw it, I wondered who that new manufacturer was.
it literally looks like "КИ"
And it does not look smooth
KN If they were smart they would come up with some Korean words where KN would imply their cars are good, like Korean Neat.
I thought it was a big "W".
If they would have simply crossed the A, it wouldn't look like sh
So, as insider, the truth is their are designers who need the work. The team has "sales people" that convince them it's needed. It's why your local McDonalds gets a full makeover every few years. People need the work and executives also need to feel like they are doing something proactive.
I don't agree about the maturity and trust part and also the fact that a compagny like WB has to fit the logo in many franchise, they can still do it with their old logo and don't with new logo which is more ugly
No real person agrees with the maturity and trust part. It's the companies that "think" that though, of themselves and for the sharholders, so in some ethereal realm
when he called animated movies a genre I cringed
The decision to simplify the logos I feel is a move away from the joy of living life I felt as a kid to the superficial, soulless, shallow, need to look cool and fit in that I'm now experiencing as an adult.
corporate
I hate flat design, i hope that Fluent and FrutigerAero will defeat this evil aesthetic
It still feels soulless though
3 things the general public usually don’t understand about rebranding; 1. it makes a ton of money, through the market shift as mentioned in the video, cost savings and/or attention; 2. it’s not expensive for large companies to do this compared to other options; 3. individuals personal taste doesn’t matter.
I’m not so sure about “not expensive” , a big company has to reprint everything when they rebrand…all stationary, merch, and ads… I doubt that’s inexpensive, but I could be wrong
@@ramoloiitrue however, this can be done over a period of time, Where tools may have been replaced anyway. With Pringles as an example, one way the new logo saves them money is the old logo required maybe 20 colours (to reproduce the gradient on the moustache requires lots of colours), the new one requires only two, and maybe in some cases only one colour. After 6 to 18 months, that saving in reproduction my actually pay for the logo change on its own.
1 thing the general public doesn't understand: capitalism doesn't actually care about your opinion. Consume product and then consume more product. Find happiness in consuming products!
@@RextheRebel 100%. there can often be a large discrepancy between what people say and what people actually do too. so very vocal unhappy people when design is the focus usually don’t translate to a larger group of people and often doesn’t even represent that persons real world behaviour. turns out angry people’s money is still money :)
@@onemorechris the color count would mean something if it didn't need to also print a picture that takes full range offset printing on the label anyway.
In the end they are changing less ink per square millimeter of several tones (that they're already applying on the chips picture anyway) to a single dense black area. Can't really tell which one is any cheaper.
Time and money spent on changes that nobody asked for. I bet in most cases people often prefer the original as well.
I sure as hell do!
No but getting rid of pringles' old logo is criminal
I loved that guy and now hes just some blunt face :((
"Logos back then were simple because of the limitation of a pen, so in reality modern logo simply regress back to it's older design"
He speak at least 7 different BULLSHITS in this video, have you seen actual brand logos from Victorian era? Or the original Apple logo? It diffinitely was NOT simple, people can do amazing things with a pen, you don't need to use computer D:
Yeah, while our technology may have advanced, humanity itself really have not changed much from our ancestors regarding way of thinking (arguably it may evolved backward...). Like, who decided those oversimplified logos? It's not the technology.
Meanwhile history showing us that even before humanity stamps logo on their product, we have always drawn with intricate design, just look at those heraldic crests.
Having simple design for readability is nice... for a totally new product in the market, it really shouldn't be an issue for long-established, matured company where everyone & their granny know their logo anyway. If anything it just alienated some of the consumer.
2:17 In 2000s during the frutiger aero era mobile phones had detailed skeumorphic logos, and nobody had problems with them!
4:46 Also, never use these corporate memphis style images, they look ugly as hell!
I completely agree
Yes! Exactly! We need to go back to Frutiger.
Your video says "brands must be agile and responsive to changing customer demands" yet you also say the companies intentionally change their branding to communicate a new identity. So what comes first, customer demand or company enforcement of its goals on the customer?
Companies never care about customers. Only controlling narratives customers hear and consumption habits customers see.
Profits. It's always profits.
I think companies ask themselves that all the time, and go with whichever seems like it will bring them more dough this year than the last.
Both
Exactly, this video feels like AI generated corporate dickriding
If you ask me it's plain laziness. Modern companies just don't want to invest the time and creativity in their branding anymore-all they want is the recognition and the attention. For those of us that only use their phones to make calls with [yes, you can actually make calls on your phone] the whole 'minimalist optimization' for devices is just a cop-out. It's laziness, it has nothing to do with maturity. As for the WB redesign, their OLD logo was highly versatile and could be used in many different settings. These people need to keep their jobs and need to stay relevant, so they 'fix' things that aren't broken [Anyone from Google reading this?]
And what's more recognizable than what has already existed?
If they were lazy, they'd just keep their old logos
Even those of us who use phones for a lot of things agree the old logos were perfectly fine. Hell, actual smartphone app icons in the early days all had that glossy aesthetic and there wasn't a problem
That's precisely what I think. Why pay someone to come up with different versions of a logo when it's cheaper to take the one simple logo and scale it up? Besides, most corporations stopped caring what their customers think.
@@vibaj16 If they were lazy then they would oversimplify and debrand their logos
Make everything look flat and the same to stand out
Somehow this video made me hate minimalistic logos more than I already did. I feel like I'm in a room with a bunch of marketing execs spouting buzzwords then patting themselves on the back
No, the reason is people became less and less creative and art no longer plays a big role. Look at example at the old buildings of the 18th century. So much more elegance and art. People shouldn't be proud of the simplification from nowadays things in my opinion
no, people did not become less creative, and your opinions on buildings or whatever are subjective (and buildings don't represent our collective artistic abilities)
@@vibaj16 maybe your opinion is subjective as well😉
Those 18th century buildings would be absurdly expensive now. Buildings are simple because simple is cheap.
If you were born in the 18th century. You wouldn’t live in those ornate buildings. Those are only for the nobles, wealthy and royalty
You know, before there’s steel framed concrete, building can’t be built tall and require more sophisticated techniques such as stone arc or flying buttress to keep it together.
Back in the day, youtubers spoke like people with personalities when sharing their passions, even in their documentaries. These days everybody uses tts or ai.
2:26 I think the real question is why do you have three identical calculator apps installed on your phone
One of the worst is SiliconeGraphics, from incredible 3D wire mesh cube to just simply " s g i "
No, the logos are still minimalistic and unaesthetic,and doesn't denote at all in any case "maturity" and "professionalism" it denote laziness and lack of ideas and lack of good leaders and innovations.
There is an exception.. Mahindra and Mahindra which is a very famous car manufacturer company in India has gone from minimalistic to full 3D. Just go through their logo once
I did go through it and it is simplified to this ∞ but spikier. It does look better than the original with a hand holding a wrench though.
Only someone born after 2000 would refer to sometime in the '90's as "The late 1900s"!
I think that logo changes are motivated by simply having too many graphic designers on staff who really should just be consultants, and the trends they follow are just them copying each other
By 2:03 I had it, “he” spends 2 minutes on nothing just to get to the point. This is an ai made video people, just look and hear the video. Think for urselvels
So essentially they're saying "colors and bold designs are immature and only for young people". Maybe that's why most major phone manufacturers use so goddamn BORING phone colors...
0:41 "So, what prompted this shi(f)t?" 😂 Yep, we'll never figure it out.
I just want to shout "SILENCE, BRAND!" to the entire societal structure that culminated in this video being a thing that exists.
only brand that ruined their logo is twitter
R.I.P. blue bird
When I see the new twitter logo on metricool, I keep clicking on it thinking it's the close button!
That's a weird way of spelling "enhanced"!
Yeah, Musk really ruined it.
Well twitter does count because it was bought by a private investigator and became his play thing, instead of a company naturally evolving
I feel like this video ignores most of the 20th century, where logos were WAY more complex than they ever were in the age of the computer! Look at car badges from the 1920s to 1950s and they might as well be family crests, they're ornate and full of detail even on budget brands. The logo used to be treated like jewelry for the product, it might not have been as instantly recognizable but it gave the impression that the brand was something to be proud of. As far as I can tell, this started to go away in the 1960s, and the more basic logos were only updated with digital shininess and depth in the computer age, but the basic design stayed the same. Debranding has been going on for decades, it just had a blip of trendy digitalization for a while before turning completely flat now.
*Dunkin dropped the donuts, not the coffee.
*They dropped both.
Oh I missed the coffee cup in the logo! Good catch!
Companies don't debrand to cast a simpler or more prestigious image. Companies debrand because the marketing is being done by work-from-homes that do not know what they are selling.
"Kn" Kia doesn't shout "I'm worth an extra 15k!", it shouts: I used chat gpt to make this logo because I don't know what my company manufactures...
Let's be real that simplification of logos is a kind of brainwashing where customers are no longer expecting the same quality from old brand and they can go cheap on materials and charge more for being new. One more thing Kia changed his logo to distance itself from clients expectations of a cheap car and they succeeded because many new buyers buy KIA thinking KN is the premium version of Kia, just like Lexus, Acura and Audi.
Several things are misleading in this video:
Burger king and Warner didn't simplify their logos. They went back to the simplified version they once had.
According to your historical perspective, logos were simple before computers due to handrawing. But Apple, football clubs and univertisities prove you wrong.
I think Uber and Go Daddy are not as good examples as you think they are. If you see carefully, when they went oversimplified, they had to add a symbol or font to gain personality.
Finally, the Kia logo. You don't make a branding change to "justify" your luxury. The brand reflects the real change, but a company can't rely only on its logo. At last, you can't associate branding changes with more sales only. Visual identity isn't for marketing, you can't measure it like so. It's communication (Coms and media bachelor here) and has many purposes other than sales
There’s something really off with the VW logo having this air gap at the bottom 😂
@@slapshotjack9806I don’t believe you actually have that opinion about the old VW logo, you’re definitely complimenting the new logo only to cause people to rage and be mad
The gap between the V and the W confuses me more. I could swear that back in the 90s and early 2000s there was no gap. But their logo history claims there was always a gap.
@@slapshotjack9806 The badge is convex tho... It simply reflected the actual badge.
Very informative. Now I know the real reason designers were over killing the gradient effect back in the day.
4:30 - Air Bed&Breakfast shortening their name to initials AirBnB over time hasn't been the only company to do that. IHOP was once spelled out International House of Pancakes on their signs and logos, and the same with KFC and Kentucky Fried Chicken. More people also spoke their names rather than their initials when verbally mentioning those places
In other words, it is unanimously hated... but they do it anyhow to look... mature? And people still need products, so it's not like we're going to starve and just... not drive cars or something, so that roughly translates to it working?
Honestly, the only thing that makes sense is the WB logo that wants to have a more cohesive range of thematic recolors (also it doesn't actually get as bad as the other ones). That's literally it, that's the only sane reason that doesn't sound like dystopian sugarcoated corporate lingo. The rest of these points like "maturity", "trust", "credibility" and "customer perception" are as good a gibberish when it comes to making an actual argument as to why it's ok to create low-effort primitive forgettable shadows of the former artistically superior logos, and fully retire the latter. When you look at the primitivized ugly logos that feel like they've been mass-produced at the same logo factory in a couple of minutes, these weird sectarian PR terms would never come to mind of the average person, the vast majority of sane people would just prefer the art detail of the old logos not to be destroyed. (I'd further argue that the act of removing detail from your logo damages the public perception of the company now, since it screams "I'm now selling my soul and joining all these other giga-corps that want to fight for your love and loyalty".
And last thing to mention - the "mobile user experience" is far worse when your screen is blanketed with repetitive flat icons of simple-geometry symbols or glyphs with a very poor color scheme (if any colors are even there). It gets so primitive to the point of being disorienting. It's a lot easier to see what's what when you have icons that feel like actual pictures with uniqueness in color, depth and geometry. Icons actually have to stand out somewhat to be useable.
I love watching content from business and economics channels because the info is so useful in my day-to-day. For example, today I learned that if I change my signature to make it illegible, my boss will increase my wage by 60% over the next 6 years, and book me for record shifts each year to boot! Also, we learned that the prices for necessities - such as transportation vehicles - do not increase out of necessity but, rather, due to the insatiable hunger for profit growth at the expense of the common man. Neat!
designers never get free reign to do whatever they want. it’s slightly misleading to claim that the invention of photoshop sparked a wave of designers adding effects just because they could. Big rebranding is almost always created in a highly strategic way with many people involved
Yeah, sure. It was fitting well on ANY KIND of merch and branded products, such as pens, t-shirts, mugs. For decades. Now it doesn't fit the iphone retina screen which probably has 10-100x more resolution and color variety than printing tech they used to print that old, overcomplicated logo on some merch pens or badges till it's very last day.
Bunch of bull and buzzword nonsense.
In the future, there will be nothing
one single letter in sans serif
that's cost 8 billions $
Except Radiation
@@BaxterSquee And cockroaches, and taxes, and Ellon Musk.....
8:45 or they could have kept the old logo and it would have been fine for any scenario. That new logo looks like when a PS2 game was loading and the logo would spin on the bottom corner while you waited
No i simply dont get Volkswagen and waner brothers ... Its just fomo faced by these companies !!
You don't have to understand anything. Both the Volkswagen and Warner Bros logos were redesigned to be very similar to logos they used a long time ago. The current Warner Bros logo is similar to the versions they used throughout 1930 and 1960s and 1970. Similar case with volkswagen. Just Google "volkswagen logo history" and you'll see.
airbnb and godaddy complicated their logos
MBA speak for "we, the middle management, need to justify our existence so wasteful projects like this allow us to appear busy and delay noticing we are not doing anything worthwhile for a few more quarters".
I'm surprised you didn't mention General Motors recent rebranding. The classic "GM" was replaced with "gm". Now it looks marginalized. They might as well have put an asterisk after it because now it looks like an endnote.😕
I recall studying graphic design a few years ago in university. The easiest way to get a high calification and even a congratulation by the teacher in any work, specially brand related was go to the minimal route. There was a huge cult to the minimalism, less is more was almost a religious mantra on the academic designing world.
6:10 That is KN, not KIA!
😂
КИ
@@roguedruid Yeah, that.
"nuanced and futuristic black" yes. Because the future is black. Like coal. Produced by our burning trees. Yes. Let us represent that future in our car logo. The future we represent and strive for./s
Hate minimalism. It lets you know you're dealing with a Soulless Corporate entity. Doing Graphic Design myself, hate the simplicity approach, it's regressing.
What about keep the original design but make it 2D? or maybe even slightly tweak it?
Is everyone is debranding, nobody is debranding. When all the big brands are "getting professional", no one will stand out like a professional brand...
I see absolutely nothing elegant about overly simplified logos. Some simplifications are good, but companies these days take it way too far. Current Windows logo is extremely ugly. Dropbox logo used to look like a box, but when shading was removed, I no longer see a box, just a bunch of rhombic shapes. Some companies that used to at least have some sort of a shape that made me think of them went ahead and removed the shapes and just wrote text in the plainest font they found and that's supposed to be recognizable or mature? Other companies, like DeviantArt, that couldn't find a way to simplify their logos well, really went out of the way to transform it in such way nobody sees any similarity to the company, so the company needs to write a whole paragraph of explanations, because the steps taken to construct the new logo were too abstract and enigmatic. I don't mind some simplification, but there is a limit of how much I can accept before my inner sense of aesthetics just says no.
A lot of these logo downgrades are bad, but I'll eventually get used to them. Pringles, on the other hand, is one of the worst and most careless logo changes ever and I will never accept the new one. What a massive misstep. The Pringles man is completely soulless looking. His mustache, now that it's lacking shading and detail, is just a big black void in the middle of his face. Even the previous can design, with a spotlight shining on an upright standing Pringle, was clever and simple. Nothing about it has improved. I can't imagine someone was paid money to ruin their logo.
I love how they waste all this money in unnecessarily changing logos (will cost $ to pay artists, have stuff printed and designed, e.g. books, receiptes & what have you) but hike up prices to recoup costs 😂
Beavis & Butthead will do better in managing thier assets😂
"Ancient logo were simpler too"...
Me : look at all ancient object I own, from 70 years old aluminium bicycle to 120 years old coffee grinder, and including old food boxes from the 19th century, and some 150 years old newspaper's logo...
Me : Relief, shadow, intricate details, sometimes playing with materials...
Either you haven't maid your research or simple logo were a thing only in the US and you haven't researched further.
And for all the logo that were maid with simplification in mind, they all did the same thing : the main logo have a core element that can be used alone if space is a problem or if simplicity is a concern. As soon as there is more room, the full branding is used. It was also the case with color, with lot of logo working both with a complex and detailed layout of color, and a simpler 2 color one, without any gradient.
Also, about Warner, maybe you should have looked at their old contents. They have been adapting their logo to the content for decades now, far before their rebranding. As a consequence, the rebranding cannot have been done to make its material adaptable, as the old one already suited that need. Same for most video-media producers around the world.
4:04
I really miss that middle Google logo. It was special
Saying logos only got complicated because of graphical design software is straight up untrue. None of the logo designs before the creation of computers were simple, they are all detailed and usually visually appealing
With the Kia sales you have to take Covid into account, 2023 was the year that car prices had a recovery. Also their new logo is crap. Interesting video, thanks for making
8:07 Warner Bros doesn't need debranding for variety, from 1995 to 2010 they made a lot of variation with their old logo. The most noticeable ones are the Matrix and Harry Potter logos.
ngl thats a very detailed analysis and an informative video. keep it up bro
When I saw the new Kia logo while driving around I thought it was a whole new car manufacturer lol
I must be old fashion....
I hated ALL the changes ... The New and Improved Logo lack... everything.
They're BLAH...
I understand and respect the change... but as an Artist... I do not like it.
these logos are like if car designs iterated to Cybertruck. new, simplified, and everyone hates it.
I hate when companies do this. I Still don't like with Disney.For example , they got rid of walt name Now whenever you go to watch a disney movie it'll show disney Instead of saying Walt Disney Pictures. Which makes the logo look very empty.
Those Intel and Samsung logos with the oval are just as versatile as they are without the oval😒
Because they're marketing hacks trying to justify their salary
Let’s be honest. Corporations often overthink the impact of customer perception within their vague minutia. It’s more plausible that simplification of logos is a cost saving measure.
It almost definately is. I can understand why some apps simpliy their logos for screens, search engines like FireFox and Chrome come to mind, but how do Pringles fit into that? McDonalds already had a simple logo, but they decided to flatten it for what reason? Then theres the ones that didnt even change much like Samsung and Volkswagon, whats going on there?
The answer to all of them... money probably.
Yeah, the Pringles logo change is so awful I stopped buying them really. They're not really chips anyway, more like potato dust shaped into the form of chips.
But I mean generally, how many people will stop buying stuff just cause of a logo change?
I hope Pringles got a huge drop in people buying them, but of course people just want the stuff they bought before, so no big impact and nothing will change. hell, in 20 years the pringles logo will just be (=})
In context of going from complex to simplified logo, you didn't mention the reverse: several media companies giving up their classic logos for ultra simplified ones - all of which were eventually replaced with their original (or slightly updated) ones: MGM, WB, Columbia, NBC...and I'm sure there are plenty more
“If it ain’t broke, fix it.” - Harvard School of Business
Does Pringles need to be on an app?
It doesn’t affect profits and the people complaining are only a small minority. Most people don’t care. Actually I think most people prefer the new ones, this comment section obviously would have everyone hating the new logos cus of the video topic and title. Or people are trying to be cool by being OG or hating change and being nostalgic. But in general, most people fall in the middle and don’t care at all. And with gen alpha growing up, eventually people would all like the new logos and it would end up being nostalgic for them. The frutigo aero era for technology was cool but let’s be real, it’s ugly and people only like it because they find it nostalgic.
I thought that it was some new Chinese KN brand that I never bothered with searching up since I could not care less. So that's why KIA cars kinda left the streets 😂
Union Pacific has had the same logo since the 1860s' the only change has been the removal of the word "railroad" about 50 years ago.
I wish Fruit of the Loom would bring back the cornucopia. 😉
The cornucopia was never in the logo to begin with hahahahaha
@@cyroyanetwinkit11 It was. 😂