Déjà vu: How logos are currently evolving.

We see that trends within the design industry keep changing all the time and that people’s overall perception of what looks aesthetic and what does not, is somehow erratic. My observations over the past five years though, conclude that our current tactics in refining and simplifying visual information, specifically when it comes to logos, are not that different from those applied between the late 1960s to late 1970s, the golden era of logo design as I would like to call it. If we only look at some of the oldest and most prominent brands in history, we quickly realize that most of them went through some vital changes in their visual identity during that era and aimed for a much simpler and more recognizable logotype. Do keep in mind that digitization was absent back then, and all the limitations in production had creative people view decision-making with a ‘minimalistic lens’.

In our contemporary digital world, due to the limitless possibilities of reproduction, logos need to be as simple as possible to thrive and adapt with all the applications that we have in our disposal. An iconic logo nowadays, will look equally good in a wall (large scale) and/or a web browser (small scale). The main question we need to be asking every time is this: Does the logo respond equally well in any given scenario? What is interesting is that, oftentimes, older logos that date back to that ‘golden’ era I previously mentioned, perfectly meet this one requirement (not always however), and that is why many popular brands are now seen to revive their older agenda. Let us briefly look at some examples.

In 1976 Dunkin’ Donuts introduce a new identity system to the world. A custom-made Frankfurter font is accompanied with bright orange and hot pink colors to eventually form a simple, bold, and distinctive wordmark. In 2002 Dunkin’ Donuts unveil a new enhanced version of the logo, with a coffee cup symbol next to that initial wordmark. Their desire to expand their footprint and menu worldwide, actually led them following a rather conservative strategy and eventually keeping the word Dunkin’ only, instead of overcomplicating things with their rebranding campaign in 2019.

Similarly, Mastercard’s image gets more simplified, modernized, and optimized for use in digital contexts as opposed to 1996 where other slightly complex features shaped the logo; larger lettering highlighted with a drop shadow and fewer interlocking bars within the red and yellow circles. From the figure down below, we see that the current version brings us a lot closer to 1979.

Another recent example, and perhaps the most trending topic in branding over the past few months, is Burger King’s new visual identity. This redesign closely resembles logomarks being used by the brand prior to 1999. More than two decades later, Jones Knowles Ritchie, the creator behind the new logo, “sets out to make the brand feel less synthetic and artificial, and more real, craveable and tasty”. The new version “pays homage to the brand’s heritage with a refined design that’s confident, simple and fun”.

Apple has also experimented with different colors, gradients, and shades throughout the years, from “multi-colored stripes” to a more “glass-looking” logo. Yet there was a short period in Apple’s history, where a simple monochrome version of the logo had been utilized. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, the company was facing major financial instabilities. A simple all-black logo made sense at that time for it would help the company’s efforts on returning to profitability. Almost two decades later, Apple recalled on that flexible minimalistic and modern version, obviously for a different reason this time. With the coming of the 2010s and with information technology progressing in such a significant level, it was now highly recommended that logos, especially those representing the computer industry, are device-friendly, and of course Apple was one of the first to keep up with this new norm.

All these examples I have mentioned are very similar with each other, but what about Kodak? Have you seen how Kodak’s logo evolved throughout the years? That is an interesting case and here is why: Apart from a few changes in fonts, Kodak had been using the same ‘Box-looking’ logo since 1971. In 2006, they made a significant change in their image by removing the ‘Box’ and thus sticking with a plain yet elegant wordmark. A decade later, the company decided to bring its old identity back and rather keep the ‘Box’ along with the letters being positioned on top of it but this time vertically and with a different font. What is interesting is that the 2006 version could adapt with today’s standards a lot better (in my opinion). Still though, the older version remains a simple mark, and undoubtedly a distinctive one. Kodak’s chief marketing officer Steven Overman explained that “it is simply logical to keep one of the world’s most famous brand marks at the forefront of the company’s image and identity”.

Where do we conclude after all these examples? One thing is certain: The era of 3D and multi-colored logos has died out completely. Flat logos is the new way to go; but not just flat logos per se. Simple, flexible, and adaptable ones that are sending a clear message to the world. And it is true that more and more creative people are looking back to the older principles of the 1960s and 1970s; with the now added notion that simplicity in logo design will obviously equal much better responsiveness across different digital platforms and applications. Less is more, and we see that idea being implemented very often these days. History is indeed repeating itself and the design industry seems to be on the right path once again.

What is your take on this? Do you agree or disagree? Happy to hear your thoughts.

....................................................................................................................................................Follow Lacaena Design: https://lnkd.in/dF6C9CJ

Visit my website: www.lacaenadesign.com

E-mail: [email protected]