4 ms·

Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality cam

Perceived loss of individuality is frequently just an outcome of a design epoch change. Most logos that we thought were unique and had lots of individuality came from an era when that particular graphic design style was en vogue. Then later the logos were updated to better follow new trends (a vary fair desire for a business). Yes, Art Nouveau logos were pretty but the vast majority of logos in that era were designed in that style (so not some amazing level of individuality). Same with the sci-fi logos in the 80s (which I still think were ugly). Same with any other trend. Not really a question of individuality. > Not everything needs to be redesigned, not everything needs a modern sans-serif font. If the new typeface reads better then why not use it? If the new logo fits a wider variety of placements or prompts a better response from this generation then why not use it?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-logos-and-look-like-everyone-else https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-... It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Design is of course a fashion business like most things. That said, a lot of traditional logos had a huge amount of fine detail that doesn't work well on mobile. While not the only factor, it's at least one motivator for a lot of the rebranding/logo redesigns that you're seeing.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    I don't really buy that. I mean, maybe with older phones. But I guarantee 98% of people buying Balenciaga or YSL or Diane von Fürstenberg have an iPhone that is more than capable of displaying extremely fine detail very well.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      That screens are (in many cases) very high res these days doesn't mean that the eyes looking at a small screen are. The irony is that many of the same designers who are coming up with simple unadorned logos are also fond of tiny grey text.
- systemicdanna 4y ago
  Hm, the first example - Revolut. The fact that the author thinks the original logo was recognizable or had any character is very questionable. Revolut was founded in 2015, the time when a huge number of startups (including my own) had blue logos with a light gradient. This is such a cliche logo that it's almost laughable to even take seriously. Do you not remember 2015 and the wave of blue tech logos?
  - Retric 4y ago
    The point isn’t that the old logo was good, they include a similar AirBnb one on that list, the point is pure black is even less distinctive. The new logo is objectively less distinctive as a shorter sentence can completely describe it.
    - systemicdanna 4y ago
      Less distinctive than what? The original logo was a trend with thousands of logos looking like generic versions of each other. Was Revolut's logo distinctive back then? No. Then years later many logos followed a new trend and became another flavor of "not distinctive". I am not saying that old or new logo is better: they are all pretty generic. Always have been. We only recognize them as having character when we look at past iterations because we are so used to the current ones. Saying that, in my view the old logo was really ugly. The new one is just really generic.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Both logos include the same word in a uniform font which cancels out in the comparison. However, there are objectively millions of ways to setup a blue color gradient around white letters that all look the same. There is exactly one way to have a pure black font. Therefore the second logo is objectively less distinctive.
        systemicdanna 4y ago
        There is no objective way to evaluate this. It’s always in relation to something else. If we take 1000 blue logos (with different gradients and letter arrangement) and compare them to this single black logo: the black logo will be _objectively_ more distinctive.
austinthetaco 4y ago
You seem to be discussing individuality in style choice, while totally ignoring capacity for individuality within the style that is en vogue. Brutalist/minimalist logos with modern san serif fonts don't leave much room to explore for individuality. Meanwhile art nouveau or 80s sci-fi for example had a LOT of overhead for flexing individuality.
- systemicdanna 4y ago
  I agree with this argument to a degree. However, we are not comparing coats of arms, or Art Nouveau logos. We are clinging to this particular coat of arms, saying that it has much more individuality than the updated logo. Of course it does: the level of detail is different, it feels old and pompous. It has crowns. Three of them. It has Latin words. In all caps. Lots of character. Though probably looked completely generic when it was introduced in the 16-th century. We overestimate the individuality and even the capacity for individuality of old things. Yes, anyone could add different squiggles and different Latin words -- but I doubt this is what you mean by "capacity for individuality within the style". Modern logos are very minimalist, which I agree leaves less space for expressive individuality (basically by definition). But great modern logos are still possible, and they still often convey a deeper, more individual meaning.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    For a positive example of a modernist logo that is distinctive and characterful (that someone down thread was showing as another example of a generic logo, so YMMV), the Royal Astronomical Society has a quite beautiful one [0]. [0] https://www.creativebloq.com/news/royal-astronomical-society-new-logo https://www.creativebloq.com/news/royal-astronomical-society...

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Hard, hard disagree. This good article has been discussed before on HN: https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-logos-and-look-like-everyone-else https://velvetshark.com/articles/why-do-brands-change-their-... It's not just a "perceived" loss of individuality. The new logos discussed in that linked article, especially the fashion ones, suck in my opinion because they're boring and they all look the same. They at least used to have some good degree of variability.

ghaff 4y ago
Design is of course a fashion business like most things. That said, a lot of traditional logos had a huge amount of fine detail that doesn't work well on mobile. While not the only factor, it's at least one motivator for a lot of the rebranding/logo redesigns that you're seeing.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  I don't really buy that. I mean, maybe with older phones. But I guarantee 98% of people buying Balenciaga or YSL or Diane von Fürstenberg have an iPhone that is more than capable of displaying extremely fine detail very well.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    That screens are (in many cases) very high res these days doesn't mean that the eyes looking at a small screen are. The irony is that many of the same designers who are coming up with simple unadorned logos are also fond of tiny grey text.
systemicdanna 4y ago
Hm, the first example - Revolut. The fact that the author thinks the original logo was recognizable or had any character is very questionable. Revolut was founded in 2015, the time when a huge number of startups (including my own) had blue logos with a light gradient. This is such a cliche logo that it's almost laughable to even take seriously. Do you not remember 2015 and the wave of blue tech logos?
- Retric 4y ago
  The point isn’t that the old logo was good, they include a similar AirBnb one on that list, the point is pure black is even less distinctive. The new logo is objectively less distinctive as a shorter sentence can completely describe it.
  - systemicdanna 4y ago
    Less distinctive than what? The original logo was a trend with thousands of logos looking like generic versions of each other. Was Revolut's logo distinctive back then? No. Then years later many logos followed a new trend and became another flavor of "not distinctive". I am not saying that old or new logo is better: they are all pretty generic. Always have been. We only recognize them as having character when we look at past iterations because we are so used to the current ones. Saying that, in my view the old logo was really ugly. The new one is just really generic.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Both logos include the same word in a uniform font which cancels out in the comparison. However, there are objectively millions of ways to setup a blue color gradient around white letters that all look the same. There is exactly one way to have a pure black font. Therefore the second logo is objectively less distinctive.
      - systemicdanna 4y ago
        There is no objective way to evaluate this. It’s always in relation to something else. If we take 1000 blue logos (with different gradients and letter arrangement) and compare them to this single black logo: the black logo will be _objectively_ more distinctive.

austinthetaco 4y ago

You seem to be discussing individuality in style choice, while totally ignoring capacity for individuality within the style that is en vogue. Brutalist/minimalist logos with modern san serif fonts don't leave much room to explore for individuality. Meanwhile art nouveau or 80s sci-fi for example had a LOT of overhead for flexing individuality.

systemicdanna 4y ago
I agree with this argument to a degree. However, we are not comparing coats of arms, or Art Nouveau logos. We are clinging to this particular coat of arms, saying that it has much more individuality than the updated logo. Of course it does: the level of detail is different, it feels old and pompous. It has crowns. Three of them. It has Latin words. In all caps. Lots of character. Though probably looked completely generic when it was introduced in the 16-th century. We overestimate the individuality and even the capacity for individuality of old things. Yes, anyone could add different squiggles and different Latin words -- but I doubt this is what you mean by "capacity for individuality within the style". Modern logos are very minimalist, which I agree leaves less space for expressive individuality (basically by definition). But great modern logos are still possible, and they still often convey a deeper, more individual meaning.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  For a positive example of a modernist logo that is distinctive and characterful (that someone down thread was showing as another example of a generic logo, so YMMV), the Royal Astronomical Society has a quite beautiful one [0]. [0] https://www.creativebloq.com/news/royal-astronomical-society-new-logo https://www.creativebloq.com/news/royal-astronomical-society...