> He examines the "sans serif invasion", which he argues is creating a "sea of sameness" in tech and fashion logos. He thinks that since around 2017, brands hav

> He examines the "sans serif invasion", which he argues is creating a "sea of sameness" in tech and fashion logos. He thinks that since around 2017, brands have started to see "being unique as a handicap" and have decided it was better to be like everyone else. Ha, I remember seeing exactly the same article when the font of choice was a bouncy, rounded sans-serif in the mid 2000s. Including the graphic roundup of all old logos becoming rounded. I'm certain this has been rehashed as long as we've had graphic design. Most companies probably just need a simple wordmark—the name of your company in nicely chosen and purposefully set type—to act as their logo. Much cheaper and just as effective. There are approximately 10^25 companies on the internet, and they all want logos that look like the ones on Dribbble, or ones made by Saul Bass in the 60s. Saul Bass is sui generis, and 90% of the logos on Dribbble are "fake". That is, they are not real client work, just ideas the designer had for a logo they wish they would be asked to make. Notice how most of them are nouns; nouns are easy to illustrate. But most company names aren't nouns, because those have all been taken. In reality, most graphic designers (speaking from experience) are illustrating some variation of a vaguely symmetrical abstract shape symbolizing "trustworthy, stable... but fun!" for a company called Klooble or Zorbnik or the South Muncie Property Alliance.