Why Companies Are 'Debranding' 

I’m not against simplicity but the lack of character just seems boring. You can make things simple and still have personality.

I hate the pringles de-brand, but I respect Burger King's decision of resisting the urge to go all out and delete most of their art but instead to revert to an earlier design of theirs, debuted in 1994.

I think the problem isn't simplifying altogether, but simplifying until the branding becomes sterile. After a point, it all begins to look extra soulless, not that many brands generally have souls to begin with.

Disagree with one thing: the shading and glossy, extra detailing of the previous logos wasn't a weakness for over complication or an unthinking excess of computer graphics. Those characteristics were status symbols in themselves at the time. They demonstrated that those companies were operating at a high-cost level: of full colour, fine-quality print production and in a new media environment - i.e. they demonstrated that the companies were at the forefront of their industries. When all of those technologies became cheaper, the association with high status was devalued, so it became worthless clutter.

I think peoples main issue is that this "debranding" often takes away any character and excitement the logo once had. The original Pringles logo for instance had far more personality because of the key details mentioned in the video.

The de-branding just really fits well with how dystopic the world is starting to feel.

The downside to this "debranding" that they'll start noticing in time, is that it also makes their brand logo less recognizable. How has nobody thought of that...

Still, Coca-Cola logo stood the test of time and did not virtually change their logo ever since. That’s timeless branding. Addition: some responders are confused with the Coke logo itself (the Spencerian Script/cursive writing) with the marketing campaigns used by the company every year. Those are two different things. In the end, the logo will always be the cursive one but for the campaigns (ads, signs, vending machines) they might change it a little bit to suit the campaigns.

The best thing about this video (which these sort of videos often leave out) was what he said at the end. Design will go one way for a while then go the other again. Once everyone has changed to this style, and it's been the "norm" for long enough, some brand leader will switch back in order to stand out and everyone else will slowly copy and it will go back the other way. And so on, and so on.... So to all the people complaining about not liking this style, chill out. It'll change back in a while.

I think the most annoying gribe people have is that this debranding and simplification of logos and brand identities is that they go too far. People like less detail, but many firms go too extreme with debranding when many feel they should've taken a step back a notch so they could still keep some identity. Whereas now many brands blend into one another and you can't tell a pet shop from a fashion brand, or a snack company from an IT systems company. The bit of detail that could tell what a brand was about and what they specialised in is gone. And thats something that wasn't gone with the pre-90's logos in most cases. Like in the pringles case I think a much more fitting idea would've been to say keep the hair and the lines in the mustach, remove the eye shine, and gone flatcolour, white, golden brown, and red.

I work in retail and have witnessed customers assume that the new Pringles logo means they are “fake Pringles”. (I guess they think off-brand). So it is definitely not a good idea for all sales.

The last point is my favorite and I think the most important. A simple, flat base logo gives you the flexibility to use it in many different environments and modify it for certain instances if you wish. Great video!

A lot of these comments about the term "debranding" are missing the point. When you place many of these logos side-by-side, they start to look the same. They've lost their unique, memorable, and ownable identity. Consequently, they've "de-branded" the unique qualities that helped give the brand character and brand recognition. In other words, they become generic. And that's the trouble, because the last thing you want your brand to be is generic.

Making logos simpler is one thing but deliberately making them look like a 5 year old did it is something else altogether. The pendulum has swung too far in that direction where a lot of logos are so simple I have no idea what some of them even are now. I'm looking at you, KIA.

Great video but if you wanna be successful, you most take responsibility for your emotions, not place the blame on others. In addition to make you feel more guilty about your faults, pointing the finger at others will only serve to increase your sense of personal accountability. There's always a risk in every investment, yet people still invest and succeed. You must look outward if you wanna be successful in life, Successful people don't become that way overnight. most people see at a glance-wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life

Burger King and Pizza Hut's new logos are basically the ones they had in the 90's, which made me assume it was a nostalgia thing.

I don’t get it. Many brands really got a ton of hate for that and still won’t step back. I know there will always be people hating changes, but with Pringles as the best example, literally no one liked it…

The one I hate the most is Taco Bell. They debuted their bold purple/magenta logo in the 1994 when I was a kid, and I loved the way it looked. As other brands slowly changed in the 2000s, they held firm. And it seemed great because by the early 2010's, '90s colors and bold wacky design had come back around in fashion (not necessarily for business logos, but most definitely in clothing and decorative items). So it seemed that by waiting around, Taco Bell's aesthetic was back on top. Then they changed it. To the most boring looking single color flat app-icon thing ever. Now it just looks like purple facebook, where it used to have bold personality.

Speaking as a graphic designer, it's sad to see brands stripping off their personality, their beauty, and visual wit just for the sake of minimalism and appealing to the masses. Everything's just boiled down to Helvetica set in black. It's bland and worse... it's boring.

That Intel logo was very iconic and simple in the first place. There was no need to over-simplify it.

Thank you, this helps with staying on top of branding logo creation trends to offer customers who wants a no-frills logo made that stays with in their budget, but the logo offered still has room to be made fancier if the complex trend comes back with-out re doing the whole thing from scratch.

"Debranding" -- I've never heard this term before but it completely fits what's happening.

Brand logos are not iPhone icons. This is influence from mobile phones screens that need clarity. There were some exaggeration, sure, but it has gone too far. Unfortunately, marketing is driven by fads, because something has to be done to justify the budget and salary.

One of the biggest tragedies ever to hit mankind... Rest in peace logos... You will be missed. Especially you, Pringles man. Unforgivable.

I also think another issue isn't just that people are upset about these changes because they had some emotional attachment/familiarity with the company logo but also that this movement sets a new standard for graphic design on a global level. When creatively gifted and passionate people get into graphic design they'll be surely disappointed in the low-effort work they're expected to produce.

I miss the old Pringle’s logo and their old packaging. It’s actually hard to distinguish the Woolworths home brand pringles from the real thing now there’s so little branding.

i have to say, pringles de-branding their logo is one of the most tragic things that has happened this year.

I personally don't like simplified logos, as I feel it takes away the personality it used to have. Oftentimes it's in the smallest details where a logo can stand out from the rest.

Brands are giving up their "personalities" because they are trying to be inoffensive and generic to appeal to everybody, as has been the trend for at least the past few years. Their logos are so unchallenging and inoffensive that it is offensive. However, when you try to appeal to everybody you appeal to nobody, and most of these brands are making a huge mistake with their overly simplistic and bland designs.

As a graphic designer, there are many non-trend related reasons to go with a very simplified logo for a brand. Lets say for example you're tasked with getting manufactured a cut out sheet of brushed steel in the shape of your company logo to bolt onto the front of a reception counter. Or having a sky writer draw your logo in the sky. Or hiring a crew to draw your company logo into sand for an ad campaign about your new beachwear line... Having a simple logo, the simpler the better really, a simple black shape even, makes your logo very flexible so you can use it anywhere and in any way. A logo should really be about creating a unique and timeless 'shape', and optionally even a colour, that your company wears as a means of being visually identifiable. It shouldn't be subject to trends, it should be a small and simple design that is unique enough to be yours and recognisable, but can fit anywhere and in any context. I like everyone though also get the complaints about how logos are becoming too flat and boring. Which is why I believe a good logo design should be treated as a 'template' for it's use, not the literal graphic to use everywhere. The logo's design basis should start with a simplified basic shape, a black shape on a white background. That should be the template and from there a version created with colours to match branding. And after that, more fun and detailed versions for uses in contexts where it makes sense to have more detailed versions, such as a splash screen on an app when it first opens. A version could be created in halloween and christmas theme for events to use on a banner, etc. Start simple, define a shape, created a branded colourised version, then create 'versions with personality' to use in the right contexts, and use the appropriate versions in each situation. You don't have to sacrifice 'personality' to have a strong and consistent brand. The versions with personality can be created over time, and to match trends, while always adhering to your 'timeless' version that is the basis for the logo itself. So it always feels like your logo is consistent, while also allowing the way it's used to evolve.

I understand that in a lot of cases there’s a reason for the changes and it’s gotten results. That being said…It took me a solid month to realize that the Pringles cans hadn’t been removed from the store. I would walk down the aisle and scan for Pringles, and I would completely miss them because I wasn’t stopping to read them since the logo looked like it belonged to some knock-off that would taste like sawdust.

I think what people take issue with is that "mature" has to mean "bland and lacking personality" as though part of maturity is not standing out in some obtrusive way that assaults the eyes, which perpetuates the social attitudes about conformity that we still struggle to shake off and are ultimately very toxic.

I think that 2:21 to 2:35 is one of the most powerful arguments in favour of "debranding": a simple logo can take on new colours, shades, backgrounds, shadows--whatever you want--whenever you need it to. It's much more difficult to do that with a complex logo without "breaking" the logo.

it's not just logo simplification, in the fashion industry it's like they are trying to remove all signs of life from their wordmarks. That trend can only last for so long. Brands will want to stand out again and re-visit personality in their type sooner than later.

I'd imagine simplifying your logo will make it more identifiable in digital format. when it comes to small icons in websites or phone/computer apps, a simplified logo works best. you can scale it down and not lose too much detail. but in print, magazines, billboards, posters, you'd probably want detail and gradients because higher quality logos signify a higher quality brand. but we don't see these logos in print as much anymore. everything is through our phones or computers. flat colors and simplicity will lend more flexibility for the logos to be used across devices, especially when it comes to scaling up or down the image.

I was curious why a lot of big names have been changing up their logos recently this is really helpful thank you

I hate it when companies change their logos so drastically because its such a leap from what everyone universally recognizes it as a brand.

I think mcdonalds is the best example of losing their identity, just like the sumplified logos, they went from playful kids to depressed adults

I'm mostly happy about debranding because it toned down a lot of packaging that was basically screaming in your face with color and busyness.

This particularly bothers me when they do it with packaging on grocery items. I hate going into the store looking for a favorite item and finding completely different, boring and plain packaging and not being sure if it is the same product.

Mobile-first design is a scourge. It's not only ruined these logos, the user interfaces on lots of major websites (youtube, twitter, reddit, etc.) has just turned terrible in the last 7 years or so. And don't get me started on infinite scroll.

Every company wants to be Apple...

I was shocked to find how used to the old logos I was, considering I'm still a teen. One that hit me in the gut was subway's logo change. It hurts to see the world change.

My rule of thumb when it comes to redesigning is that when you redesign a logo, you can simplify it, but dont get rid of the charm

I generally prefer the more complex logo's with shading and depth. I think companies went too far with simplification.

This has been bothering me a lot because it's something you don't just see in logos but animation and illustration trends as well. Even speaking about anime, I can clearly see the phases that come and go at periods. The latest years you see vectors more and more taking over, and while the colouring might have some harmony and the palettes be better, the line-art often falls to tasteless simplicity. A few years ago, I sent a portfolio to an American company of the animation industry, and what they rejected me for was my detailed drawings with shades and lights and the fact I drew manga as well, which, as they said "is for nerds". What they said was they need something flat and simplistic, as more commercial. So...it doesn't surprise me. In America at least, mass production of simple and fast keeps dropping the level making the new generations being satisfied with less and less. In my country on the other hand, the reason I have been chosen as an illustrator for all the books and comics I have been hired to do, even if I am self taught, is exactly because I don't follow the trend of simplified figures with flat colours. People miss that...

As a professional designer, this trend makes me rage sometimes.

Although I totally understand the ongoing paradigm change, I do also appreciate that not all small brands jumped onto that train. To my impression, smaller brands, local stores etc. can still have a positively-received imprint in the visual field with complex and artistic logos. They might not be using those 80s/90s computer graphics anymore, but instead hire visual artists, street art artists and people alike, which results in a more personal and 'alternative' perception of those small brands, as opposed to (over-emphasized!) capitalistic, polished, optimised, main-streamed big players. I think especially of brands which have unique selling points with regards to sustainability, ecology, creativity, alternative living etc.

I imagine that in 20 years, I'll be reading a youtube comment that says "I hate how complex these logos have gotten. They felt much cleaner and neater before."

About 10 years ago, Apple flattened all their app icons. They used have all kinds of shading and depth. When the change happened everyone complained for about a minute, then forgot about it.

Interesting that there's an actual expert take on the debranding of logos. Some designers here are complaining about the usage of the term, but it was the common consumers like us that coined the term and turned it into a meme because there was no well-known term for it and this caught us blindsided on why suddenly, companies are shifting to this kind of art at the same time.

As a logo designer i have to warn you, changing your logo into generic text with a color is. Going too far. You need a symbol.

After designing many logos and trying to aim for simplified solutions it is often the person holding the purse strings or control of the direction for the client that wanted extra branding bling applied. Same happened with early mobile interfaces that clients wanted extra textures applied and then got stripped right back to flat colour in later years.

I had a feeling this age of sleek minimalism was because of our development of technology. I cannot wait until we're done with minimalism, with interiors, architecture, design, all of it. I think it's hideous. For sure things will swing again in making things a little more involved, I wonder what that will look like in future style?

I remember when The Gap did this in 2010 and people hated it. People said it looked like clip art that a teenager pulled from MS paint. They were a little too ahead of their time.

What amazing animations and pacing for the video! Love the script as well. The vocabulary is interesting but not over-complicated

I could not disagree more with this assessment. I think the terms of “de branding” will be a passing fad and we will look back on this period as an extension of the generic & bland corporate art style aka “Corporate Memphis.” These new logos and the corporate art style more generally come from a place of laziness, not creativity.

This is just referring to their logo design, not their branding. So calling it debranding doesn't seem correct. The trend toward simplification of logos has been happening for decades, if anything, companies are beginning to do more expressive wordmarks, stepping away from the sans-serif trope and finding new ways to be truly unique and ownable. Something that has been a long time coming. So the video seems like it came out a few years late.

Warner Bros is the most important example here because it reveals a lot about what's actually happening. The brands aren't just maturing, they're monopolizing multiple industries - the WB logo now has to fit kids cartoons and mature video games, Discovery documentaries and gritty HBO shows. Microsoft has to describe office, os, video game hardware, and a huge number of software companies and game developers under their umbrella now instead of just an OS. Amazon is now your pharmacy, your online shopping center, your delivery service, your smart home, and your internet infrastructure. How do we express a brand identity visually, when the brands have no identity anymore? By stripping them of color and expression so that it could be a brand for anything.

Pringles re design is just horible, the hair was iconic.

It's just a trend in logo design. It's no coincidence that they are alle doing this at the same time because they're all just following a trend. In a few years there'll be another trend, and maybe they'll add more detail again.

I really miss the old WB logo. It brings out so much nostalgia as I grew up watching cartoons everyday.

"debranding", or how to lose your identity to avoid getting criticized...

This goes for everything. Architecture. Design. Clothes. Less becomes more. It’s what’s this era is about.

I think it's impressive when a company's marketing department resists the urge to shuffle the deck out of boredom, and maintain a logo for a really long time. I used to LOVE the old Polk Audio logo. In the late 90s, they used the words "polk audio" in a kind of hand-written lower case white text with a black bubble outline to the letters, and a red heart to dot the i. It was uncharacteristically charming for a brand competing with other established companies, and newer ones trying to out-macho each other. It represented this casual, friendly culture of audio lovers -- and seemed to be a genuine reflection of people working there. It made me proud to own the products, like I was helping a community of people be successful, and got a product made with love in return. Not long after, the company "grew up", and the logo was simplified into ordinary colored letters in a sans-serif font. Boring. I think it has since just been stripped to "polk" in a boxy font. sigh... It definitely screams "We make stuff that we sell for money" now.

I’ve had these same thoughts before. Someday people will get tired of oversimplified logos and go for more detailed, authentic feeling design

Car companies are an interesting case because they always had depth and reflectivity with the on-car physical emblems and what software allowed was effects to mimic that on screens and paper applications like brochures and even letterhead. Their debranding is also led by the on-car engineering need to flatten and add dark negative space to the logo to allow space for cameras and sensors behind it.

I’m a freelance graphic designer and it seems like flat icons are becoming the norm for companies and brands; I’ve worked for clients who just wanted simple logos that’ll work well on T-shirts and other merch, as well as social media

There's a trend of minimalism everywhere. It can be architecture, furniture, any graphic design. My explanation is that people live in information overload as of 2022. We are bombarded with all sorts of distractions like never before in history. So "quiet" design feels better.

I think it was pioneered by Google's Material Design, or possibly Apple's flat design around 2014. Material Design especially spread like wildfire among mobile apps and websites, and soon all kinds of companies (tech or not) adopted the same idea. And so here we are today.

These minimalistic designs are so much better.

It's hard to believe that people are actually getting paid to do make these logos.

I think it was Paul Rand who said something like; if the brand makes you feel a certain set of emotions, the brand’s logo becomes the thing that holds those emotions. So long as logo is distinctive and recognisable it will still be able to perform that function.

I wish media outlets would "de-brand" and go back to publishing bland, factual, well researched news rather than spending all their energy trying to find ways to rile up their viewers/readers with inflammatory headlines and opinion pieces.

Mobile first approach is one of the contributing factors, sure. But that isn't the only factor. Some form of debranding has always been there especially for print media. Many brands - while retaining their original "complex" logos - would also design a simplified (often monochromatic) version of their logos for printing them on their legal documents, business cards, brochures, etc.

I've really noticed this trend with cars. They used to just spell out 'Toyota' or 'Honda' - now they all have these little logo badges and I don't know what is what - except Mercedes because they've always used that circle and 3 point star.

Starbucks’ original logo was by far more eye catching and appealing than the one we see nowadays.

You see it too in American cartoons. Graphic designers now use vector graphics rather than traditional graphics. Vector graphics are math based as oppose to pixel based which means they look crisp and clear in small images and large images from smart watches to massive billboards. The more detail, the harder it is to design and make look consistent. Plus, you can always add more to a base design - think MTV, and the thousand ways it is expressed. The simpler the base design, the more flexibility.

The reason they changed the logo was to distract people from the fact they got rid of 1/3 of all the Pringles inside the can, and further more they also removed the “This can is not half full” sign. ⭐️

The main thing I dislike is when a company is made with an short 1-2 syllable word that is nonsensical, but it’s made to sound real. “Lomi, Rakuten, etc” They all just sound so goofy

What I'd love to know is why are they making different flavors of products look more and more similar to each other? A long time ago, say 20 years ago, you could more easily tell one flavor from another very easily -- packaging was an entirely different color. For example, Pepsi vs Wild Cherry Pepsi. 20 years ago, the regular Pepsi had its traditional blue and white packaging with the pepsi logo on it. The Wild Cherry variant had a _lot_ of red on the bottle, and the words "Wild Cherry" were far more noticeable, as was the larger cherry graphic. Fast-forward to today, and a Wild Cherry Pepsi is mostly blue, but instead of thin white stripes around the top and bottom of the label (at least on 20oz bottles), it has a small red stripe, and there's a tiny little cherry. The word Pepsi is much larger than the tiny "Wild Cherry" font next to it and at a quick glance, the two can easily be mistaken for one another if you're not paying attention. It isn't just Pepsi doing it, _everybody_ is doing this lately, making more flavors of more products closer to each other and it's annoying, both for people stocking the shelves, and customers accidentally picking up unintended flavors only to find out once they got home that they bought the wrong one.

I really like minimalism but oversimplification is something that doesn't work together in some cases, most logos who got awesome and recognizable are generic nowadays, WB for example just took away the best logo they made. I know there are more reasons around the game, like product branding, easier way to add the logo to other places and so on, but some logos are way worse than before.

I think this whole debranding is also a demonstration of how famous these big brands are. Like VW and Waner Bros would say "Look at us, we are so ubiquitus to the extend, that you recognize us just by those two letters." And this is a great marketing tool in my opinion

...because people have become dumber and more creatively bankrupt. You can make app-friendly versions of logos and you can be big companies and still carry the enthusiasm and enterprise mindset of a small businesses (in fact, one can argue that it is important to do so). The real reason is that, we as a society, is becoming less accepting of the creative, the interesting, the intelligent and nuanced. We want 30 second videos, simple tasting foods, badly written books and the politicians and billionaires continuously taking advantage of our aggressively simple minds.

I miss the crazy detailed logos. It was so fun! We were all having fun back then!

I'm glad he acknowledged that the biggest influence here is likely trends, and that a return to more ornate branding is surely around the corner.

also: small but relevant for some companies, a simpler logo means easier and cheaper to print and stitch.

This is a trend right now, minimalism and simplicity is equal to elegance and seriousness, I personally like it because when you are designing for a company it is easy to manage and use on anything, but as I said it's just a trend. It will change in the future.

I think some companies will regret this move. Most clothing companies all blend together to me, because they all use nearly the same plain black font. I don’t recognize them from each other.

Ah yes... When phones and resolution keep increasing.... They have to simplify the logo because else thoses more powerful smartphone wouldn't be able to render it properly

You know what? I am rather immune to brands. I tend to shop in discount supermarkets where they provide generic products to major brands and the quality is at least the same if not better sometimes. Brands can keep pretending they are relevant and large amounts of people can follow them and fork out their hard earned money for smoke and mirrors, I will stick to the value. If not this video I wouldn't even notice the brand logos have been changing. I just filter it out.

It feels like many companies now spend more money on marketing and ads than improving the actual product they sell. Social media makes things that are useless or copies of something else better more appealing because of cute little branding…”good vibes”.

This degradation of character is seen everywhere in art, such as contemprary music. Is all dumbening down to very generic to the point that you can barely distinguish it from another, all simply to decrease the amount of people who are offended by it. That way, you get a lot of people who simply like your work, and few who love it, whereas the more characterful works gain audience of more people who love it, and fewer who simply like it. Personally, I hate this trend, and hope artists will be able to express and share their art again through logos, music, etc.

Truly interesting. And the same thing has happened in the design of computer icons and widgets. In some cases, I think it's gone too far. Look at a window scrollbar. It's hard to tell--without actually moving it--which is the scrollbar and which is the background.

I hate minimalism with every inch of my being

Think McDonald's...the golden arch. Think twitter....the bluebird. Think Nike.....the tick. Simple logos get remembered by consumers. Simplicity is highly effective. How many people are gonna keep reading this- not many....because its overly written. The simpler the communication, less concentration required and the easier it is to process. The more your likely your to retain the message as a result.

I still like the "Young GenZ artists just use MS Paint to design their logos and UI" theory better. I miss color, details and depth.

such a well presented video. props to the editing/animation team especially!

This has been going on for years. It started around 2014 or 2015 right after the 3D realistic look.

I almost always connect debranding with loss of quality. The more basic and boring the branding, the weaker the quality.