I guess I'm doing a thread on the failure of minimalist designs now.
I think removing a lot of the extraneous detail from a logo is good. I was learning graphic design when we still cared a lot about print, even fax or photocopying was a consideration.
BUT we were also worrying constantly about digital. A logo had to work if printed on a billboard as well as if rendered in a banner ad. This is incredibly difficult.
Gradients in branding were a huge faux pas. Gradients don't always print well, and reproduce when copied very badly. Also there are gamut issues in web. These are all production considerations though.
For legibility of a brand, simplicity is great because you can remember it and recognize it with ease. The strongest brands tend to lean heavily on bold iconography or simple lettering. You could draw these logos from memory, and they could basically work in any colour.
For legibility of a brand, simplicity is great because you can remember it and recognize it with ease. The strongest brands tend to lean heavily on bold iconography or simple lettering. You could draw these logos from memory, and they could basically work in any colour.
For legibility of a brand, simplicity is great because you can remember it and recognize it with ease. The strongest brands tend to lean heavily on bold iconography or simple lettering. You could draw these logos from memory, and they could basically work in any colour.
For legibility of a brand, simplicity is great because you can remember it and recognize it with ease. The strongest brands tend to lean heavily on bold iconography or simple lettering. You could draw these logos from memory, and they could basically work in any colour.
For legibility of a brand, simplicity is great because you can remember it and recognize it with ease. The strongest brands tend to lean heavily on bold iconography or simple lettering. You could draw these logos from memory, and they could basically work in any colour.
These logos are also incredibly adaptable. If you want to refresh your overall brand, you can tweak the typography and colour guidelines without having to touch your logo. This means your logo can continue to build an association with your product for longer periods of time.
I would consider all of these logos simplistic, boiled down to their essence. You shouldn't go much further. Why?
Because you end up with brand iconography that loses all meaning.
Because you end up with brand iconography that loses all meaning.
Because you end up with brand iconography that loses all meaning.
Because you end up with brand iconography that loses all meaning.
The brands that trend towards these super minimal and simplistic icons also tend to update their branding *a lot*. Google had a recognizable brand that *was* internet search and web apps. Now it's a generic lettering that looks like everyone else.
The brands that trend towards these super minimal and simplistic icons also tend to update their branding *a lot*. Google had a recognizable brand that *was* internet search and web apps. Now it's a generic lettering that looks like everyone else.
The brands that trend towards these super minimal and simplistic icons also tend to update their branding *a lot*. Google had a recognizable brand that *was* internet search and web apps. Now it's a generic lettering that looks like everyone else.
The brands that trend towards these super minimal and simplistic icons also tend to update their branding *a lot*. Google had a recognizable brand that *was* internet search and web apps. Now it's a generic lettering that looks like everyone else.
The brands that trend towards these super minimal and simplistic icons also tend to update their branding *a lot*. Google had a recognizable brand that *was* internet search and web apps. Now it's a generic lettering that looks like everyone else.
These brands are chasing each other, taking inspiration from each other, and communicating the exact same thing; "modern" without communicating *anything* about what makes their brand different.
People have called the new GM logo an app logo, and yeah, it absolutely reads that way to me as well. They've stripped all association with their history out of their branding.
I think a running theme here is minimalism works if you have a strong icon for your brand. Boiling down your wordmark does nothing, because you're always just left with a generic modern-ish sans serif.
If you look at other car brands that have *strong* branding, they all have unique iconography that work even if they have no colour, OR wordmark. That's good minimalistic branding.
If you look at other car brands that have *strong* branding, they all have unique iconography that work even if they have no colour, OR wordmark. That's good minimalistic branding.
If you look at other car brands that have *strong* branding, they all have unique iconography that work even if they have no colour, OR wordmark. That's good minimalistic branding.
If you look at other car brands that have *strong* branding, they all have unique iconography that work even if they have no colour, OR wordmark. That's good minimalistic branding.
If you look at other car brands that have *strong* branding, they all have unique iconography that work even if they have no colour, OR wordmark. That's good minimalistic branding.
And I'd argue that this sort of approach is more important than a lot of other industries, because the car badge IS EVERYTHING. You aren't going to get your wordmark net to your icon to clarify. Your icon has to say everything.
And here's a fun thing about GM, they own a bunch of brands that have their own icons, but they don't leverage any of that in their own branding.
I'm not super knowledgeable about cars, but a "GM" car is a car that is marketed under a different branding like Chevy, GMC, Buick, Cadillac. Which is fine! These brands have their own identity and market. Great.
You probably won't see that GM logo on a car without one of those other brands slapped on as well, so the GM logo needs to be adaptable, like a parent brand. Something that can sit next to their other logos without intruding our looking out of place.
So my question becomes, what are they trying to communicate?
"We're a Modern company"
No, you aren't, you made a logo that would work 10 years ago on the iPhone 4S.
"We make great cars"
No, you don't. Buick does (do they? I don't know)
"We care about the environment"
Do you? Your branding features no electric or environmental imagery.
"We're Industry Leaders"
Then why does your iconography feature weak lowercase lettering? There's no confidence in this logo.
"We run a successful stable of brands"
Why do you not leverage *any* of their looks in your own branding? Or to flip that around, why do none of those brands reflect their parent company? (Like Honda and Acura)
"We run a successful stable of brands"Why do you not leverage *any* of their looks in your own branding? Or to flip that around, why do none of those brands reflect their parent company? (Like Honda and Acura)
"We run a successful stable of brands"Why do you not leverage *any* of their looks in your own branding? Or to flip that around, why do none of those brands reflect their parent company? (Like Honda and Acura)
You can follow @Soederhuysen.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.