Sometimes a logo simply isn’t right. Everyone, from small businesses to the world’s largest corporations, has experienced this. (If you see these logos, you’ll know immediately.) Maybe it’s just too complicated for my brain to handle. It’s possible that this logo is too generic and similar to others. You may even argue that it’s not dating at all.
As a result, we’ve gathered five logos from well-known companies that we believe may need a facelift in the next year.
See whether you agree with our assessments of these symbols. Logos are notoriously ephemeral, and yours may vary significantly from mine.
1. Sherwin-Williams
With a traditional name and a classic logo, Sherwin-Williams is a classic brand. There’s simply too much going on for the logo to stand out and be legible in today’s environment.
To begin, let’s look at the icon/graphic symbol first. A number of issues are immediately apparent, such as the following:
several little words
Color schemes that are scathing
The graphic design aspect is complicated (paint bucket, paint pouring, and a globe)
To read tiny icons, favicons, etc., you must have a magnifying glass.
Iconography has an antiquated look to it.
When you add those features to a long word in all capitals and italics, the visual load is simply too much to bear.
Simplified iconography and typography would enhance this brand. The visual element requires fewer, or no, words. When people view the logo, they don’t have to bear such a hefty burden of visual information.
2. Animal Planet
The logo for Animal Planet has seen a number of changes recently, and this one is no exception. Since its release in 2018, the blue elephant design has been criticized for being too simplistic.
When used without the accompanying text, the blue elephant isn’t particularly recognizable as belonging to a particular brand. Then there’s the elephant question. In reality, the network’s programming covers so much more ground than what’s seen here.
It’s almost like something you’d see at a baby or child-oriented company.
Visually, the hue might be a bit of a struggle. When coupled with certain color schemes, the color blue seems nearly out of place, not to mention accessibility difficulties.
3. American Airlines
Despite its apparent simplicity, the American Airlines logo has elements that are both too complicated and underutilized.
When coupled with an excessively complicated and dated-looking logo, the main typeface is devoid of imagination and clarity. There is an impression that the aircraft wing is part of a decades-old marketing campaign thanks to the shadows and gradients.
To put it simply, the components of this logo don’t match. There are two options: either the mark has to be simplified or the typography needs a bit more individuality to go with it.
4. Mastercard
Mastercard is the third logo here that has a similar idea to the other two: Have you ever noticed how Animal Planet, American Airlines, and Mastercard all use the same typeface? All of them seem to be so stark.
Neither Animal Planet nor Mastercard capitalizes those words. Surely this isn’t the best decision. Capital letters convey prominence and “proper noun” status, which is why they are used. The no-caps style was popular in the mid-late 2010s, which is when the logos were created. (This is no longer the case.)
Brand guidelines state that Mastercard introduced the design in 2016 while using the brand name, however it has since been removed from most applications. The logo now has even another issue.
It’s a simple two-circle design. Is that truly all you need?
I don’t think it does justice to the brand, especially the name, with its starkness, minimality, and lack of description. Imagine a generation of credit card users who have never heard of Mastercard’s “circles” and hence lack any allegiance to the company over competing credit card providers.
5. Monster Energy
You don’t like to say it, but Monster Energy’s logo is simply plain poor by today’s standards. It’s difficult to capture all that’s going on in this logo design in a single list. But we’ll do our best.
Grubby text
combining two distinct typefaces into a single design
Icon has a lot of dark areas and looks old.
Stuck places
Outlines
There is an imbalance in the system.
The link to the product
While some of the logos on this page may be too simplistic, this one may benefit from a little lessening.
We’d Never Change These 5 Logos If We Tried
There are also certain logos that we hope never to alter since we love them so much.
- Nike is a brand that has stood the test of time and is instantly recognisable by almost everyone.
- Apple: It’s the same with apple here, with the same simplicity. The logo and the name of the firm are one and the same.
- Letters in the LG logo’s witty grin are intelligible, wacky, and stylish.
- FedEx: This brand logo doesn’t need to be changed because of the good colour contrast and the incorporated arrow.
- On top of all that colour and peacock feathers, this mark displays NBC Media’s rich heritage and the brand’s streaming service, fittingly titled “Peacock.” Seeing this well-known brand combine the past and the present in this manner is refreshing.
Conclusion
Redesigning a logo may be a significant task in and of itself. If you are going to modify anything, you have to consider everything that goes into it, not just the aesthetics.
If a company has been using the same logo for a long period, at what point does it decide to change it? Do you think there is a good mix between contemporary and traditional?
Because there isn’t one. Paying attention to how the markings appear and operate in all possible contexts is a big part of it. There was no such thing as an icon-style element in branding even ten years ago, but it will be a need in 2022.
Do you agree with our conclusions? We’re sure you’ll be able to come up with a few more examples.
Serious photo created by stockking – www.freepik.com
