Burberry simplified. Warner Bros simplified. Every car brand simplified. The pile of brands that have traded distinctive marks for clean sans-serif wordmarks grows daily, and there's a logic to it that goes beyond 'minimalism is trendy.'
The practical argument: simplified logos work better at small sizes, on digital screens, on app icons, as social avatars. Legacy marks were designed for print and signage. The digital-first world demands flexibility that ornate marks can't deliver. Fine.
Oatly's packaging literally says 'This tastes like sh*t' in a disclaimer about people who might not like oat milk. That's a level of brand confidence that makes traditional CPG marketers physically uncomfortable.
But there's a deeper strategic bet embedded in these redesigns: the bet that brand recognition no longer comes from a mark. When you're an app icon on a phone screen that someone taps fifty times a day, you don't need a distinctive logo to be recognized. Usage creates familiarity. The logo can be anything because the relationship does the work.
This is a bet that only works if you've already won. If everyone already knows you, simplification is confidence. If they don't, simplification is invisibility. Which is why it's weird when small brands copy this playbook. Mastercard can drop its name. You cannot.
The brands I find most interesting are going the other direction: getting weirder, more ornate, more distinctive precisely because everyone else is flattening. Liquid Death didn't simplify. Neither did Oatly. There's a counter-movement brewing and I think it's going to eat the minimalists alive.
The brands I find most interesting are going the other direction: getting weirder, more ornate, more distinctive precisely because everyone else is flattening.
The Pearl District has opinions about branding whether it knows it or not.