30 Times Companies Left Many People Disappointed After Changing Their Logo Design
Times change, opinions evolve (or devolve), and businesses need to adapt. Whether they want it or not, modernity creeps up on everyone—and there are plenty of successful examples of such adaptations. Companies change their policies to fit the times, ensure their values match society's, and in general, receive praise for their efforts to pull their business practices into modernity.
However, in some cases, the desire to renew oneself with the times comes with a few steps backwards. A good example would be a change in a company's logo—those are usually easier to redesign than inner workings or policy, but they also display some movement forward, so plenty of businesses jump at the chance to showcase their newfound modern outlook.
However, sometimes eagerness to appear more in with the times and attempts to modernize the look of well-established brands end up creating something that feels flat and without any of the original flair. In some cases, it can be a change of color scheme, going from a bright and vibrant design to a black-and-white and muted logo that doesn't look anything like its source. And sometimes it's the overall simplification of the logo's design that turns it unrecognizable—older companies tended to have detailed logos, which were great to look at, but with the times and automatization, the logo ends becoming more flat (a good example would be Warner Bros' logo).
While the conversation about logos and their usability is nothing new, a comment from a Twitter user Liz Franczak sparked a now-viral discussion if the simplified logos had gone too far. An in this article, we compiled some of these redesign mishaps. Clearly the companies were aiming for the modern feel, but the end result often left the customers disappointed.
This post may include affiliate links.
Gmail
Petco
Holiday Inn
Didn't this happen a long time ago? I remember back in like 2010 I became familiar with the "now" icon.
General Motors
Olive Garden
Meh. The old one evoked Italy. The new one looks like it should join the other doodles on the blue denim-covered three ring notebook of a 1970s high school cheerleader.
I like both but the older one looks really realistic and fun, it looks ancient I like it
Also using "Italian" is an insult. Their food is awful.
Load More Replies...
its cleaner but maybe just a tad generic. Look similar to many a 'natural' skincare brand.
Actually an improvement. It's good to have a complex-ish logo, but not too complex. I mean, between the shading, the texture, all of it.
My husband wanted a tuscan looking kitchen for the longest. I wasn't impressed. Too dark.
They still use both don't they - for different things. As far as this goes, I don't care what the logo is as long as I get to eat the awesome food !! Love the Olive Garden....
The new logo is growing on me - seems fresher, which is one of the hallmarks of the selling of the restaurant's fresh food
Los Angeles Rams
Yahoo!
tbh I don't liek the letters with lines at the edges. Just like google's old logo
Airbnb
Note: this post originally had 43 images. It’s been shortened to the top 30 images based on user votes.
My personal theory is that all those graphic designers went to art school in the 2000s and were taught that "the simpler the better" — which they implemented very carefully, for they hadn't notice that a new generation had arisen in the mean time, a very nostalgic one who loved nothing more than slightly outdated designs and small things that stay the way they always were.
Decisions to change and update are most likely based on brand positioning research conducted among consumers, i.e. what is the essence of our brand and how can that be communicated instantly with a tiny image? I've worked on the inside of that industry and the dive into the minds and emotions of consumers is fascinating and revealing of who we are.
Let's not forget ADA compliance, not just easier to read, but easier for people with vision difficulties to read.
No, New ADA regulations require fonts to be Sans Serifs. Serifs are those little lines at the ends of letter. Serif fonts are typically thinner and harder for the blind to read. Hence the reason many logos are becoming thicker and more blocky. It's so the blind can read easier. All ATMs are already required to be Sans Serif with at least 14pt font. Background must also sharply contrast text coloring.
Yeah my former BFF use to advice me on the same thing. He thought he always knew best regards to simplistic fonts. NF he didn't go to school for graphic design. He just thought he was the best at everything and the world revolved around him. 🙄 Meh..... None the less I agree with the above statement!
Well said!
that's sooo true 😂😂
Yea, I was really triggered when they changed the smuckers logo cause I grew up with the old one :(
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "triggered".
A lot of these are just "get rid of the classy, elegant serifed font and replace it with a homogenous sans serif font." Which, as a graphic designer, I dislike. Too many of the logos look alike now.
I thought that. The font and colours are pretty much all the same.
It's all so the logos look better and clearer/more easily identifiable on a phone screen.
correct. also easier to animate them further for catchy commercials. btw, this post looks quite commercial too, just saying
*company needs new logo* Designer: How about bland bold black font on a white background?
For many of these it's a question of 'why fix what ain't broke?'
most of the old ones are bettter I think
Be honest: if you grew up with all the ones on the right, and they were changed to the ones on the left, would you feel the new ones are all better?
The majority of the "Thens" look better than the "Nows."
It's odd to call some these 'logos' when they're just text - Balenciaga, Balmain Paris, Burberry. A logo seems to imply some kind of artistic, symbolic element, that would be recognizable even without reading the brand name, like the US Open, the Taco Bell bell, even Black+Decker or a stylized font, Meetup or even Syfy or Yahoo to a degree. But hey ... I'm not in the graphic design game so what do I know.
Wow... proof that everything has to be dumbed down, because people are just becoming that stupid.
all these logos grew up an matured... lol
New ADA regulations require fonts to be Sans Serifs. Serifs are those little lines at the ends of letter. Serif fonts are typically thinner and harder for the blind to read. Hence the reason many logos are becoming thicker and more blocky. It's so the blind can read easier. All ATMs are already required to be Sans Serif with at least 14pt font. Background must also sharply contrast text coloring.
If you really want to dive deep into website compliance, look up WCAG 2.1 requirements.
I never realized, they actually changed some of the logos, I guess I got super used to it and forgot
Some just have lost their personality
Colours and pictures are what makes logos stand out. 🌈 🐢
Older is better for all of them
I found that in at least 50% of the examples, I preferred the original version. San serif wording makes new ones all look too similar. I really miss the Smucker's little strawberries as well.
I don't like change. In fact, most of the above were much better. Why change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Not being American I didn't recognise half of them... before or after!
So they all basically switched to the same computer-y, oh-so-modern font? They all look identical and I couldn’t tell you the name of one company in this list I forgot them so fast.
Tons of these are better now.
They got to butcher all them logos and then they think it looks good
I must say I like the THEN on almost every one, only a couple NOWs
Removed the 3d look. Minimalism. Some are better, some are ... less.
why are so many comments getting downvoted? if you don’t agree with someone’s opinion then leave it alone or engage in a discussion. and why the heck are nostalgic comments getting downvoted?
My personal pet peeve is the National Instruments logo, it went from being noticeable and different to being something that anyone could accidentally create.
Minimalism is being favored over detail, WHERE'S THE FLAVOR???
As a visually impaired person I like the move to simpler, cleaner logos. It makes it much easier for me to identify the brand without all the fluff.
Yes, it is a trend. Logos have to be bland and boring nowadays.
Some companies have removed their name from the logo using only their symbol leaving people guessing what product they are selling ie Starbucks, Pepsi. Are these products recognized the world over that everyone knows what it is?
Largely. Also if you're anywhere close to purchasing either it's pretty clear what they are.
I would say alot of the original brand designs were better than now.
Almost all of them are better and more legible in cell phones and tablets.
All of the fashion logos look the same to me. Simple logos can be great if done right, like the Bored Panda logo, but you need to keep some uniqueness.
Missing the ZARA logo
Wonder how much money was spent changing them.
I think it also has to do with budget. Less graphic means less money spent on mass products.
I think so too. It must be one of the reason, as well as the "look better on phones" reason.
Why do a majority of them look childish?
I'm glad some graphic designers managed to rip off some big corporations but I don't pay much attention to logos and they sure don't influence my buying decisions.
I dont know if they mean flat in a bad way or not? I think this is interesting as hell! (might be because I work with design and logos) The trend now is flatter logos with few colors. A logo should be simple, so it's not a bad thing I think. Most of these look more "modern" and better than the old ones in my opinion.
Agree. Spent 20 something years managing brands. It’s a lot more complex than people imagine (corporate guidelines, multi media, global vs local presence, diversity, trademark properties yadda yadda)
Does changing your logo and/or font really make that much difference in the bottom line? I mean a net difference, after they pay for the changes.
I am so old I remember the logos from BEFORE the 'old' ones lol!
I don’t think these have ‘lost their charm’ at all, merely a reflection of current aesthetic style; clean, simple, unambiguous.
More like cold, unoriginal, & forgettable.
Bland, generic, banal
In my 20 plus years working with brands, if I briefed changes to a creative or designer that said ‘make it less cold, more original and less forgettable’ they wouldn’t have a clue where to start. There is a very clear difference between directive descriptors and subjective commentary. Not suggesting one shouldn’t have a conversation about things but a conversation is different from a design or branding brief.
But that’s subjective, not descriptive, precisely the reason we have changing aesthetics.
Sorry you’re getting so defensive on this, even editing your response to make your opinions more descriptive.
Yes, Lis. That's how conversations work: You share your opinion, I share mine. I was joking, not arguing with you. By the way, most descriptions *are* subjective. I can *describe* a flower as pretty. That is a description, & it is subjective. & one may argue my description for the logos is in fact objective. Most lack warm colors, making them cold. They all look very alike, making them unoriginal. & I forgot most of them almost immediately, making them inarguably forgettable to at least one person.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
You're the one turning it into an arguement. I didn't edit my comment after you responded. I edited because I sent too early & then again because I had a typo. You're getting weirdly aggressive about me expressing my opinion about logos, of all things, going so far as to act as if we're in a branding brief (hint: we're not). Please calm down.
Whatever, first world problems..
No question at all that there is solid consumer research behind all of these examples.
Most of these are way better after rebranding.
I'm fine with most of them, just a little nostalgic about the old ones.
why do so many dumb people go "the old one is WAY better, though"? THAT IS THE POINT OF THE POST, PEOPLE!!!!!
My guy. Enough. The point of this post is to show people the difference between the original and the new one and get peoples opinion on them. Not to show how the new logos, although that is a part of it.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
90% of these are from brands I don't know (Or heard of from some internet posts, like "Olive Garden")... Sad
My personal theory is that all those graphic designers went to art school in the 2000s and were taught that "the simpler the better" — which they implemented very carefully, for they hadn't notice that a new generation had arisen in the mean time, a very nostalgic one who loved nothing more than slightly outdated designs and small things that stay the way they always were.
Decisions to change and update are most likely based on brand positioning research conducted among consumers, i.e. what is the essence of our brand and how can that be communicated instantly with a tiny image? I've worked on the inside of that industry and the dive into the minds and emotions of consumers is fascinating and revealing of who we are.
Let's not forget ADA compliance, not just easier to read, but easier for people with vision difficulties to read.
No, New ADA regulations require fonts to be Sans Serifs. Serifs are those little lines at the ends of letter. Serif fonts are typically thinner and harder for the blind to read. Hence the reason many logos are becoming thicker and more blocky. It's so the blind can read easier. All ATMs are already required to be Sans Serif with at least 14pt font. Background must also sharply contrast text coloring.
Yeah my former BFF use to advice me on the same thing. He thought he always knew best regards to simplistic fonts. NF he didn't go to school for graphic design. He just thought he was the best at everything and the world revolved around him. 🙄 Meh..... None the less I agree with the above statement!
Well said!
that's sooo true 😂😂
Yea, I was really triggered when they changed the smuckers logo cause I grew up with the old one :(
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "triggered".
A lot of these are just "get rid of the classy, elegant serifed font and replace it with a homogenous sans serif font." Which, as a graphic designer, I dislike. Too many of the logos look alike now.
I thought that. The font and colours are pretty much all the same.
It's all so the logos look better and clearer/more easily identifiable on a phone screen.
correct. also easier to animate them further for catchy commercials. btw, this post looks quite commercial too, just saying
*company needs new logo* Designer: How about bland bold black font on a white background?
For many of these it's a question of 'why fix what ain't broke?'
most of the old ones are bettter I think
Be honest: if you grew up with all the ones on the right, and they were changed to the ones on the left, would you feel the new ones are all better?
The majority of the "Thens" look better than the "Nows."
It's odd to call some these 'logos' when they're just text - Balenciaga, Balmain Paris, Burberry. A logo seems to imply some kind of artistic, symbolic element, that would be recognizable even without reading the brand name, like the US Open, the Taco Bell bell, even Black+Decker or a stylized font, Meetup or even Syfy or Yahoo to a degree. But hey ... I'm not in the graphic design game so what do I know.
Wow... proof that everything has to be dumbed down, because people are just becoming that stupid.
all these logos grew up an matured... lol
New ADA regulations require fonts to be Sans Serifs. Serifs are those little lines at the ends of letter. Serif fonts are typically thinner and harder for the blind to read. Hence the reason many logos are becoming thicker and more blocky. It's so the blind can read easier. All ATMs are already required to be Sans Serif with at least 14pt font. Background must also sharply contrast text coloring.
If you really want to dive deep into website compliance, look up WCAG 2.1 requirements.
I never realized, they actually changed some of the logos, I guess I got super used to it and forgot
Some just have lost their personality
Colours and pictures are what makes logos stand out. 🌈 🐢
Older is better for all of them
I found that in at least 50% of the examples, I preferred the original version. San serif wording makes new ones all look too similar. I really miss the Smucker's little strawberries as well.
I don't like change. In fact, most of the above were much better. Why change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Not being American I didn't recognise half of them... before or after!
So they all basically switched to the same computer-y, oh-so-modern font? They all look identical and I couldn’t tell you the name of one company in this list I forgot them so fast.
Tons of these are better now.
They got to butcher all them logos and then they think it looks good
I must say I like the THEN on almost every one, only a couple NOWs
Removed the 3d look. Minimalism. Some are better, some are ... less.
why are so many comments getting downvoted? if you don’t agree with someone’s opinion then leave it alone or engage in a discussion. and why the heck are nostalgic comments getting downvoted?
My personal pet peeve is the National Instruments logo, it went from being noticeable and different to being something that anyone could accidentally create.
Minimalism is being favored over detail, WHERE'S THE FLAVOR???
As a visually impaired person I like the move to simpler, cleaner logos. It makes it much easier for me to identify the brand without all the fluff.
Yes, it is a trend. Logos have to be bland and boring nowadays.
Some companies have removed their name from the logo using only their symbol leaving people guessing what product they are selling ie Starbucks, Pepsi. Are these products recognized the world over that everyone knows what it is?
Largely. Also if you're anywhere close to purchasing either it's pretty clear what they are.
I would say alot of the original brand designs were better than now.
Almost all of them are better and more legible in cell phones and tablets.
All of the fashion logos look the same to me. Simple logos can be great if done right, like the Bored Panda logo, but you need to keep some uniqueness.
Missing the ZARA logo
Wonder how much money was spent changing them.
I think it also has to do with budget. Less graphic means less money spent on mass products.
I think so too. It must be one of the reason, as well as the "look better on phones" reason.
Why do a majority of them look childish?
I'm glad some graphic designers managed to rip off some big corporations but I don't pay much attention to logos and they sure don't influence my buying decisions.
I dont know if they mean flat in a bad way or not? I think this is interesting as hell! (might be because I work with design and logos) The trend now is flatter logos with few colors. A logo should be simple, so it's not a bad thing I think. Most of these look more "modern" and better than the old ones in my opinion.
Agree. Spent 20 something years managing brands. It’s a lot more complex than people imagine (corporate guidelines, multi media, global vs local presence, diversity, trademark properties yadda yadda)
Does changing your logo and/or font really make that much difference in the bottom line? I mean a net difference, after they pay for the changes.
I am so old I remember the logos from BEFORE the 'old' ones lol!
I don’t think these have ‘lost their charm’ at all, merely a reflection of current aesthetic style; clean, simple, unambiguous.
More like cold, unoriginal, & forgettable.
Bland, generic, banal
In my 20 plus years working with brands, if I briefed changes to a creative or designer that said ‘make it less cold, more original and less forgettable’ they wouldn’t have a clue where to start. There is a very clear difference between directive descriptors and subjective commentary. Not suggesting one shouldn’t have a conversation about things but a conversation is different from a design or branding brief.
But that’s subjective, not descriptive, precisely the reason we have changing aesthetics.
Sorry you’re getting so defensive on this, even editing your response to make your opinions more descriptive.
Yes, Lis. That's how conversations work: You share your opinion, I share mine. I was joking, not arguing with you. By the way, most descriptions *are* subjective. I can *describe* a flower as pretty. That is a description, & it is subjective. & one may argue my description for the logos is in fact objective. Most lack warm colors, making them cold. They all look very alike, making them unoriginal. & I forgot most of them almost immediately, making them inarguably forgettable to at least one person.
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
You're the one turning it into an arguement. I didn't edit my comment after you responded. I edited because I sent too early & then again because I had a typo. You're getting weirdly aggressive about me expressing my opinion about logos, of all things, going so far as to act as if we're in a branding brief (hint: we're not). Please calm down.
Whatever, first world problems..
No question at all that there is solid consumer research behind all of these examples.
Most of these are way better after rebranding.
I'm fine with most of them, just a little nostalgic about the old ones.
why do so many dumb people go "the old one is WAY better, though"? THAT IS THE POINT OF THE POST, PEOPLE!!!!!
My guy. Enough. The point of this post is to show people the difference between the original and the new one and get peoples opinion on them. Not to show how the new logos, although that is a part of it.