Ben Schott wrote an article for Bloomberg about logo tinkering titled Debranding is the New Branding.
« Advertising’s oldest cliché has the client asking: “Can you make the logo bigger?” But the internet has forever constrained the dimensions of design. In a pre-Web world — when the smallest canvas for many brands was the business card — intricacy could be embraced. Nowadays, corporate identities must “click” inside an ever-expanding warren of tiny boxes, from 120-pixel iPhone buttons to 16-pixel browser “favicons.”
The difficulty of ensuring that any logo (let alone an intricate, dimensional logo) stands out from the kaleidoscopic eye-candy of ads, apps and open tabs is one driver behind “mobile first” design. Here identity and functionality are conceived from the outset inside the tightest constraints — for what works on a cellphone will surely work on a water-tower. »
« As much as brands aspire to be sui generis, branding has fashions that ebb and flow like skirt lengths or collar widths. This was as true of “jazz age” and “flower power” brands as of the recent effusion of “hipster” brands — a trope that became so hackneyed some wisenheimer coded a Hipster Logo Generator: »
« The reality that branding experiences fashion cycles is neatly illustrated by the branding of fashion itself — most strikingly the (much debated) luxury debranding stampede heralded, in part, by Yves Saint Laurent: »
« the 2001 reimagining of Royal Mail as Consignia — a £2 million act of vandalism against a 500-year-old brand that took just 16 months to reverse »
« If they don’t have carte blanche for a blue-sky redesign, designers love to pore through an archive — after all, what’s the point of “brand heritage” if you can’t “build upon it”? For brands with a history, redeploying elements of legacy identities inspires confidence, maintains continuity and allows decades-old companies to straddle the past and the future. »