Editorial
No act in brand design is more public than changing a logo. The audience never sees the strategy deck, the naming workshops, or the guidelines — but everyone sees the new mark, usually within hours, usually with an opinion. That visibility is why logo redesigns produce both the most celebrated and the most reversed decisions in the field. This guide collects what the record actually shows: the two approaches a redesign can take, the cases worth studying on each side, and the questions that separate a redesign that compounds equity from one that torches it.
Every logo redesign is one of two moves. An evolution keeps the recognizable structure and modernizes the execution — sharper drawing, better screen behavior, a cleaner system around it. A revolution replaces the mark with something structurally new. Neither is inherently right: evolutions protect equity but can calcify a problem, revolutions can reset a brand’s trajectory but gamble recognition the company may not get back. What the failure cases share is not boldness — it is a mismatch between the size of the visual change and the size of the strategic change underneath it. A revolution with no strategy is decoration; the test for which one you are actually doing lives in our definition of rebrand meaning.
Flattened the iron mark without anyone noticing — which was the point.
Volvo simplified its logo to a flat, two-dimensional wordmark and iron mark built for screens, and almost nobody outside the industry registered the change. That invisibility is the achievement: the redesign modernized every digital touchpoint while protecting the recognition Volvo spent decades earning. A quiet redesign is not a timid one — it is one that knows exactly which asset carries the trust.
Scaled the quirk instead of sanding it off.
Mailchimp entered its growth era with the move most companies get wrong: it kept the winking chimp and the irreverent voice, wrapped them in a bolder yellow and a sturdier type system, and let the personality survive the systematization. The redesign is a standing rebuttal to the idea that growing up requires blanding out.
Traded a skeuomorphic camera for a gradient — and was right.
The switch from the retro camera icon to a flat glyph on a sunset gradient was loudly hated at launch and quietly vindicated afterward: the gradient became one of the most recognizable color assets in software. It is the strongest recent case that launch-week outrage measures attachment to the old mark, not the quality of the new one — judge a revolution at eighteen months, not eighteen hours.
Bet the company mark on a symbol nobody had seen before.
The Bélo replaced a forgettable logotype with an abstract symbol built to stand for "belonging" — mocked on arrival, then absorbed so completely it now reads as inevitable. A decade on it is the counter-example to every botched radical redesign: the symbol worked because the strategy underneath it (a global community brand, not a booking tool) was real and the company committed to it everywhere.
"Copy nothing" — including its own equity.
The geometric wordmark and brandless teaser campaign arrived before the product they were meant to introduce, detaching the mark from ninety years of association while offering nothing new to attach it to. Whatever the eventual verdict on the cars, the sequencing made the redesign the story — and the backlash the launch. Revolutions need something real to point at on day one.
Tropicana, Gap, Pepsi, Royal Mail’s Consignia, HBO Max — the famous disasters fail in patterned, teachable ways: a distinctive asset discarded, a change with no strategy underneath, a grand rationale papering over a weak result. We keep them in their own pillar, the worst logo redesigns, because reading ten of them together exposes the root causes faster than any checklist. The successes above are best read against them: in every good case, someone correctly answered “what do customers actually navigate by?” before touching it.
A logo redesign changes the visual mark itself — the symbol, wordmark, or both — while the company, name, and strategy stay the same. When the positioning, name, or voice changes too, that is a rebrand, and the logo is just one output of it.
Scope. A redesign is cosmetic: new visuals over an unchanged strategy. A rebrand is strategic: the company is repositioning, and the identity changes to signal it. The quick test is whether you can name the strategic change driving the new logo — if you cannot, it is a redesign and should be judged as one.
When a specific, nameable problem exists: the mark fails at small sizes or on screens, it has drifted from what the company now does, or the system around it has grown inconsistent. The wrong reason is internal boredom — a new leader who simply wants a change. Most famous redesign failures trace back to taste, not strategy.
Because audiences experience a familiar mark as theirs. Some backlash is grief for the old logo and fades if the new one is good — Instagram 2016 is the canonical case. But sustained backlash usually signals a real error: equity discarded with nothing offered in return. The failures are collected in our worst logo redesigns pillar.
We review every submission. If your logo redesign work meets the standard, we will feature it.
Submit your work