The logo isn't the problem...

Johnson & Johnson and Eddie Bauer recently redesigned their iconic logos.

Both use the same crap excuse to justify redesigning their logos: cursive isn’t taught anymore.

So are they implying that because cursive isn’t taught, younger generations won't be able to read the logos?

AH, yes, they're right. The difference between a cursive O and a normal O is so radical no one would ever know they’re the same letter...

Seriously, what a bunch of BS.

Starbucks doesn’t even use lettering anymore. Like, AT ALL. What about Apple? Nike? Hell even Chili's drops the lettering sometimes (I want my letters back, letters back, letters back...sorry)

You have a better chance at reading cursive letters than trying to read letters that don't exist.

Logos are symbols that identify a brand. They're representations of meaning. So why would these giant, arguably iconic brands ditch their meaningful logos?

Because they want to ditch the past.

Not sure trashing your iconic logo for a new version that blends in with the bland logos of giant tech companies is a good look. Especially for a giant pharma and medical brand trying to separate themselves from past shittiness.

And what about your grandpa's favorite leather jacket brand trying to appeal to a younger crowd? Not a good look for them either.

These bland logos really just reinforce them as faceless, boring, forgettable, big corporate brands. And we all know the younger generations love that...

It’s fine to use a rebrand or a refresh as a moment to signal to the world that you’re changing and that from now on things will be different.

But a logo has about a zero percent chance of being the reason your company sucks.

For situations like that, you better be changing a lot more than just the logo.

✌️Rvw

PS. Sorry for the Chili's baby back ribs joke.