The past year saw a lot of quite high-profile rebrands that received a very cold, if not hostile reception. Generally, this isn't something that is particularly unusual—at least among the design community at any rate. What is of note is the degree to which the average observed from outside of the design world had something to say about these rebrands.
Ask almost any designer, and they will have an opinion about any given logo. Even if branding is not part of their expertise, it's something the designers tend to be very opinionated about. They will go on and on about the merits of the FedEx logo or the timeless qualities of Paul Rand's IBM logo, but it has only been recently that non-designers have been particularly vocal when a logo that they share an emotional connection changes.
There are three examples that really stick out as examples of this over the past year: the GAP logo, the BIG10 logo and the Comedy Central logo. All three rebrands released in the past year were immediately met with intense, often vitriolic response. Consumers called for the return to the old logo, with frequent comments questioning whether the logo had been created by a child, or other rude critiques. What they are really saying, however, is that the design is bad.
The problem with online criticism
It is, of course, an individual's right to publicly question and critique anything. As the most frequently reproduced and most publicly facing representative for a company (or organization or a cause), a logo should never be immune to this discourse. However, the value of most online discussions of logos is rarely conducted in a thoughtful way. How could any critic have been a fly on the wall at all the meetings, all the brainstorming sessions, all the long hours of working that resulted in the final identity. As designers, we are only slightly more equipped to provide informed criticism. We can relate to the process, but we still weren't there when it happened.
Quality of criticism is another issue. What value does the comment, "meh" really bring to the table? What's the point in saying merely, "I liked the old logo" if you don't substantiate it with a "why" or provide some suggestions? The issue is that criticism is so easy, while logo design/branding is so difficult. In the online space, nobody asks you to provide evidence for your beliefs. Nobody asks you your credentials. Nobody knows your name, your background or your identity and the internet give you a listening audience.
What's at stake
If these scathing remarks were fired off into the ether, with no impact on the external world, then this scenario would be acceptable. The reality, unfortunately, is that people's reactions to these rebrands have caused companies to waffle and change their position. Instead of sticking with the decisions that have been made, they scrap everything and wind the clock back to the original identity, as if none of this had ever happened. Go about your purchasing, it was all just a bad dream.
Let's ignore, for a moment, that this would be a prime example of the excesses of American corporations. Let's look past the time and effort committed to the project by all the stakeholders. What message does this send to people about the value of design? It says that design is a frivolous pastime not to be taken seriously. It says that design can be discarded if there are a few vocal detractors.
That's not to say that customers should be ignored, or that their opinions don't matter. It certainly doesn't mean that bad design shouldn't be singled out and lobbied against. What it does mean is that the level of discourse that commonly happens via e-mail, on message boards, through social networks rarely adds something of value. Most often its off-handed comments and flame-war bait.
Worst case scenario
If this trend continues—and it certainly shows now signs of abating—it certainly has some rather grim implications. These rebrands have all taken place at large corporations, and to call these entities risk-adverse would be a rather severe understatement. It's not difficult to point out examples of large companies choosing the safe and easy path when it comes to their visual identity. While history has favored those willing to take risks, it's a difficult job to pitch challenging work to The Boardroom.
Sometimes the best design solution runs contrary to the research and the focus groups. It seems increasing unlikely that challenging work could make it past the decision makers without somebody bringing up, "Oh hey, that won't work. Reminds me too much of that whole GAP debacle. We don't need that."
For the record...
…I really hate that proposed GAP logo, but I have my reasons.