The dos and don’ts of a logo refresh

A logo redesign can win over a new generation of shoppers or get your brand roasted for a week straight.

In this episode of Marketing Brew Weekly, Kelsey Sutton, Katie Hicks, and Jennimai Nguyen sort recent rebrands into the good, the bad, and the plain ugly. They cover Spotify’s disco ball app icon, Levi’s World Cup logo cover-up, Mountain Dew’s return to its original look, and Gap’s famously short-lived 2010 redesign.

They also dig into “blanding,” the trend that’s making every brand look the same, and when it’s actually worth touching your most iconic asset.

Key takeaways

• Change your logo for a reason. New leadership, a modernization push, or a new audience are solid motives. “We need people to talk about us” is a risky one, because you can’t control what they say.
• Blanding creates a sea of sameness. Simplified fonts and inoffensive blue palettes make brands blur together. Distinctive shapes and colors, like Levi’s and Mountain Dew’s neon green, give you room to play.
• Temporary changes can win big when they’re specific to your brand. Levi’s and Spotify made the most of their moments. The brands that turned their logos orange for Taylor Swift’s album mostly marketed the album, not themselves.
• Heritage is an asset. Gap’s 2010 redesign lasted about a week before the classic logo returned. Mountain Dew mined its archives to feel friendlier and more accessible without losing its recognition.
• Don’t beg for a rebrand in the comments. Brands pleading to be next on a viral logo-parody series feel less organic every year.

Watch the episode

Listen to the episode

Logo refreshes: The good, the bad, and the plain ugly

Kelsey: Welcome to Marketing Brew Weekly, Morning Brew Inc’s podcast for the marketing industry. I’m Kelsey Sutton.

Katie: I’m Katie Hicks.

Jennimai: And I’m Jennimai Nguyen.

Kelsey: Okay. So first impressions matter and the way a brand’s logo shows up maybe on the shelf of a store or online on their socials can really make or break whether a consumer actually ends up putting it in their cart and making a purchase.

So it’s no surprise that brands spend a lot of time and a lot of anxiety changing up their logo looks. Sometimes to great success. Other times, ultimately not so much.

But changing a brand logo, as you both know, is way easier said than done. So often it gets people talking for all the wrong reasons. People get mad. It goes back to what it once was. Lots of money spent for ultimately no effect.

So we wondered when is it actually worth messing with your brand’s most iconic imagery? And I had you both and I also pulled together some logo makeovers from recent history that we thought were the good, the bad, and the plain ugly.

Sorry to be rude.

Jennimai: We’ve got some thoughts, but you’ll have to stick around to the end of the episode to get all of our in-depth thoughts on what makes a good brand logo change and what makes a bad one.

Sponsored ad read: Marketing Brew Summit

Kelsey: Absolutely. But first, we are less than two months out from our annual Marketing Brew Summit, which is returning to New York for the fifth year in a row on September 30th.

Jennimai: Yeah. And the whole marketing brew team will be there. So the three of us are other colleagues that help make the newsletter possible. And then we’ll have top marketers from all the companies that you probably care about, places like Netflix, Pinterest, Reddit, Oatly, SharkNinja, Major League Soccer. I could keep listing more and more and more.

Katie: Lots of people. We’d love to see you there and you can find more info about tickets on marketingbrew.com or in our show notes.

Why do brands change their logos?

Jennimai: Okay. So we have lots of examples of good and bad brand logo changes to dig into. Before we actually get into the nitty gritty, let’s talk about why brands actually changed their logos in the first place.

I feel like digging into the why is important because the logo is what people connect with and how people recognize your brand. So why on earth would you mess with it in the first place?

Katie: I feel like sometimes it can be in response to we have a whole new era. We have a new leadership team. We’re responding to some sort of backlash or something. We’re signaling that we are in a completely different era of the brand. That’s one example.

Kelsey: Yeah. And I think that some of the new era often comes with a modernization effort.

I feel like we saw some brands sort of simplify their looks when the digital experience got way more important. Your logo looks different on a mobile phone than it does on a cereal box. So we sort of see that and I think it’s sort of a shorthand for we’re with it. We’re not stuffy and old-fashioned, we’re new.

And that of course comes with this whole set of considerations. But I feel like it’s such a simple way to be like, we’re new, we’re with it, we’re current, we’re modern.

Katie: I think another example of that too is, and we see this more temporarily, but when a brand responds to something on social media, there might be a joke about the brand. Somebody might have made their own version of a logo as a joke. And then the brand’s like, oh, well, we’re going to make it our profile picture. We’re going to show that we’re aware of what’s going on and we’re fun and we’re in on the joke too.

Jennimai: I feel like on social, it’s just so easy to do that because you can change something and you can change it back and it’s not as permanent of a change.

But I feel like what really gets people talking is when it seems permanent. So I feel like that’s the other reason that brands might be considering logo change is they just need some conversation around their company. It might be a brand that’s been around for years and years and years and hasn’t done something that has really grasped attention recently. Could be a way to inject yourself into the media cycle, but I feel like that as always comes with risks.

Kelsey: Yeah. I feel like that the choosing to do it with the press plan to support it, but again, it’s sort of like who is the audience? Is the audience with a big press push to drum up conversation to attract new consumers?

Because I think a big choice here too is we need to expand our market. So we need to make the brand and the logo more attractive to a different set of customers more for Gen Z. We need to make sure Gen Z like it.

Jennimai: Well, is it attractiveness or is it just so people are thinking about it, right? It’s like people are talking about this font change or this color change and it’s just like, oh, it’s top of mind once again when maybe the general, whether it’s a new audience or existing audience just hasn’t thought about the brand in a while.

The blanding effect

Katie: But I think there are some risks with it too. Kelsey, when you were mentioning the digital age, something that I’ve reported on is the concept of blanding, which is when brands take design elements away from their brands and their logos and they show just kind of a more simplified version of what people are used to.

And that’s in response to this concept of making it easier to switch the colors online and making it easy for the graphic designers to tweak things and post it on your profile picture or overlay it on top of a different image. But it does think the term blanding comes from this concept that everything looks pretty bland now. Things look kind of similar and reductive in a way.

Kelsey: Yeah. And I think that often you see with blanding, you see brand logo copycat syndrome sometimes. There’s some new brand in a category that everybody’s really interested in.

And then maybe some legacy brands are either bad timing, they release their new simplified thing or in response to that because they want to attract some of the consumers interested in that new brand say, let’s do our logo, make it look a little similar. You know what I mean?

And I think that that can create a sea of sameness. And of course the last thing a brand wants to be is the same as everybody else.

Katie: So many brands have gone from a Serifont to a San Serifont. So many brands have just simplified their font choice and stuff. And it’s like, we can’t all be in Helvetica.

Jennimai: Yeah.

Kelsey: Although, that’s so funny because a couple years ago it was like everybody wanted to be Sanserif simple. I feel like lowercase big bubbly San Serif looked every brand.

Jennimai: It was of the moment. Yeah.

Kelsey: And now we’re a little bit more. I feel like a Serif is a little bit more analog. It’s like, we’re retro.

Jennimai: So true. Yeah.

I think it’s interesting too when this can kind of create the same look across an entire industry. I think a lot about the general AI and tech industry ads that I personally see a lot in the subway. I’m looking up on the banners that are on the subway or just on the platforms. It’s like, I don’t even actually have to read what this ad is, but just the look of the font and the logos. I’m not actually retaining what the company is, but I know that it’s a tech company.

And that is kind of creating the opposite of what I think a logo should do. It’s like I should have a distinct image of what this company is. And instead I’m like, oh, you’re all tech.

Katie: There was a thing written, I think it was on The Verge about how all the AI companies use that one little sparkle emoji symbol for their AI. Gemini uses it and all these different brands are using. Yeah, it’s this concept of sameness. You’re all adapting the same brand identity.

Kelsey: Yeah, but it’s also shorthand. So you see that and it’s the same, but you definitely know what it is.

Jennimai: Yeah. So perhaps these companies actually do need to change their logos. Let’s suggest that for them.

Kelsey: Yeah. But I think Katie, your point about blanding, I also think that there’s a real risk for brands that have a longer legacy when they mess with their logo of scrapping something that a consumer maybe doesn’t even know that they love, but as soon as it’s gone, they realize, wait, that was my favorite thing about it. Or that was the thing that identified it for them.

Again, I keep thinking about a store, but I think about consumer behavior. You go into a store, sometimes you’re in the mood to look around, browse. Other times you’re like, I’m in, I’m out. I’m looking for the logo so I can get the one thing I need because I’m loyal to that brand and that product. Let me get out of there. And if you’re suddenly stopped in front of the orange juice section and you’re like, oh, where’s my thing?

Jennimai: Where’s my go-to orange juice?

Kelsey: I feel like there’s same look or new look, same great taste. It’s such a great line in the grocery category. But I think that I’m like, why change the look necessarily?

Katie: Or don’t fix what’s not broken. Just leave it as it is. It’s been working for a long time. Sometimes that’s to your brand’s benefit.

Logo refreshes: The hits

Kelsey: Yeah, absolutely. So we have talked a lot about kind of the pros, cons, but let’s get into some of the examples.

I asked both of you to bring a hit and a miss to kind of go through what this actually looks like in practice. So Katie, maybe we can start with you. What do you think is a brand logo change that really was successful in your opinion?

Hit: Levi’s World Cup logo change

Katie: My hit, my first hit is the Levi’s World Cup logo change. This was a temporary one, but during the World Cup, Levi’s was forced to cover their logo on Levi’s Stadium in San Francisco.

And in response, they changed their logo on social media to this white banner overlaying the Levi’s logo. And it got a lot of media attention. It kind of created a Streisand effect where by covering the logo, people started talking about it more. And I think the brand did a really good job of capitalizing on this moment. They were selling t-shirts that had the covered logo. People were applauding them for kind of leaning into this.

And I think it was just a good opportunity for them to show we’re in on this. We didn’t have any say in it being covered, but we’re going to be part of this moment of talking about it.

Jennimai: Wait, explain the Streisand effect to me. I’ve never heard this term before.

Katie: It’s basically, so this comes from Barbara Streisand trying to take down images of her house that have been taken by drone or Google images or something like that. She was trying to get her house removed from Google images. And in effect, people started Googling her house.

Kelsey: And now everybody in the world knows what Barbara Strand’s house.

Katie: Yes. So that’s the thing. So by trying to conceal it, it created more conversation about it. So it’s like if she had just said nothing and done nothing, then no one would’ve really cared what were the odds of people researching Barbara Streisand’s house.

But similar thing with Levi’s where it’s like the logo got concealed by the World Cup, but in effect, it led to this huge brand moment for Levi’s.

Jennimai: Yeah. I think this is such a good example because I think it’s a great example of working with the circumstances. They didn’t choose to have to remove their logo, but by complying with the outside circumstances that they had to and turning it into something that they could also own, it makes it a joke, it makes it interesting. And it’s not just like, oh, we had to turn over to what FIFA wanted to do here and we still have ownership over this very important brand asset.

And we are not letting you bully us into just taking this off. Even though they did, they did exactly what they needed to do, but they still controlled the conversation around it.

Kelsey: You know what I think too about this is it’s such proof of the value of a really recognizable brand logo shape.

Jennimai: Yeah, true.

Kelsey: I feel like…

Jennimai: A circle would not have hit us hard.

Kelsey: If you don’t have that iconic shape that consumers are familiar with and can see it and immediately kind of identify, you don’t have the ability to play in that space.

Obviously Levi’s was able to do that malicious compliance and show that shape, but understanding and actually recognizing, no, that actually is a brand asset. That to me says they should never change that shape. That’s a really powerful shorthand for consumers.

And I think about this similarly with Heinz did a campaign sort of recently where they overlaid, and Heinz kind of has the shape of their logo and on packaging. It almost has these little beveled edges that go up. Do you know what I’m trying to say?

Jennimai: I can picture it in my head right now. Yeah.

Kelsey: What they did is they overlaid it on a bunch of french fry containers and it’s sort of saying french fries aren’t french fries without Heinz. But taking advantage of that shape and playing with it in a creative way, again, indicates to me the power of just the geometry of it.

Katie: It’s recognizable. And people know it without even having to put Heinz on it or having to put Levi’s on it, which is To the brand’s benefit. They have a very recognizable iconography.

Kelsey: And again, I’m like, these brands are legacy brands. They’ve been around for a long time. They’ve had lots of time to build that. But for a brand that is going, maybe we should change our logo, I’m like, maybe you should have some fun with some shapes.

Do something a little bit fun than a little sparkle or a circle or something really simple because if you do pick something, you can make that stand out.

Hit: Spotify’s disco ball logo change

Katie: Yeah. Speaking of circles, Jennimai, what’s your hit?

Jennimai: The big circle of the moment, I feel like a big reason why we even talked about this episode was all of the conversation around the Spotify Disco Ball logo change.

So in case you were living under a rock or I guess not a Spotify user, there are Apple Music users out there as well. For Spotify’s 20th anniversary, they changed their flat green app icon logo to the disco ball 3D party image to celebrate their anniversary.

And it really inspired a lot of conversation, both negative and positive. And I feel like the media conversation around it was very like people hate Spotify’s logo. But I feel like taking a step back from all of that, it feels like a hit to me because there was so much conversation around this. It was ultimately…I don’t think that it was done to drum up controversy, but it did. And it made people pay so much more attention to Spotify’s 20th anniversary than I think they would have otherwise.

And I think a big piece of this is that it also changed the icon on your phone. I could look at my phone and see that the logo was different. And it kind of reminds me of when Apple put the U2 album on all of our phones and we were forced to talk about it. There’s something there of like, oh, there was an individual activity element to this rather than just like Spotify changed the logo on their own on social.

Katie: It created a collective moment because it’s like whether you upgraded your app or not, it kind of just auto upgraded it. You were part of it. If you saw it, you opened your phone and you’re like, “What is that? Oh, that’s Spotify.”

Jennimai: Right. Yeah. And I think that we talked about a big reason why brands do change their logos in the first place is to drum up this conversation. And conversation can be good or bad. And I think that you have to just roll with the punches.

I think something else that Spotify did that was smart is that it was always meant to be a temporary change, but I don’t think that was super clear from the beginning. I don’t know if that was intentional on their part, but if it was, I think that prolonged the conversation for a lot longer than it would have gone. It was up for about a month or the app was changed on people’s phones for about a month.

And people were angry about it and asking why this happened. Is it going to change? I want it to change back. And eventually Spotify did respond to that and they were like, “It’s coming. It’ll be back to your regular logo soon.”

Katie: Rest easy, folks.

Jennimai: Yeah. Your biggest stress will be gone in about a week, but they weren’t super prescriptive about it. So it kind of let that conversation continue.

And I think the fact that people were talking about it both for the platforms that I think kind of exemplify this is both on a place like Twitter or X, and then also on LinkedIn. You were getting the brand strategists and the people in the industry who were like, “Here’s all the reasons why this was smart or not smart,” but also just the regular consumer. You’re getting people to think about it strategically and just their emotional reaction to it. And I think that is what you want as a brand at the end of the day.

Kelsey: Also sidebar, I’m like, this is why marketing is so interesting because we’re all consumers and you can have a brand strategist, we can talk to people, but also people have really strong feelings about their brands. And they have such strong feelings about how their phone looks.

I feel like we always have these conversations about Instagram or Instagram or Facebook, whenever their apps were changing. When Instagram went to the sort of colorful thing, people were about to riot.

Jennimai: Honestly, then I think about the original Instagram logo app icon and I’m like, “Oh, there is a nostalgia for that.” So I’m curious if Instagram will bring that back one day. It’s like, oh, we changed the app icon back for X amount of time just to bask in nostalgia because everyone wants to do that. Especially with Polaroid’s campaign being like, get out there and do things. I feel like…

Katie: People need to analog a little bit more. They’re like, “Remember the original logo?”

Jennimai: Right? More analog!

Katie: Yeah.

Hit: Mountain Dew—MTN Dew

Kelsey: I’m so glad you guys brought this up because my hit is very much a nostalgia play, which was Mountain Dew changed their logo.

They used to have a very angular logo that was MTN Dew. And do you remember that?

Jennimai: Yes!

Katie: I remember. Yeah.

Kelsey: And it sort of looks like a mountain, but it also kind of is sort of harsh. And so they a couple years ago decided to go back to the original Mountain Dew. It’s more fun, font. I don’t know. And it still has the same colors, but I think it was a great choice.

First of all, because it really is like, oh, that’s the Mountain Dew of yore. But I also think that it makes it a little bit more friendly and accessible. And I think that was part of the intention of it is making the product not feel like this is optimized for gamers, but something that anybody can pick up.

And I think that is a really smart way of digging into the archives. I know Kristina recently wrote about brands that have brand archivists and go back to look into it, but brands that have assets like that, that’s a really fun way of doing it. Taking what people recognize and identify, which is I think a very strong color scheme and scrapping the thing that maybe makes it less attractive to a broad audience.

Ultimately, if you are holding a soda and drinking it, that you may be seen holding it. You want to like the experience of looking at the can, not just drinking the product. So I thought that was a really smart choice.

Jennimai: I think that kind of demonstrates the opportunity that brands have too when they do have really distinct colors. Having the neon green allows you to play with a lot more elements while still retaining the brand identity and that recognition that a regular person will still kind of fire when they see it.

But if you were playing with neutrals and a blue that everyone else uses, you have to hold onto what you originally got people to recognize for you. So I think that’s something that brands should consider too, is when they are branding themselves and picking their brand identity, something like that really distinct color.

I mean, the power of Barbie Pink and Brat Summer, that was so rooted in those really, really iconic and frankly neon colors. So I think there’s something interesting there too with Mountain Dew’s Green being like, that feels like if I had to look up the hex code, it would say Mountain Dew in there.

Kelsey: Right. I feel like there’s something interesting though for newer brands. They can’t own a color scheme in the same way. And I think often you see brands move to these super bland, basic, inoffensive color combinations.

Katie: Every tech company has a blue app icon or a blue logo, I feel. It’s changing a little bit more, especially now that Twitter’s no longer Twitter. But I remember there was one point where it was like, every social media platform is blue.

Kelsey: And sort of sky blue or a little bit darker. Yes. Yeah.

Jennimai: Inoffensive.

Kelsey: Yeah. Right, right. Very friendly, very approachable, but otherwise not memorable. And I kind of think that Mountain Dew, I mean they went Christmas, but they did it a long time ago. You know what I mean? And so when you see that, you know exactly what it is. And I think that’s a power in picking something that somebody might say, “I don’t like that color combination.” And you’re like, “Well, too bad. You’ll come to like it.”

Jennimai: Yeah. You’re inspiring an emotion at the end of the day, and that’s what you want.

Logo refreshes: The misses

Kelsey: Yeah. Let’s talk misses. I want to hear some hater energy.

Katie: Let’s bring it.

Miss: Gap

Katie: So going off of what we’ve been talking about with Heritage, this is a classic miss that I feel like has come up a lot among marketers. But in 2010, Gap rebranded and they changed their very classic Serif font to a San Serif Helvetica look with a blue square kind of up in the corner instead of behind the logo. It’s

Kelsey: It’s Historically bad. It’s a historically bad choice.

Katie: Many a think piece has been written about this rebrand.

Jennimai: Yes!

Kelsey:

Katie: But, I think this is just a good case of why when you’re a heritage brand to lean into your heritage.

I think right now we’re seeing Gap and it’s sort of like renaissance and they have retained this look, the original look of the logo while modernizing the brand and working with very trendy pop stars and personas like the Hailey Bieber jeans that just came out. I think they’re doing a really good job of leaning into heritage as we are your place for basics and staples and that’s always going to be what we are, but we can still be modern and trendy with this look that you guys know and love.

Kelsey: You can be modern and trendy with the marketing strategy. You don’t have to do it with your brand logo.

Jennimai: Yeah. I truly can’t get over the floating square. I know everyone said that a million times, but I wish I could sit in on that meeting where they were like, “What if we took the background square, shrunk it and attached it to the P?” Why is it floating?”

Katie: I could have made that in Microsoft paint in 2010. I probably did make something like that thinking I was going to be a graphic designer. It didn’t look well thought out at all.

Jennimai: Even though I’m sure there was a lot of thought that went into it. And I think that’s what’s so interesting when brands do change their logos is that if it is bad and this reaction happens, everyone becomes an expert and everyone has an opinion on it. And everyone’s like, “How on earth did you not think about this?”

But surely a lot of thought went into it, but there’s some justification out there as to why they were trying something new and it just didn’t land.

Katie: That’s the thing. Whenever these things happen, I’m like, “I want to see the pitch deck. I want to see who pitched this and was like, this is going to be amazing.”

Kelsey: Oh, but it’s immediately being burned and all evidence.

Katie: It lasted a week!

Jennimai: I want to know if any physical products were printed with this logo. Is there a treasure trove of really terrible gap logo hoodies out there somewhere?

Kelsey: I don’t know.

Katie: It truly lasted one week and then they went back to the icon that they used since the ’80s.

Jennimai: They’re like, just kidding!

Katie: Yeah. They’re like, “Forget that. Erase.”

Miss: Every brand who jumped on the new Taylor Swift album design

Jennimai: Yeah. Okay. Well, I have another mist that I want to bring to the table. And we talked about this phenomenon before on this show, but I just have to call back to the moment in time. Was that this year? Was that last year?

Katie: Last fall.

Jennimai: Well, when The Life of a Showgirl came out at Taylor Swift’s most recent album, every single brand that hopped on and turned their logo orange and glittery, I feel like this, it ranged from Dunking Donuts national brands to Tart to even smaller local brands.

And I feel like the reason it’s a miss for me is that when you do something temporary on social media with your logo, I think it really has to stand out to create that conversation. And I think all of the brands jumping in on this only created a conversation around The Life of a Showgirl. They did the marketing for Taylor Swift rather than the marketing for their own brands.

There was nothing about it that made me go, oh, this particular logo looks so cute in orange and glitter. And it was more about the overall effect. And great, you were a part of a cultural moment and you helped to bolster Taylor Swift in this moment, but at the end of the day, what did that do for your brand?

It just didn’t do anything for me.

Katie: It’s also, it was kind of like a critically poorly received album too.

Jennimai: So true.

Katie: So it’s like, was there a risk there? I know you’re appealing to the Swifties with a move like that.

Jennimai: Which are a massive nation.

Katie: Yeah. But I mean, do you want to tie your brand to something that maybe people didn’t end up loving that much? I don’t know.

Kelsey: And ultimately at the end of the day, it’s forgettable. Who remembers any of those brands?

Jennimai: Right. I did have to just look at the screen to be like, wait, which brands actually did this? Because it becomes all one blob of brand in my head because it was about the overall effect rather than any individual brand.

I think the counterpoint there to fight myself on this is that it is temporary. Anytime you change your logo on social media, it is the lowest form of risk I would say is you can change it back immediately. You can change it back in a week. You can kind of in real time take the pulse of how people are responding to this.

And the fix is quite simple and it probably doesn’t require you to make an apology or a big statement about it, depending on what it is that you’ve changed.

Katie: Calling it back to the Levi’s example, which was also temporary, that felt very unique to Levi’s. Whereas this one, it felt like it was just you’re in a sea of brands who are doing the same thing. So it’s not memorable necessarily.

Kelsey: Yeah. I feel like that was my miss too. It’s sort of low stakes social sort of thing, but there is a TikTok creator named Emily Zugay and she’s very funny and she just is like graphic design is my passion, sort of fake brand. She does…

Katie: She’s been doing it for five years.

Kelsey: Years. Yes. I was like, “she’s still doing it!”

Kelsey: Still doing it, but she’ll take a brand that’s well known and then we’ll give it a comically horrible makeover on her iPad.

And it’s very funny and silly, but something that we often see is brands in the comments of any of these videos being like, “Do us next. Oh my God, please do us next so they can change it.”

And I understand there’s the goal of we want to be part of this conversation. We want to be seen as humorous and funny and current, et cetera. But I find that to be like…I think maybe it’s just the begging in the comment section.

Katie: It’s a little cringe. It also kind of feels like a brand echo chamber. When you go on the post, it’s all brands in the comments. I’m like, Do us next, do us next. And then I don’t know, a lot of them are paid posts too. And I’m like, “Is this just marketers interacting with Emily?” Are there organic commenters?

Jennimai: Are there real people in the comments at all?

Katie: Are these just bots? I honestly was shocked to see that this was still happening. I remember her being on my feed first, again, five, four years ago. And now I’m like, “Oh, people still think this is funny. She’s still doing this.”

Kelsey: Yeah. And again, I’m like, I think that the concept is very funny. I think that her comment section is now just not. It’s worn…some of the charm is…

Jennimai: It’s unoriginal.

Kelsey: Worn off, yeah.

Jennimai: I think. When it was first happening five years ago and brands were all jumping in the comments, I think that comes off as support of this organic, funny creator. And that is really exciting for when someone is like, “Oh, I think this person is funny,” and they’re getting corporate support to be funny and make the content. But it’s A, been a long time. And B, it’s not novel to see a brand in the comments kind of doing this. And it kind of reads more as like, “Oh, we just need you to drum up a little conversation for us. And we’re not even trying to think of what the conversation we want it to be. Just do a little something for us.” It doesn’t

Katie: Feel organic anymore. I feel like you look at it now and you’re like, “I’m sure she’s getting a lot of paid.” I mean, again, there’s paid posts that are disclosed, but I’m sure she’s also just doing a lot of brand deals and it just -

Kelsey: And ultimately get that bag. Yeah, let that for her. Good for

Jennimai: Her. Incredible niche that she’s found for herself. Yeah.

Kelsey: But I do think that there are ways to do a fun or funny brand makeover that maybe feel a little bit more current or relevant or even mission driven. If you had a kid do it because you’re donating a bunch of money to some organization that supports children. I don’t know. I’m inventing that. No, but I think it’s an interesting one. Yeah. There could be ways to do it in a way that says something new.

Jennimai: Yeah,

Kelsey: Definitely.

Jennimai: I think that’s kind of the root of the conversation. It’s like mess with your logo when you have a reason to be doing it. Don’t be just doing it to hope that people have a reaction because you can’t control what that reaction is going to be.

Kelsey: Yeah. So I want to know, are there brands that you really want to see change your logos? You’re like, “Please, it’s time.” Oh

Jennimai: My gosh.

Katie: This is logo applicable and also just overall brand applicable, but I hate X. I want it to be Twitter again. And I think the X logo is so ugly.

Jennimai: It is a really ugly one. It looks like what I would draw in my notebooks when I was doodling in class and someone just took that and was like, “Yep, that’s what this corporate logo is now.” And it’s so

Katie: Generic. The just saying like, “Oh, I’m going on X just doesn’t...” I don’t know. There’s no brand identity to it. It just feels very blah.

Kelsey: Yeah, definitely. Totally agree. That was a brand asset that was really strong that we are. Yeah. RIP the little birdie. I know. Cute.

Jennimai: I actually was watching old episodes of Jeopardy recently, and it was when Alex Trebreck was still hosting and being on Twitter while watching Jeopardy was a much bigger thing. And the little logo came up that was like, “Tweet us and use this hashtag.” And I was like, “Ugh, what a nostalgic time that we unfortunately cannot go back to.”

Kelsey: Yeah, it’s gone.

Jennimai: But I think the logo that I would change, I feel like there’s been a little bit of back and forth with this. Something in the poppy Olipop realm, I feel like they are similar in my head, even though they have distinct elements to them. I want one of them to be like, “We’re just totally throwing out the rule book here.” I think it kind of speaks to that conversation we had around the tech industry having all of the same vibes. I feel like Poppy and Olipop are the two big names in their category, and I want one of them to really distinctly set their logo apart

Kelsey: From better. I think Poppy should do it. I think Olipop, to me, I think their branding is a little bit more. It cargons back to a little bit of vintage adjacent almost just with the way that they’re packaging. I feel like Poppy could stand to mix it up. Jazz

Jennimai: It up a little.

Kelsey: Yeah. Yeah. I feel this way about Nutella. Okay. Iconic color is great. Come on, you can do something different. It’s okay. So it’s an N in brown and then it’s Ootella in the red. And I’m like, Yeah. Give

Jennimai: Me a little something.

Kelsey: I feel like there’s an opportunity to make it more. I don’t know. And I know people know and identify that brand and I think don’t mess too much with a good thing, but I think have a little bit of fun with it.

Katie: Hear me out. A Sansara font with a little red square

Jennimai: In the corner. It’s never been done before. Oh my God.

Kelsey: Such a good idea. Well, thank you so much for joining us today. And if you have any thoughts on brand logos and your biggest hits and misses, let us know. Give us a shout at mkbw@morningbrew.com, which you can also find in the show notes and we’ll catch you next week.

*This transcript was automatically generated using AI and reviewed by a human.