设计与产品velvetshark.com
为什么这么多品牌改 logo 后都长得一样？
Why do so many brands change their logos and look like everyone else?
2021 — 2022，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇文章讨论了一个常见现象：许多大品牌在更换标志后，新设计都变成无衬线的简约字标，看上去彼此雷同、缺乏个性。文章用微软、Airbnb、Spotify、Pinterest 等案例做前后对比，分析品牌为何集体走向同一种「小写极简」风格。
为什么经久不衰：它是「为什么现在的设计都长一个样」这类讨论的经典参照，配图对比直观，评论区还有品牌从业者的一手内幕和设计师对 logo 与字标的技术性澄清，多年后仍常被引用。
HN 评论精选
内部人视角：换标多源于高管求「遗产」和被潮流落下的焦虑，而非设计需要。
（免责声明：我是首席品牌经理，参与过很多这类换标的会议。）原因有好几种，取决于公司，但我认为归根结底是两个不太直观的准心理原因。一是当高管们四处寻找一个能带来「遗产感」、能留下自己指纹的新鲜项目（又不影响眼前利润）时，营销和品牌通常是他们首先下手的地方：成了就是职业生涯和公司层面的双重遗产加奖金，砸了也能悄悄换回旧版，再去做别的项目保全面子。二是相关的：很多营销高管讨厌被潮流「落下」，这个行业对新趋势的极致追逐让我反感（而这些新趋势往往还不如旧的），他们的薪水和职业意义常常就系于「呈现最新最潮的东西」，而不自信的设计师很乐意配合。（我的看法在业内可能是少数派——要我说，我们该回到 90 年代那种古怪张扬的标志。）
kradeelav查看英文原文
(disclaimer: lead brand manager, been at the table of a lot of the meetings where these logo changes happen.) There's a few different reasons (especially depending on the company) why that these happen, but I personally think it boils down to two unintuitive quasi-psychological reasons. - When suits are fumbling around looking for a new shiny project that'll give them a sense of "legacy" and their fingerpints all over (that won't affect immediate profits), somewhere in marketing and brand is usually the first place they'll grab. If wins, fantastic, they've secured their legacy both in a career-spanning sense and at the company itself with a bonus. If it fails disastrously, easy enough to quietly switch back to the old and to save face by tackling a different project. - Sort of relatedly, a lot of marketing suits hate feeling "left out" of trends; it's something I loathe about the industry, the hyper-focus and optimization of being at the crest of new trends (when arguably they're usually shittier than the previous ones). Oftentimes their entire salary / sense of purpose of being at the job is tied into with presenting the latest and greatest, and insecure designers will be too happy to be enablers. (My opinion may be a minority of the industry itself as if it were me, we'd be back to 90's era logos for the sheer zany quality.)
技术性纠正：文章对比的是字标而非完整 logo，大品牌实际使用中图形标志依然存在。
这篇文章把 logo 和字标（wordmark）混为一谈了，它展示的其实都是字标。大品牌对 logo 图形和字标的使用场合极其讲究。你不该在那些本身没有被品牌元素包围的场景看到这些字标。看看 Pinterest 的品牌规范，里面写着「只使用 Pinterest 徽章（请不要使用我们的字标）」。Pinterest 徽章就是旧字标里那个风格化的字母 P。所以几乎在任何地方你遇到的 Pinterest 标志都是那个图形。Facebook 的例子更奇怪，因为它拿旧的 Facebook 应用字标和新的 Facebook 公司字标比，那个标识本来就是刻意设计得与应用不同的。如今 Facebook 变成 Meta，那个全大写字标已经退役。微软、Facebook、Pinterest、Spotify 和 Airbnb 都有风格化的图形标志。eBay 和 Google 用的是字标，但色彩鲜明，99% 的场合一眼就能认出。
underwater查看英文原文
The article is confused about the difference between a logo and a word mark, which is what they are showing. Big brands are super pedantic about how and where logo marks and word marks are used. You shouldn't be seeing these word marks in contexts that are not already dripping in branding for the company. Look at the Pinterest Brand guidelines (https://business.pinterest.com/en-au/brand-guidelines/) and you well find them saying: "Only use the Pinterest badge (please don’t use our word mark)". The Pinterest badge is the exact same stylised letter P from the old wordmark. So, almost everywhere you encounter a Pinterest logo it will be the stylised graphic. They can do that because enough people recognise the brand that they can drop the "interest". The Facebook logo is an even weirder example because they are comparing the old Facebook app word mark with the newer Facebook-the-company word mark. That logo was specifically designed to look different from the app. Now that Facebook is now Meta, that uppercase logo has been retired. Microsoft, Facebook, Pinterest, Spotify and Airbnb all have stylised logo marks. eBay and Google use word marks, but are brightly coloured and immediately recognisable 99% of the time they are seen.
补做完整标志对比后承认它们仍更平淡，并引「极简因为无话可说」的评论深化批评。
这些只是字标，不是完整的标志。我做了个对比图（微软、Airbnb、Spotify、Pinterest 很少单独使用字标而不带图标），至少在科技公司的对比里，它们还是保留了一点个性的。不过说它们比旧版更平淡，仍然算公允。套路是「[可选图标] + 无衬线字标」，是「小写极简主义」的典型例子——一种不加思考地集体走向细节缺失。The Cultural Tutor 说过：也许极简设计如此流行，是因为我们已经没有什么可说的了……哥特式大教堂在说什么不需要我解释，但摩天大楼呢？它其实什么也没说，它只是……在那里。于是所有地方的一切都开始变得一样。绝对的中立，没有细节，没有身份。这说明我们什么？
modernerd查看英文原文
These are just the word marks, not the full logos. I mocked up a comparison of the logos (Microsoft/Airbnb/Spotify/Pinterest rarely use their word marks without the accompanying icon) and they start to retain a _little_ more personality, at least for the tech comparison. https://imgur.com/a/v5yKD3o It still seems fair to say they're more bland than past iterations, though. The theme is ”[optional icon] + sans serif word mark”, and it's a good example of “small m minimalism” — a kind of unthinking collective march toward an absence of detail — touched on by The Cultural Tutor in this thread: https://twitter.com/culturaltutor/status/1538211892707086338 > Perhaps minimalist design is so prevalent because we no longer have anything to say. > You don't need me to explain what the Gothic cathedral says, for example. > But the skyscraper? It doesn't say anything, really. It's just... there. > And suddenly everything, everywhere starts to look the same. > Absolute neutrality. No detail. No identity. > What does that say about us?
风格周期性使然，换标成本低而「显得当下」的收益高。
在我看来最简单的解释是风格是循环的，我们进入了极简甚至粗野主义的阶段，这些品牌只是滑向冰球将要去的地方。这股风潮能持续吗？大概不能，但每隔几年做一次换新足够便宜，而「够当下」的价值非常划算。那些旧标志放在一起显得过时，几乎是 2000 年代初的感觉，前沿的人可能不在意，但普通消费者会微妙地感知到。你会发现连多年不改品牌的苹果也是如此，它近年的品牌和呈现风格也发生了类似的变化。
dagmx查看英文原文
IMHO the simplest explanation is that style is cyclical, and we've entered into a minimalist, almost brutalist, period and these brands are simply skating to where the puck is. Will this design trend last? Probably not but doing a rebrand to freshen things up every few years is cheap enough, while the value in being "current" is very much worth it. A lot of those logos looked old fashioned and almost early 2000s in comparison, which tech forward folks probably don't care about, but it's subtly picked up by the average consumer. You'll notice this even for companies that haven't changed their brand in ages like Apple. All of Apple's branding and presentation style has changed in similar ways over the past few years.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
贝塞尔曲线入门
A Primer on Bézier Curves
Pomax 编写的贝塞尔曲线在线教程，从基础概念一路讲到曲线求交、投影、曲率等进阶内容，并配有可交互的示例和配套的 bezier.js 库。
设计与产品上首页 7 次 · 2014–2022pomax.github.io编辑精选WebGL 水面模拟
WebGL Water
Evan Wallace 制作的 WebGL Water 演示：在浏览器里实时渲染一片水面，展示折射、反射和焦散等 GPU 图形效果。
设计与产品上首页 6 次 · 2011–2025madebyevan.com设计建议：永远不要使用黑色
Design Tip: Never Use Black
设计随笔提出“永远不要用纯黑”的建议，主张在界面和绘画中改用深灰或带色相的暗色，并借阴影与色彩关系来论证。
设计与产品上首页 5 次 · 2012–2021ianstormtaylor.com用于思考不可想象之物的媒介
Media for Thinking the Unthinkable
Bret Victor 的这个页面围绕《Media for Thinking the Unthinkable》展开，探讨我们用来思考和表达复杂问题的媒介，以及以文字/符号为主的传…
设计与产品上首页 5 次 · 2013–2020worrydream.com编辑精选页面重量很重要
Page Weight Matters
博文讲 YouTube 工程师 Chris Zacharias 的一次页面瘦身实验：团队做了一个更轻量的页面版本，起初从整体平均加载时间看反而更慢；按地理区域分层后才发现，轻量版…
设计与产品上首页 4 次 · 2012–2022blog.chriszacharias.com