Why Your Logo Should Be Boring

Design attracts criticism from everyone with functioning eyes. This presents a challenge for designers who must convince clients and stakeholders—often lacking design expertise—to accept their work.

Logo creation ranks among the most challenging design tasks. Social media commentary on recent rebrands proves everyone believes they have valid opinions simply by viewing the result. Companies typically maintain strong attachments to existing logos while desiring personal connection to replacements.

This difficulty in securing approval drives many designers away from logo work entirely. Still, thoughtful evaluation frameworks exist for assessing logo viability objectively.

Five Heuristics for a Perfect Logo

Objectively appealing
Color agnostic
Underwhelming
Simple
Vague

Objectively Appealing

Contrary to popular belief, exceptional design follows measurable principles rather than pure subjectivity. Mathematical color theory—complementary and analogous palettes—creates broad appeal. Personal preferences don't invalidate solid design fundamentals.

The CRAP framework (contrast, repetition, alignment, proximity) guides beautiful, consumable work. Examples include maintaining sufficient contrast for legibility without overwhelming viewers, and balancing repetition for brand consistency without sacrificing meaning.

Professional logo design applies these basics rigorously, often incorporating natural aesthetic principles like the Fibonacci ratio.

Color Agnostic

Excellent logos maintain recognition regardless of color application. Apple's iconic shape remains distinctive whether monochromatic, rainbow, or varicolored across services.

Conversely, Mastercard, Google Drive, and older Stripe logos depend heavily on color for brand recognition—a significant weakness. Logo shapes must independently communicate identity across all applications without relying on specific hues.

Underwhelming

Paradoxically, perfect logos prove intentionally underwhelming. Ramp, On Running, and Notion demonstrate objective appeal, color independence, and deliberate restraint simultaneously. People appreciate these logos through positive brand experiences rather than immediate visual impact.

Logos shouldn't communicate company vision, origin stories, or unique value propositions. Overselling generates perceptible desperation.

Versace, Alfa Romeo, and the original Apple logo attempt excessive communication, ultimately conveying nothing memorable. If customers cannot sketch your logo from memory, it lacks perfection.

Simple

Logos require sufficient simplicity for universal application across mediums. Cracker Barrel's controversial redesign improved design objectivity despite negative reception regarding familiarity and character.

Complex logos functioning on billboards fail at favicon scale. Needing multiple logo versions indicates fundamental design failure.

Vague

Excessive symbolism produces poor outcomes. Kraft, University of California, and 2012 London Olympics redesigns packed meaning so densely they became confusing and ugly.

Conversely, Amazon and FedEx incorporate subtle hidden meaning that doesn't interfere with visual effectiveness. Viewers shouldn't question "what does it mean?" or "what is it?" when encountering your logo.

Ramp looks ramp-like without requiring that recognition. Notion's block form functions beautifully without needing explanation. The 2012 Olympics logo required twenty-minute videos to justify its design.

The Perfect Logo

Perfect logos function as stamps associating work with creators. As customers align with brand identity, these stamps become badges people proudly wear.

Logo overthinking proves tempting. While most design benefits from boldness, logo work demands caution and deliberate restraint.