The Problem With Trend-Following in Logo Design

Every few years there's a dominant trend in logo design. The early 2010s brought the ultra-thin, geometric sans-serif rebrand wave. Before that, glossy beveled icons. Before that, swooshes. Right now we're in an era of wordmark reductions — every major brand flattening its logotype into a clean, neutral sans-serif.

These trends are real, and following them is tempting. The work looks contemporary, it gets client approval more easily because it matches what clients are seeing in the market, and it photographs well for portfolio social posts. The problem is what it looks like in five years.

Why Trends Date

Design trends date for the same reason that fashion trends date: they're identifiable as products of a specific cultural moment. The ultra-thin logo era looks like 2012. The glossy bevel era looks like 2006. Looking at a logo and being able to identify its decade is the mark of a design that followed trends rather than solving a specific problem.

A logo is a long-term asset. Most businesses expect a logo to carry them for a decade or more. A logo that looks dated in five years has failed at its job, regardless of how well it performed at launch.

What Trends Signal

Trend-following in logo design often signals a specific failure: the designer didn't find a solution that was specific to this brand, so they reached for the visual vocabulary of the current moment instead. The trend fills the conceptual vacuum.

When I find myself reaching for a trendy visual solution, it's usually a sign that I haven't done enough brief work. I don't have a specific enough understanding of what this brand needs to be to find a solution that's specific to it. The trend is a generic answer to a question I haven't fully asked.

What to Do Instead

The alternative to trend-following is deriving visual decisions from brand-specific requirements. What does this specific brand need to communicate? What formal qualities serve that communication? What differentiates this brand from its specific competitors, not just from brands in general?

These questions, answered honestly, produce solutions that are specific. Specific solutions are distinctive. Distinctive work doesn't date as quickly because it belongs to a brand rather than to an era.

Some Trends Are Fine to Follow

Not all trend-following is wrong. Some trends represent genuine formal progress — better solutions to real problems that appropriately influence the field. The move toward flat design from skeuomorphism, for instance, wasn't just fashion; it was a response to real changes in display technology and interface conventions.

The test I apply: is this trend a better formal solution to a design problem, or is it just different from what came before? If it's better, the underlying improvement is worth incorporating. If it's just different, I'm better off making decisions from first principles.

The Longevity Question

Before finalizing any logo concept, I ask: if this brand is still using this logo in 2035, will it still feel appropriate? Not timeless — that's too demanding a standard. But will it still feel right for the brand rather than embarrassingly of its era?

This question catches a lot of decisions that would otherwise slide through on the strength of current relevance.