It's not about 'folks resisting alteration,' it's more about your logo underperforming compared to these alternatives.
A predictable response arises each time the internet focuses on a rebranding disaster: certain voices on social media claim, "People are resistant to change." However, this is incorrect. People are resistant to poor change.
When Twitter transformed into X, HBO became HBO Max, or Jaguar ditched its emblematic leaping cat for what resembles a branding for a boutique management consultancy, the backlash was not because we're all traditionalists resisting anything new. Instead, these rebrands were objectively inferior, and did not belong among the best logos created by the best designers.
Here's why we object to these rebrands: we have functioning eyes and a basic appreciation for good design. The Twitter-to-X debacle was detested not because it was different; it was disliked due to its haphazard appearance, suggesting a lack of thought and attention to detail.
The 2024 Jaguar logo does not convey "premium British automotive heritage"; instead, it suggests a service provider that promises to optimize supply chain efficiency for a mediocre consulting fee.
But while these rare catastrophes make headlines, most brands update their identities with minimal protests. And there's a reason for that – they're good.
For example, Adobe worked with Mother Design on a rebrand that effortlessly surpassed their previous identity, appearing confident, simplified, and streamlined. Moreover, the new logo delivered an actual improvement. The sophisticated and cohesive design suggests thoughtful consideration rather than a rushed job.
Similarly, Google unveiled a fresh logo, blending its iconic four colors into a fluid gradient, and the internet practically cheered. The successful evolution is a rare example of collective agreement on the internet.
In 2025, Amazon made its first logo update in 20 years, working with Koto. They fine-tuned the smile, refined the arrow, and created a comprehensive system unifying their 50+ sub-brands. Most remarkably, the changes were subtly implemented, allowing for seamless recognition.
This is what proper design thinking looks like – not disrupting everything that made your brand recognizable in the first place, but evolving it meaningfully. The result? No backlash. No trending hashtags. No marketing directors being summoned for emergency board meetings.
For a masterclass in managing nostalgia, consider How&How's rebrand of The Wombles, beloved recycling pioneers from the 70s. Careful modernization preserved the essence while making the brand relevant for contemporary audiences.
In an interview, Cat How, the agency's founder, discussed the delicate balance between updating brands and preserving their appealing qualities.
Even Kleenex, celebrating its centenary, managed to unify its disparate brand identity across different markets through Turner Duckworth's work. The refreshed design centres around a crown housing the wordmark and evokes leadership while subtly referencing the product's use.
The tissue company's rebrand introduced a distinctive "Kleenex Blue," creating the impression that it has always been part of the brand. That's the magic of good rebranding – it feels inevitable rather than jarring.
Therefore, the next time someone defends a terrible rebrand by arguing "people don't like change," consider an alternative explanation: people don't like change when it is demonstrably inferior to what came before. Good rebrands clarify a brand's identity, simplify the complex, respect heritage, and avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater just to justify an agency's fee.
If your rebrand is being universally criticized, it's not because the public is stubborn. It's because you've produced something genuinely inferior to what came before. And no amount of pretentious press releases about "embracing our new chapter" or "reflecting our evolved mission" can change that.
Brands seeking a refresh should study the successful examples of Google, Adobe, Amazon, The Wombles, and Kleenex. Learn how to evolve without alienating, and perhaps avoid replacing your instantly recognizable symbol with a hastily designed placeholder.
The public doesn't hate change – we just hate it when you make things worse while implying we're wrong for noticing. If you need a laptop for graphic design, try exploring the best options available.
- A predictable response occurs each time social-media voices claim people are resistant to change during a rebranding disaster, but this assertion is inaccurate because people are resistant to poor change.
- The Twitter-to-X debacle was objectively inferior in terms of its haphazard appearance, suggesting a lack of thought and attention to detail, leading to negative reactions.
- Amazon's 2025 rebrand, aided by Koto, fine-tuned the smile, refined the arrow, and introduced a unified system for their 50+ sub-brands, allowing for seamless recognition without disrupting the original brand.
- Kleenex's centenary rebrand, orchestrated by Turner Duckworth, unified the brand's identity across various markets, creating a distinctive "Kleenex Blue" that feels like it has always been part of the brand.
- Adobe's rebrand, executed in collaboration with Mother Design, resulted in a confident, simplified, and streamlined design that suggested thoughtful consideration rather than a rushed job.
- Good rebranding clarifies a brand's identity, simplifies the complex, respects heritage, and avoids discarding what made the brand recognizable in the first place.
- In order to evolve a brand without alienating, brands should emulate successful examples such as Google, Adobe, Amazon, The Wombles, and Kleenex.
- A bad rebrand might lead to universal criticism because it is genuinely inferior to what came before, not because the public is stubborn – we just hate it when things are made worse while implying we're wrong for noticing.
