A conspicuous trend has taken root, in the world of visual design, leading to what we and our contemporaries call “blanding.” This tongue-in-cheek combination of “bland” and “branding” describes the phenomenon where corporate visual identities—especially logos and websites—converge toward a monotonous, stripped-down aesthetic, that often sacrifices unique personality and history for the sake of neutrality and perceived modernity.
“Companies want to appeal to everyone, offend no one, and fit into tidy investor decks. ‘Clean’ design became cleansed of identity. And suddenly, bold ideas started sounding ‘too risky’.”
Stella Pop – Blanding: The Silent Killer of Great Brands.
Minimalism?
Blanding is not minimalism; it is a particularly risk-averse form of it. It’s characterized by a predictable toolkit of visual elements that, when deployed in abundance, lead to a sea of visual sameness across diverse industries. Some of the defined features of a “blanded” aesthetic include:
- Generic Sans-Serif Typography: The default choice is often a simple, geometric, and functional sans-serif typeface. By jettisoning the distinctive flourishes of serif fonts or more stylized typefaces, brands aim for universal readability and an unthreatening, clean look.
- Muted or Limited Color Palettes: A preference for neutral colors—whites, blacks, grays, and soft pastels—replaces the bold, vibrant color schemes that once differentiated brands. This provides a clean canvas but often fails to evoke strong emotion or distinction.
- Flat, Geometric Graphics: Logos and icons are simplified into their most basic, geometric forms. Shading, texture, and complex imagery are removed, creating a flat, ahistorical aesthetic that works well on small digital screens but lacks depth.
- Excessive White Space: While ample white space is a hallmark of good design (improving readability and hierarchy), in blanding, it is often employed to the extreme, contributing to a sense of coldness and sterility rather than elegance.
Why Have Brands Embraced This?
“Blanding” could be viewed as a calculated, strategic move driven by several commercial factors:
- Digital Universality: The primary driver is the necessity for logos to work flawlessly across countless digital platforms and scales—from a tiny app icon to a large billboard. A simple, basic sans-serif wordmark is inherently more adaptable and legible in a small digital footprint than a complex, illustrated emblem.
- Risk Mitigation and Consensus: Blanding is the safe choice. In a hyper-connected, volatile market, companies fear that a logo with too much personality might alienate a segment of their target audience or become dated too quickly. A neutral, generic look is designed to appeal to everyone and offend no one, promoting an image of corporate competence and trust.
- The “Tech-Luxe” Association: Early adopters of this streamlined aesthetic were successful tech disruptors like Google, Uber, and Airbnb. Their minimalist visual language quickly became associated with innovation, ease, and modernity. Legacy brands—including luxury fashion houses like Burberry and Balenciaga—adopted similar looks to signal that they, too, are contemporary, relevant, and future-forward.
Too Much of the Same.
While “blanding” offers clear functional benefits, its pervasive adoption has led to a significant brand identity crisis. If every competitor in a category, from banking and fast food to fashion and wellness, looks the same, the power of visual branding—which is fundamentally about differentiation—is severely diminished.
“…unfortunately, it also says “I’m boring. I’m safe. I’m Predictable.” It does not do much in terms of giving your brand a unique edge or personality, which is key to forming a genuine relationship with customers, which increases their lifetime value to the brand.”
Peter Burch – Blanding: be bold or be forgotten – the dangers of bland branding
- Loss of Recognition: The uniformity makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish one product from another. The failed 2009 Tropicana redesign, which replaced its distinctive orange-with-a-straw image with a generic-looking glass of juice and a simplified typeface, is a famous cautionary tale. Consumers couldn’t recognize the brand on the shelf, leading to a significant drop in sales and a swift reversion to the original design.
- Erosion of Heritage and Soul: For heritage brands, shedding unique visual markers (like custom-designed serifs or intricate crests) erases decades of visual history and emotional connection, leading critics to lament the loss of “soul.” The design is controlled and functional but lacks the necessary nuance to leave a memorable impression. Take the example of the recent Cracker Barrel logo redo. Simplified to the point of removing its lone distinguishing factor — the barrel! They went right back to the original in less than a month.
As the trend reaches saturation, many designers and brands are now seeing a movement away from the stoic sans-serif wordmarks. The emerging counter-trend, “Heritage Maximalism” looks to re-inject those unique, authentic, and historically-rooted details to restore the individuality that makes brands truly stand out. Blanding, therefore, stands as a critical case study: proof that while function must inform design, an identity stripped too bare of form risks being blended and forgotten. Here’s some examples of tried and true heritage maximalism logos.
If you’re a brand manager or marketing leader being asked to update your brand, we can’t say it’s a bad thing. However, your brand is more than a logo. It’s the story of who you are and why it matters. Although it is true that a more simple design can present a clean aesthetic, there is beauty in consistency. If you feel your brand has lost its way, we can help. In our 20 years of Brand Development, our philosophy has always been differentiation wins, but distinction…dominates. Bland brands get blended and lost. Your brand is an original and should be treated as such. Drop us a line and we’ll help your brand shine.
Sources & Further Reading: