I’ve brought this question up once before in a slightly similar post titled “When is a logo too simple?” but after posting Kate Spade’s new logo (shown above) on Logo Of The Day, I think it’s a good time to bring it up again.
Many people have been criticising the new logo for being “too simple”, “not creative” and “boring”, among the other usual snarky comments. These comments may have some validity, however, a logo does not always have to be creative or fancy to do its job. A logo is there to identify.
What’s your take? Can a logo ever be too simple?
Opinions via Twitter
“The new Kate Spade logo brings tremendous versatility to the brand; over time I think it will become quite iconic.”
“It’s not very, uh, unique is it?”
“I saw it featured elsewhere. I thought the company may have gotten ripped off – TOO simple.. barely any creativity.”
“A little originality would have been nice. This may be a little too simplistic.”
“I like it too. Clean and Simple usually wins in my books.”
“I think once seen used on the journal and bags etc. It looks quite nice. Some people don’t appreciate simplicity these days.”
“It is just a spade symbol. Lame.”
“I am a fan of its simplicity. Straight to the point. The obvious (but correct) solution. Right up my alley.”
“It’s a spade like any other. Not feelin’ it.”
“I don’t think of Kate Spade when I see it. I think “Hmm I think I want to play some Rummoli.”
via Jennifer Hoknes-Steinhauer (on Facebook).
So what’s your take? Can a logo ever be too simple?